World Judge selection process

[Rcmaster199 at aol.com]

Eric, Okie Dokie, I'll try not to be preachy but my beliefs are as  follows:
 
Q1- if I read you correctly, the thinking is that Masters is an American  Top 
Class, and F3A is an International Top Class, and that F3A judging is  
somehow more valid or more qualified than Masters judging is. The implication is  
that masters maneuvers are not as tough as F3A and hence are somehow easier to  
judge correctly. 
 
I believe that, in general, Masters is just as difficult as F3A is. I  fly 
both. In fact, I find P05 easier than the new Masters schedule. As far as  
judging these, the elements that are judged are not any different. Flying the  
Rolling Circle in F05 is the lone exception to my belief, since this one gives  
fits to the best in the World, let alone big old me. But I feel judging this  
maneuver's elements isn't any different  than any other. That is the mantra  of 
the exceptional judge after all-- judging elements and knowing the cost of  
the numerous downgrades.
 
Q2- The method  of choosing Top Judging performance over time should  be the 
major criterion for sending someone to a WC. Not to belabor the obvious,  that 
IS basically the reason we send a judge to a WC- to judge. Should it  be the 
only criterion- perhaps not. But in my opinion, it is the most important  
requirement and the one that must carry the largest weight. 
 
BTW I am not the only one who believes that. Quite a few of us believe that  
in this country, it's true. Judging from the requests for our Judge Eval  
Program we have fielded from other countries, competitors from all over the  
World, (including the FAI/F3A Chair), feel the same. They obviously feel stung  by 
too many others that are on WC Judge panels, that were placed there by  
qualitative means, not quantitative. Hence the terrific interest in our  program.
 
Q3- Data age is not really that relevant if we are dealing with data from  
the latest five years. That is the intent of the system.
 
Q4- A vote from the membership is terms of what? Whether the program should  
be used to choose the judge? Whether the program is valid? Or whether it is 
even  understood? This implies that the Judge Ranking Committee somehow tried to 
pull  a fast one on the membership. Nobody did anything of the sort. The  
information is open to anyone. It is after all NSRCA property.
 
The amount of statistics we employed isn't great, and in my opinion is  
within the grasp of the general membership. There were no advanced ANOVA  
techniques employed. Anyone with some knowledge of Excel Spreadsheet software  could 
easily follow what was done. 
 
Yet some folks took pot shots at what we came up with anyway, thinking as  
you appear to do, that some kind of average scoring stream like a 7 or 8,  
produces the highest Rank. That is a false assumption, and if one were to  run real 
numbers, one would realize quickly to folly in this thinking. This  kind of 
scoring MIGHT help exactly 50% of the final set of data we  used to determine 
the final Judge Rank, but really generally hinders the other  50%. With such 
scoring habits, the final Judge Rank Score would not be very high  and would 
tend to be of little value to the Judge
 
Having said that, the Board was asked to vote on this program, and it was  
approved, earlier this year. I am certain Maureen has the final numbers. 
 
Regards and happy holidays
 
MattK
 
In a message dated 12/13/2004 4:06:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
pattern4u at comcast.net writes:

Matt,
        I have a copy of all the  files. I saw what was done and responded 
accordingly. My comments are  not new. I guess nobody ever forwarded them to 
you.  BTW - They  are not intended to be an attack on the work done.
 
I do not challenge the math or the analysis. I noted the shots across my  
bow, in other notes, about not understanding the math or the system. A bit  
insulting but I'll not fall for that obvious diversionary trap.
 
Staying on course, I do challenge you to address the following;
 
1. The validity or value of including/using Masters judging performances  to 
chose an FAI world judge
 
2. Only using this as selection criteria.
 
3. The age of the data when rules and judging standards change all of the  
time.
 
4. Doing this without getting a vote from the membership. It is their  
society that is being represented in an FAI issue. I believe that we should  have 
included them in the decision. 
 
Regards,

Eric.



 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20041213/a5e3e142/attachment.html