Performance Judging? Trial Balloon

[Steven Maxwell]

 Terry I don't use scribes because I find them to confusing, theres times when I have heard the same maneuver being called 3 time using 2 judges, then you have the cases when the scribe ask you questions breaking your concentration, I was talking to a masters pilot at the Nat's and he said I missed a maneuver, he did a 3 of 4 up instead of doing it down, I scored him as if the maneuver was right, the kicker is that so did the judge with a scribe, Judging isn't perfect a long as the human element is there, if at the Nat's I use RVP method using the legal pad for writing down score then transferring to the score sheet only takes a minute, I ask Don Ramsey last year at the Nat's about looking down, there's no real rules on what happens between the straight lines from an exit of one maneuver and the entrance of the next straight line, it's just not clarified in the rule book, there are places in all schedules that have very long lines inbetween maneuvers this is the place if needed to look down, and I only do this at local contest where legal pads aren't available.
 I may not be the best judge but I do always strive to be fair and honest, my method will not work for everyone, but it's best for me.
 Steve Maxwell  


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Terry Hemmis 
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Sent: 8/2/2005 11:33:57 AM 
Subject: Re: Performance Judging? Trial Balloon


Well said by both of you, Jim and Eric.  

It is quite true that judging has it's issues. One I noticed is that there are not always 
scribes for judging flights in the upper levels. This means that for some judges, they 
look down a lot to see what the next maneuver may be or to write the score...if a 
judge doesn't know what they are looking for [a simple example is a 2 of 4 not a half 
roll, they could miss it].  This can be a blessing for the pilot...or problematic for the
other pilots.

If it is known who the judges are, then perhaps their effort at scoring would be much more
accurate...

Just my humble opinion...

Terry  


Jim_Woodward at beaerospace.com wrote:

Hi Eric, 
It is correct to say that currently, there is negative behavior associated with scoring be it retribution or any other name we can call it.  This is the darker side of human behavior I recognize that happens, but chose not to address in my email below.  This is due to 1 work experience I've had in the last 3 years.  In my previous employment, we underwent a tremendous institutional change from an "Engineering" to a "Program Management" led organization.  In doing this, the company also chose to utilize a far-reaching software tool that addressed resourcing across the entire organization, individual versus team assignments, scheduling buffers, predictability, and MOST of all, used the implementation of  this software tool to address negative human behavior in the work place.  The theory was that when attempting a to create institutional change, there must be a "graceful" opportunity to change (or exit) for those that do or do not wish to participate.  This one email alone cannot replace the months of "good-feeling" change meetings, 2 years of deployment, etc., that this institutional change needed to take root.  Believe it or not, when put in the spotlight people want to the right and good thing.  Very few people show up to work and say, "... I'm going to screw the company today - especially not when I'm in the light."  However, where no spotlight exists, other ideas not conducive to the greater good start to creep in.........  Anonymity is not always a good thing. 

Yes, we can think of all the negative things that could happen when names are assigned to judging performance and posted for all to see and discuss at appropriate times.  What we know today is that we (read the emails) recognize there is a problem with the piloting/judging duality.  The performance of the pilot is available for all to see, so should the judges performance.  It is no mystery that judging takes place at a contest, so lets remove the veil and use the visible round flying, and newly visible results to communicate openly about  what we all know just took place  - a round of flights took place, and it was judged.  This is the most immediate memorable training event than could possibly take place.  For instance I'll use myself as an example, I study the other FAI and Masters pilots.  I use this observation to tidy up geometry, etc.  It would be GREAT for me to be able to get the concur/non-concur from what I think I'm seeing, by what the judges have seen.  .  In the long run, by fostering an open an communicative forum, I believe will be served better.   Some people may behave badly, but chances are they are behaving badly already.  I'd bet that the far greater people would be better served, than worrying about a few that will choose to perform badly in any circumstance.  People given the chance to "self-correct" when the light is on, will in the majority, do so, when the light it on. 

My opinion.  Eric, thanks for adding your story and example too.  And you are correct - leadership does take a hit sometimes. 

Jim W. 

cut for list length
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050803/957887c4/attachment.html