[NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
george w. kennie
geobet at gis.net
Sat Nov 25 15:38:01 AKST 2006
<<<<All we can
ask is that people please try to pay attention and write scores that are
deserved. Even if it is a 4.>>>>
That reminds me of the time, at the Nats, that I had to give Charlie Rock a
"2" for a maneuver and his wife was my scribe. 'Twas a little unnerving, but
it was in 38 mph winds. The poor lady did emit an almost inaudible groan.
Georgie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Walker" <vellum2 at bellsouth.net>
To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
> Ok guys,
> I've been following this conversation for a while now and would like to
> throw my opinion into the ring...
>
> 1. It's not pilots vs. judges. We are the pilots AND the judges. We
> all know what it feels like to be sitting in the chair and to be in front
> of
> the chairs. Whether or not you sign your judge ID, people in general know
> what scores were given by whom at a local contest. The concept of
> "Transparent" scoring is really just a code word for communication.
> Judges
> need to be confident in their knowledge of the rules and be able to write
> down what they think the appropriate score and should feel comfortable
> telling a pilot after they land that they felt a certain maneuver was
> severely downgraded or zeroed because of X, Y or Z. Sometimes pilots get
> bent out of shape over a number they didn't like (yes, including me), but
> there shouldn't be anything wrong with asking a judge what they saw and
> why
> they marked it down. Certainly this will lead to lively discussions at a
> minimum. This is supposed to be a fun sport, not an exercise in
> frustration. Perhaps we can all try a little harder to talk to each other
> about questions we have and not get all bent and quit the sport.
>
> 2. People make mistakes. Almost all of the so called "flaws" in
> judging I have witnessed have been where people were just simply not
> watching the airplane flying in front of them. So, this begs the question
> "if I didn't see it, how can I write a score for it?". Honestly, who has
> actually written a "N/O" score recently? In the 20 years I have been
> involved in pattern, I've not seen it written once. Not in my district,
> not
> at the Nats, not in neighboring districts. People don't like to admit
> when
> they have missed something their sole purpose for sitting in the chair is
> to
> catch. It's human nature, right? So we need to make a bigger effort to
> simply pay attention and make sure our fellow judges do the same.
>
> Now, I'm not saying that sometimes people raise or lower scores for a name
> from time to time. Maybe it's a subconscious thing, maybe not. All we
> can
> ask is that people please try to pay attention and write scores that are
> deserved. Even if it is a 4.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Joe W.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Lance Van
> Nostrand
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:33 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>
> Maybe that's your point, and if so, then it simply repeats what I said
> earlier that the PACSS scoring program allows judge initials. The system
> has the ability but no contests I've ever attended had anything other than
> voluntary judge initialing of score sheets. Also, a lot of judges are
> very
> uncomfortable discussing their observations and scoring. But its not where
> this thread started nor is it my point.
>
> I never said that the halo factor or judge competance were actual real
> issues on this thread. Rather, they are always part of the "usual
> suspects"
>
> when people speculate about what appears to be unexpected scores. An
> incident where this speculation was investigated, using sophisticated
> tools,
>
> and "proven" only bolsters the conspiracy theorists. Speculation is bad
> for
>
> pattern, can leave people feeling they have been "wronged" and reduces
> fun.
> When there are cases where people actually were "wronged" then that will
> increase speculation. Try saying "It's a good system and working fine."
> to
> those affected by impropriety and see what response you get.
>
> My point is that the best way to reduce damaging speculation is with
> transparency and facts. This reduces the window of what can be speculated
> upon. You mentioned Sarbanes-Oxley on a thread where you made the point
> that the appearance of impropriety was bad and a process that allows
> impropriety, even if it never occurs, is still illegal in the business
> world.
>
> Judging is the bedrock of contests. Continuous improvement is important.
> Sorry if this is appears harsh. I'm a little sensitive on topics that may
> affect pattern participation because I just saw the membership renewal
> rates
>
> and large numbers are not coming back. This may or may not have anything
> to
>
> do with their experience with judging, but this is one of the topics we
> need
>
> to be open about.
> --Lance
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Black" <tkeithblack at gmail.com>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 1:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>
>
>> No Lance, the point is that our system already has the ability to
>> identify
>> judges.
>>
>> The halo factor and judging accuracy/competence is a different topic.
>>
>> If there is any action item related to our discussion it would be that
>> local
>> CD's should enforce what's already supposed to happen, which is judges
>> should always write down either their initials or judge number on score
>> sheets. However, at local contests even when judges don't write their
>> initials down it's normally pretty easy to figure out.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at comcast.net>
>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>>
>>
>>> Alright. I'll agree for now. But there is a string attached. The next
>>> contest where you are in a near tie, and you fly a round you are proud
>>> of,
>>> and subsequently fall behind by 100 points you remember this. Instead
>>> of
>>> bending our ears off on speculation about your flying, the halo for the
>>> other guy, and judging in general, you must now recite your mantra,
>>> "It's
>> a
>>> good system and working fine."
>>>
>>> --Lance
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Keith Black" <tkeithblack at gmail.com>
>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 7:51 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>>>
>>>
>>> > If I may be so bold as to summarize what I'm hearing from the opinions
>>> > I've
>>> > read, including mine (with exception of Lance possibly... not sure).
>>> >
>>> > Keep doing exactly what we're doing at both the local level and NATS
>>> > level.
>>> > It's a good system and working fine.
>>> >
>>> > Keith Black
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: <jivey61 at bellsouth.net>
>>> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 9:26 AM
>>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> I'm not Jim W either,but I would like to say about this hobby.... the
>>> >> judge.. flyer relationship is the result of many hours of studying
>>> >> and
>>> >> practice.Locally we know who we fly in front of and how they
>>> >> judge.Some
>>> > are
>>> >> tighter judges than others and we know this.We accept this.We are
>>> > fortunate
>>> >> in the southeast to have some very good high status flyers that judge
>> and
>>> >> give their opinions on various aspects of this hobby.They act like
>> normal
>>> >> people and don't think they are better than anyone else. Jason is one
>> of
>>> >> them and when he speaks I listen like a sponge........ I tried to
>> sneak
>>> >> the humpty 3/4 roll down(did a 1/4 roll down) three times and he
>>> >> drew
>> a
>>> >> circle 3 times,because a circle is easy to draw.hehe. I knew I did it
>>> >> when
>>> >> it happened. All this told me... that I needed to concentrate on what
>>> >> I
>>> > was
>>> >> doing and he was telling me this in his score. It got to be our joke
>>> > between
>>> >> us. The moral of all this is read your raw scores and learn from
>>> >> them
>> .
>>> >> They were given for a reason and you are the beneficiary.
>>> >> If you have judges on the local level that will talk to you after the
>>> > flight
>>> >> ask them, what they saw, and why they did what they did. If they can
>>> >> remember they will tell you. This is especially needed in the lower
>>> > levels.
>>> >> When I started... the only coaching or input I got was at the
>>> >> contests
>> I
>>> >> went to and that is the hard way to learn.
>>> >> The business of defensive judging and initials on scoresheets on the
>>> >> local
>>> >> level is mute.We know who we fly in front of. At the Nats as RVP
>>> >> stated
>>> > the
>>> >> initials are used for other identity reasons and are necessary.
>>> >> I won't go into my Nats judging experiences here.
>>> >>
>>> >> Jim Ivey
>>> >>
>>> >> Jim Ivey
>>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> From: "JShulman" <jshulman at cfl.rr.com>
>>> >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:37 PM
>>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> > I'm not JimW, but I know there have been a few contests where we
>> figure
>>> >> out
>>> >> > what judges gave what scores, if we don't already know who did. I'm
>>> >> > open
>>> >> to
>>> >> > telling anyone what judge I am. Ask Jim Ivey if I'm afraid to give
>>> >> > a
>>> >> > zero...lol. Doesn't seem to be an issue here, that I've seen...
>>> >> >
>>> >> > One thing that I am glad to see here in D3 is that if there is an
>>> >> > issue,
>>> >> > then we will spend some time and figure out how to correct it. At
>>> >> > Andersonville we discussed snaps and how they should be done after
>>> >> > there
>>> >> was
>>> >> > some "discussion" about what looks right and what looks wrong.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Regards,
>>> >> > Jason
>>> >> > www.jasonshulman.com
>>> >> > www.shulmanaviation.com
>>> >> > www.composite-arf.com
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>>> >> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Lance
>> Van
>>> >> > Nostrand
>>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:23 PM
>>> >> > To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>> >> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Keith,
>>> >> > This is a fun hobby. I submit that if you are afraid to give an
>>> > accurate
>>> >> > score that you witnessed then you are doing a disservice. At a
>>> >> > local
>>> >> > contest you are kidding yourself if you think you have any
>>> >> > anonymity.
>>> >> > Instead of pretending its there, some cool discussion will raise
>>> >> > the
>>> > level
>>> >> > of pilot and judge. One big difference between a local and Nats is
>>> >> > that
>>> >> at
>>> >> > a local its highly likely that we will fly in front of the same
>> person
>>> >> that
>>> >> > we'll later judge. If there were some kind of inappropriate
>>> >> > judging
>>> > going
>>> >> > on, this is a natural damper. Since this damper is not in place at
>> the
>>> >> > Nats, that might change the checks and balances.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I don't see anyone joining this discussion. Even JimW has not
>>> > responded.
>>> >> I
>>> >> > think we are in "no man's land". Thanks for responding.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --Lance
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> > From: "Keith Black" <tkeithblack at gmail.com>
>>> >> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 10:22 PM
>>> >> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > Lance, you make some very good points. For me this is a tough
>>> >> > > issue
>>> > with
>>> >> > > two
>>> >> > > very strong arguments on opposite sides.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Simply put:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Pro> If judges initials score sheets they'll be more
>>> >> > > conscientious
>>> >> about
>>> >> > > their judging and less incline to gouge someone they don't like.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Con> If judges initial score sheets they may be hesitant to give
>>> >> deserved
>>> >> > > low scores to big name pilots and may fear retribution when they
>> fly.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I think the Con is probably the more persuasive of these two
>> points,
>>> > at
>>> >> > > least at the NATS level, because when judges are required to put
>>> >> > > their
>>> >> > > judge
>>> >> > > number they still know they're accountable, but will be
>>> >> > > comfortable
>>> >> giving
>>> >> > > deserved low scores without fear of retribution. Also, at NATS
>>> >> > > if
>>> >> > > you
>>> >> see
>>> >> > > Joe Blow's name by some really low scores you receive and you
>>> >> > > don't
>>> > know
>>> >> > > Joe
>>> >> > > Blow human nature is to develop a bit of a grudge against Joe
>>> >> > > Blow.
>>> >> > > We
>>> >> > > don't
>>> >> > > need this kind of ill will in our community. I for one tried not
>>> >> > > to
>>> > pay
>>> >> > > attention to who was in the judges' chair at NATS because I
>>> >> > > didn't
>>> > want
>>> >> to
>>> >> > > subconsciously start associating my scores with individuals.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > At the local contest most people know each other and feel more
>>> >> comfortable
>>> >> > > discussing things so this is a different story. I initial my
>>> >> > > scores
>>> >> > > at
>>> >> > > local
>>> >> > > contests (when I remember). However, if a judge feels
>>> >> > > uncomfortable
>>> > that
>>> >> > > Joe
>>> >> > > Bigshot may grill them if they give a low score I don't think the
>>> > judge
>>> >> > > should have to give his initials as long as a judge number is
>>> >> > > used.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Keith
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> > > From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at comcast.net>
>>> >> > > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> > > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 8:22 PM
>>> >> > > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> Del,
>>> >> > >> This is unfortunate and I've had a similar experience. Still,
>>> >> arranging
>>> >> > > our
>>> >> > >> rules to avoid behavior that we all know is inappropriate is a
>>> >> > >> disservice.
>>> >> > >> I would propose that anyone motivated to discuss CHANGING a
>>> >> > >> score
>>> >> should
>>> >> > > go
>>> >> > >> through the CD. But there are other valid motivations:
>>> >> > >> 1. To learn what downgrades, either specifically or in general
>>> >> > >> terms,
>>> >> > >> were
>>> >> > >> applied
>>> >> > >> 2. to understand a judges perspective and what they consider
>>> >> > >> very
>>> >> > > important
>>> >> > >> (weight heavily)
>>> >> > >> 3. others...
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> This is not to question a score but to both learn what the pilot
>> can
>>> > do
>>> >> > >> to
>>> >> > >> improve and (of equal importance) to learn how other judges
>> approach
>>> >> the
>>> >> > >> evaluation. One thing I've noticed is that the "judgement" part
>> of
>>> >> > > judging
>>> >> > >> can influence scores and these flying defects are often just as
>>> >> > > controllable
>>> >> > >> as the hard and fast rules. I recently was downgraded by a
>>> >> > >> judge,
>>> > whom
>>> >> I
>>> >> > >> had a very friendly conversation with, because my center
>>> >> > >> manuvers
>>> > were
>>> >> > >> not
>>> >> > >> at the same altitude. Many may say that this should not have
>>> >> > >> been
>>> >> > >> downgraded, but this judges point was that the pilot that
>>> >> > >> controls
>>> > the
>>> >> > >> altitude better should get the better score. Don't flame on
>>> >> > >> this
>>> > rules
>>> >> > >> point! My point is that knowing that this is a perspective of
>> some
>>> >> > > judges,
>>> >> > >> and it is a thing that I can work on without disadvantaging
>>> >> > >> myself
>>> > was
>>> >> > > very
>>> >> > >> valuable information.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> We need to remember this is a fun hobby. If we are not
>>> >> > >> disputing
>> a
>>> >> > >> score,
>>> >> > >> we need to approach judge feedback with modesty and a sense of
>>> >> > >> humor.
>>> >> It
>>> >> > > is
>>> >> > >> a time of gathering information, not of making a counterpoint.
>> Many
>>> >> > >> times
>>> >> > > a
>>> >> > >> judge just can't remember, but I'm sure that they will remember
>> more
>>> > if
>>> >> > > they
>>> >> > >> know there will be no negative counterpoint. I would like to
>>> >> > >> see
>>> > judge
>>> >> > >> initials on the bottom of the score sheets, given these
>> guidelines.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> --Lance
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> > >> From: "Del K. Rykert" <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
>>> >> > >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> > >> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 1:31 PM
>>> >> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> >I still remember the confrontation I experienced by the father
>>> >> > >> >of
>> a
>>> >> > >> >local
>>> >> > >> > competitor taking me to task on a maneuver that I gigged
>>> >> > >> > harshly
>>> > and
>>> >> > >> > the
>>> >> > >> > ensuing 30 minute debate with my finally pulling out my rule
>> book
>>> > and
>>> >> > >> > showing him the paragraph and specific reasons his son
>>> >> > >> > received
>>> >> > >> > the
>>> >> > >> > downgrades. Course he didn't agree the wings weren't level and
>> the
>>> >> > >> > model
>>> >> > >> > had
>>> >> > >> > noticeable climb when it should have been minor or no climb
>> before
>>> >> > >> > entry
>>> >> > >> > to
>>> >> > >> > spin. Wind was down the runway. Airplane fell out of spin in
>> last
>>> > 1/4
>>> >> > >> > of
>>> >> > >> > spin into spiral.
>>> >> > >> > Yes I could have reported this to the CD and made a bad
>>> > situation
>>> >> > >> > worse.
>>> >> > >> > How does that encourage participation in the sport? It did
>>> >> > >> > ruin
>>> > the
>>> >> > > rest
>>> >> > >> > of
>>> >> > >> > my flights as a contestant and left me with taste of why do I
>> want
>>> > to
>>> >> > >> > subject myself to this kind of abuse.
>>> >> > >> > Some in the sport are wound to tightly and will use any
>> excuse
>>> > to
>>> >> > >> > try
>>> >> > >> > to
>>> >> > >> > increase their edge. Thankfully it is the smallest of
>> minorities
>>> > but
>>> >> > >> > it
>>> >> > >> > does still exist. For this reason I always have my rule book
>> handy
>>> >> > >> > whenever
>>> >> > >> > I go to a contest and might be asked to judge. Shame the sport
>> has
>>> >> been
>>> >> > >> > reduced for some of us as defensive judging.
>>> >> > >> >
>>> >> > >> > Del
>>> >> > >> > nsrca - 473
>>> >> > >> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> > >> > From: "george w. kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
>>> >> > >> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> > >> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 12:57 PM
>>> >> > >> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
>>> >> transparency
>>> >> > >> >
>>> >> > >> >
>>> >> > >> >> In spite of the fact that when I sit in the chair I ALWAYS
>>> >> > >> >> initial
>>> >> the
>>> >> > >> >> score
>>> >> > >> >> sheet at district events, I can state from experience that
>>> >> > >> >> it's
>>> >> > > probably
>>> >> > >> >> not
>>> >> > >> >> a good idea and I feel that the reason it's probably not done
>> at
>>> > the
>>> >> > > Nats
>>> >> > >> >> is
>>> >> > >> >> due to a "been there, done that" previous learning
>>> >> > >> >> experience.
>>> >> > >> >> There is just too much competitive passion on the part of
>>> > individual
>>> >> > >> >> pilots
>>> >> > >> >> to avoid personal conflicts escalating into personality wars
>> with
>>> >> long
>>> >> > >> >> lasting repercussions.
>>> >> > >> >> Think about it,.........how many times have you heard it
>>> >> > >> >> expressed
>>> >> > >> >> that
>>> >> > > a
>>> >> > >> >> particular judge has a reputation as a tough or BAD judge?
>>> >> > >> >> Too much knowledge can generate factional devisiveness which
>>> >> > >> >> is
>>> >> > > probably
>>> >> > >> >> best avoided.
>>> >> > >> >> G.
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >> ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> > >> >> From: "Anthony Romano" <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
>>> >> > >> >> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> > >> >> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 9:07 AM
>>> >> > >> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
>>> >> > >> >> transparency
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>> Hi Jim,
>>> >> > >> >>> Good points. There is an easy way to start this. Every time
>> you
>>> >> judge
>>> >> > >> >>> legibly sign or initial your score sheets.
>>> >> > >> >>> To the conspirists, remember when questioning judges a
>>> >> > >> >>> little
>>> >> respect
>>> >> > >> >>> and
>>> >> > >> >>> courtesy goes a long way.
>>> >> > >> >>>
>>> >> > >> >>> Anthony
>>> >> > >> >>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>From: "Jim Woodward" <jim.woodward at schroth.com>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> > >> >>>>To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'"
>>> >> > >> >>>><nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
>>> >> > > transparency
>>> >> > >> >>>>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:09:31 -0500
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>I think posting judges names along with the scores is more
>> than
>>> >> > >> >>>>a
>>> >> > >> >>>>fair
>>> >> > >> >>>>idea
>>> >> > >> >>>>and goes a long way toward increasing the transparency at a
>>> >> contest.
>>> >> > >> >>>>When
>>> >> > >> >>>>you increase the transparency, the "pilots" have a better
>>> >> > > understanding
>>> >> > >> >>>>and
>>> >> > >> >>>>good time. When the pilots are happy, they come back to the
>>> >> contests
>>> >> > >> >>>>and
>>> >> > >> >>>>maybe bring someone with them. If you notice, after a
>>> >> > >> >>>>contest
>>> > when
>>> >> > > our
>>> >> > >> >>>>friend who did not makes it calls and asks, ". how was the
>>> >> contest,"
>>> >> > > the
>>> >> > >> >>>>next question is ". how was the judging." Judging, or
>> problems
>>> >> with
>>> >> > >> >>>>judging, is such an intrinsic part of the pattern experience
>>> >> > >> >>>>that
>>> >> you
>>> >> > >> >>>>can't
>>> >> > >> >>>>separate it from the "description" of how the contest went.
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>1. What is interesting is that the "flight" takes place in a
>>> > public
>>> >> > >> >>>>forum - anyone can see it. As we watch it, more often or
>>> >> > >> >>>>not
>> it
>>> > is
>>> >> > >> >>>>watched
>>> >> > >> >>>>in small groups which include fellow class-competitors, or
>> more
>>> >> > >> >>>>experienced
>>> >> > >> >>>>pilots pointing out to younger pilots errors to look out
>>> >> > >> >>>>for.
>>> >> > >> >>>>2. The judges for the round are public information. IE -
>>> >> > >> >>>>you
>>> >> > >> >>>>can
>>> >> > >> >>>>look
>>> >> > >> >>>>out on the flight line and see who is judging
>>> >> > >> >>>>3. The pilot for the round is public information. IE - you
>> can
>>> >> look
>>> >> > >> >>>>out on the flight line and see who is flying.
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Yet, "who" and "how" the scores were given remains a small
>>> > mystery.
>>> >> > >> >>>>A
>>> >> > >> >>>>lot
>>> >> > >> >>>>of folks do not want to be known as the guy who goes to the
>>> >> > >> >>>>CD
>>> > and
>>> >> > > asks
>>> >> > >> >>>>questions about the scoring and such. Or, is seen by their
>>> > fellow
>>> >> > >> >>>>competitors as being the CD hound.
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Judge Training: Most judge training takes place in practice
>> and
>>> > at
>>> >> > >> >>>>contests. There is no better forum for judge training than
>> the
>>> >> > > contest
>>> >> > >> >>>>environment. When the tear sheets are posted for each round
>>> >> > >> >>>>with
>>> >> > > judge
>>> >> > >> >>>>identification, you can go and ask ". I watched that and
>>> >> > >> >>>>wondered
>>> >> why
>>> >> > >> >>>>you
>>> >> > >> >>>>gave it xyz score." This is an incredibly valuable moment
>> when
>>> > all
>>> >> > >> >>>>of
>>> >> > >> >>>>us
>>> >> > >> >>>>are gathered we do more to get the most out of it. As it
>>> >> > >> >>>>stands,
>>> >> > > after
>>> >> > >> >>>>the
>>> >> > >> >>>>round is posted the next comment is, ". well, I guess the
>> judges
>>> >> > > didn't
>>> >> > >> >>>>catch that zero.. (and similar comments)." These
>> conversations
>>> > are
>>> >> > >> >>>>already
>>> >> > >> >>>>taking place at the contest. Posting the tear sheets for
>>> > everyone
>>> >> > > would
>>> >> > >> >>>>bring these conversations into the open as a positive
>>> >> > >> >>>>element
>> of
>>> >> the
>>> >> > >> >>>>experience, and not add to the conspiracy theorists
>>> >> > >> >>>>ammunition
>>> >> (every
>>> >> > >> >>>>district has a prime person/competitor who is a judging
>>> > conspiracy
>>> >> > >> >>>>theorists).
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Last thing, there are two judges for every 1 pilot, thus,
>> there
>>> > is
>>> >> > > 100%
>>> >> > >> >>>>more
>>> >> > >> >>>>judging work taking place than piloting work. We are there
>>> >> > >> >>>>to
>>> > fly,
>>> >> > > but
>>> >> > >> >>>>the
>>> >> > >> >>>>performance of the judges is every bit on display as the
>>> >> performance
>>> >> > > of
>>> >> > >> >>>>the
>>> >> > >> >>>>pilot. In the US we also tally the judges performance and
>> keep
>>> >> track
>>> >> > > of
>>> >> > >> >>>>them on the national scene. Posting the tear sheets with
>> judges
>>> >> > >> >>>>names
>>> >> > >> >>>>would
>>> >> > >> >>>>help this effort, allow for a GREAT training tool to be
>>> >> > >> >>>>available
>>> >> to
>>> >> > > the
>>> >> > >> >>>>CD
>>> >> > >> >>>>and fellow pilots, and become a "self-correcting-tool" to
>> those
>>> >> > > persons
>>> >> > >> >>>>who
>>> >> > >> >>>>to judge with bias (intentionally or not). As a judge, at
>>> >> > >> >>>>the
>>> > end
>>> >> of
>>> >> > >> >>>>the
>>> >> > >> >>>>round it would be great to know how my scores compared to
>>> >> > >> >>>>the
>>> > other
>>> >> > >> >>>>judge.
>>> >> > >> >>>>Each judge could discuss the round. When the tear sheets
>>> >> > >> >>>>are
>>> >> posted
>>> >> > > in
>>> >> > >> >>>>the
>>> >> > >> >>>>open, it will "promote" this conversation and I believe,
>>> >> > >> >>>>help
>> on
>>> >> many
>>> >> > >> >>>>levels. Also, if you as a judge know the scores and names
>> will
>>> > be
>>> >> > >> >>>>posted
>>> >> > >> >>>>after a round, I bet a lot of judge-lazy behavior will go
>> away,
>>> >> like
>>> >> > >> >>>>when
>>> >> > >> >>>>they/we have our head down and write scores, thus missing
>>> >> > >> >>>>30%
>> or
>>> >> more
>>> >> > > of
>>> >> > >> >>>>maneuvers.
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Just some ideas.
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Jim W.
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>> _____
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> > >> >>>>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf
>>> >> > >> >>>>Of
>>> >> Wayne
>>> >> > >> >>>>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 11:37 PM
>>> >> > >> >>>>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>> >> > >> >>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
>>> >> > > transparency
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Fred,
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>my point is post them...not leave loose tear sheets on a
>>> >> > >> >>>>table
>>> > for
>>> >> > >> >>>>pilots
>>> >> > >> >>>>to
>>> >> > >> >>>>take away from the table. This has been the practice at the
>>> >> > >> >>>>NATS.
>>> >> > >> >>>>They
>>> >> > >> >>>>need
>>> >> > >> >>>>to be posted in some way. Not just tossed as loose sheets
>>> >> > >> >>>>for
>>> >> > >> >>>>the
>>> >> > >> >>>>wind
>>> >> > >> >>>>and
>>> >> > >> >>>>pilots to remove from the public view
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>That is all my point was. I had a conversation with an FAI
>> pilot
>>> >> back
>>> >> > >> >>>>after
>>> >> > >> >>>>the NATS and he has been advocating this the past 3 years
>>> >> > >> >>>>yet
>>> > still
>>> >> > > not
>>> >> > >> >>>>happening.
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>----- Original Message -----
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>From: Fred Huber <mailto:fhhuber at clearwire.net>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 8:13 PM
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
>>> >> > > transparency
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>To me, "public" can be debated somewhat....
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Its probably adequate to post them on a table where anyone
>>> >> > >> >>>>WHO
>>> >> WANTS
>>> >> > > TO
>>> >> > >> >>>>can
>>> >> > >> >>>>see them.
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>All the Pattern contests I have been to, the scores have
>>> >> > >> >>>>been
>>> > taped
>>> >> > >> >>>>to
>>> >> > > a
>>> >> > >> >>>>table where anyone who wanted to look had access. Good
>> enough.
>>> >> > >> >>>>Don't
>>> >> > >> >>>>make
>>> >> > >> >>>>it harder than it has to be.
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>----- Original Message -----
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>From: Wayne <mailto:Whinkle1024 at msn.com>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 8:21 PM
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
>>> >> > > transparency
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Public is not left on a table....Public is posted for the
>> world
>>> > to
>>> >> > > see.
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>check out the awesome job done by the Swiss at the last Euro
>>> >> Champs.
>>> >> > > Too
>>> >> > >> >>>>bad
>>> >> > >> >>>>we in the USA with more pattern flyers than anywhere else
>> can't
>>> > get
>>> >> > > with
>>> >> > >> >>>>the
>>> >> > >> >>>>program.
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>http://www.em06.ch/ranking_preliminary.asp
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Wayne
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>----- Original Message -----
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>From: Lance Van <mailto:patterndude at comcast.net> Nostrand
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 6:17 PM
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
>>> > transparency
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>To all rule-meisters,
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>I know there are some on this list that have deep insight
>>> >> > >> >>>>into
>>> > the
>>> >> > >> >>>>intent
>>> >> > >> >>>>and history of the F3A sporting code. I hope to either get
>>> >> > >> >>>>a
>>> > solid
>>> >> > >> >>>>answer
>>> >> > >> >>>>or pointed in the right direction. This is not an idle
>> request.
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>Part 5.1.8 Marking - last sentence
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>The scores given by each judge for each competitor shall be
>> made
>>> >> > > public
>>> >> > >> >>>>at
>>> >> > >> >>>>the end of each round of competition.
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>What level of transparency is mandated? Is it enough to
>> report
>>> > the
>>> >> > >> >>>>scores
>>> >> > >> >>>>from judge 1-4 or is it expected that the identity of the
>> judge
>>> > be
>>> >> > > known
>>> >> > >> >>>>as
>>> >> > >> >>>>well?
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>--Lance
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>> _____
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>_______________________________________________
>>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> > >> >>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>> _____
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>_______________________________________________
>>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> > >> >>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>> _____
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> >> > >> >>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> >> > >> >>>>Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/537 - Release
>> Date:
>>> >> > >> >>>>11/17/2006
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>> _____
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>_______________________________________________
>>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> > >> >>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> >> > >> >>>>
>>> >> > >> >>>
>>> >> > >> >>>
>>> >> > >> >>>>_______________________________________________
>>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> > >> >>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> > >> >>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> >> > >> >>>
>>> >> > >> >>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> >> > >> >>> Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN
>>> > Radio
>>> >> > >> >>> powered
>>> >> > >> >>> by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>>> >> > >> >>>
>>> >> > >> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> > >> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> > >> >>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> > >> >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> >> > >> >>>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> > >> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> > >> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> > >> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >
>>> >> > >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > >> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> > >> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> > >> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> > >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> > >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> > >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> >> >
>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> >> > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.11/543 - Release Date:
>>> >> 11/20/2006
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>> >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> >> > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.11/543 - Release Date:
>>> >> 11/20/2006
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list