World Judge selection process

[Grow Pattern]

Matt,
         Thank you for answering my questions. Believe it or not we may basically agree but I will always prefer a majority vote :-).

I need to be more clear on my point about Masters vs. FAI. I am only talking about the judging, not the flying. Specifically what I am talking about can be divided into two pieces; 

1. The scoring in Masters is out of a base of 20. (Not 20 points but 20 divisions) This is because we use 1/2 points. I believe it to be relatively easier to make these deductions than when using a base of 10 in 10 divisions as when judging FAI. 

2. Familiarity with the current FAI schedules is of extreme value. Being exposed to, and tested by, the judging the current P-05 and F-05 schedules is very important. Have you considered having a higher weighting than the 03 and 01 judging of the schedules.  

2a. (Sorry about the count) . Similarly a Team Trials with all the top contenders may be worth more than a Nationals that does not have the same attendance/attendees.

BTW - No implications intended about pulling fast ones etc, but I still maintain that if the NSRCA is being represented then due diligence, and in especially in this case MUCH better membership-communications are needed.

Heck!, I keep my ear to the ground and I still finish up ruffling feathers to find out what is going on. We should be publishing minutes and who voted for what, and the vote counts. Then my pseudo-conscience-keyboard would be silent!


Regards,

Eric.



 ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 5:25 PM
  Subject: Re: World Judge selection process 


  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/20041213/307900fa/attachment-0001.html