[NSRCA-discussion] Low Score Groan
Ron Lockhart
ronlock at comcast.net
Sat Nov 25 16:33:58 AKST 2006
Anthony, this is a great time to tell your Senior citizen scribe story.....
Ron Lockhart
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Walker" <vellum2 at bellsouth.net>
To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
> Ahhh the low score groan. We all know and love it so...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of george w.
> kennie
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:38 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>
>
> <<<<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 ca
n
> >>> >> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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