yraparla
SwizzeeMusic.com
- Messages
- 2,072
Hi Guys, this is long. But please read!!!
There have been a few proposals floating throughout the years about how to standardize and raise the level of competition organization. I have my own plan that I've shared with many people, and while I'm not ready to share that plan publicly, but I AM ready to implement the first part of that plan. A database of judges!
The goal of this database is to provide a comprehensive profile of judges so that competitions have the ability to create a unique lineup of judges that matches their spirit and rubric. The first component is quantity, giving competitions a chance to avoid over-worked judges (and correspondingly providing teams with fresh insight). The second component is providing them a profile so that competitions can pick judges who match their style of competition and their objectives. It's not just traditional vs. modern anymore...the sliding scale for judges is much more complex. Our goal is to describe and present the judge in a way that a competition and teams can reasonably understand how they will judge and not be surprised by results.
What I'm looking for is feedback, from both competition organizers and team captains. Ultimately the goal is to reduce the irritation with placings. The very nature of ranking teams means disputes will always occur, our goal is to facilitate judging lineups where the results is at least respected when disagreed with. There's a difference, and I'm hoping we can bring the circuit back to a more constructively-competitive atmosphere. If we can't respect the judges, we won't respect the placings, it's that simple.
Currently here is the overall plan:
Some questions to consider:
Thanks,
Swi
There have been a few proposals floating throughout the years about how to standardize and raise the level of competition organization. I have my own plan that I've shared with many people, and while I'm not ready to share that plan publicly, but I AM ready to implement the first part of that plan. A database of judges!
The goal of this database is to provide a comprehensive profile of judges so that competitions have the ability to create a unique lineup of judges that matches their spirit and rubric. The first component is quantity, giving competitions a chance to avoid over-worked judges (and correspondingly providing teams with fresh insight). The second component is providing them a profile so that competitions can pick judges who match their style of competition and their objectives. It's not just traditional vs. modern anymore...the sliding scale for judges is much more complex. Our goal is to describe and present the judge in a way that a competition and teams can reasonably understand how they will judge and not be surprised by results.
What I'm looking for is feedback, from both competition organizers and team captains. Ultimately the goal is to reduce the irritation with placings. The very nature of ranking teams means disputes will always occur, our goal is to facilitate judging lineups where the results is at least respected when disagreed with. There's a difference, and I'm hoping we can bring the circuit back to a more constructively-competitive atmosphere. If we can't respect the judges, we won't respect the placings, it's that simple.
Currently here is the overall plan:
- The database will mostly include everyone who applies to be on it. The threshold is legitimate Bhangra experience. Although we may eventually screen by quality, initially the goal is to make the profiles and let organizers make the decision on if a judge is qualified or not. This is the quantity aspect I mentioned.
- We will however feature certain judges of higher quality and experience. Similar to a review magazine that has an "editor's choice" label. These are the judges we subjectively think will do a good job and fill the role well. While previous judging experience is preferred, it won't be necessary as we want newer judges to also get opportunity. So based on the discussions we have with them, their profile, and their experience, we will try to feature current and future judging stars.
- All applicants will be required to provide a small description of their experiences in bhangra, why they're qualified to judge, and what their view of bhangra is. This is the initial application and filter.
- All applicants will also be required to complete a profile analysis. The main component of this will be watching a video and completing a rubric. The rubric will give insight into the ability of the judge to critique, analyze, comment, and absorb a performance. While judging a video is nothing like judging live, it is the easiest most practical way to build the initial profile.
- When a judge finishes at a comp, we will feature their rubrics/comments if available (and more competitions are doing it these days). This is to further create a representative profile of them for teams and organizers to look at.
- The database will also track the judging issues that come up at competitions. This includes verified comments a judge may have made (in context of course), as well as competitions who are not transparent with their process. This is to deter similar actions in the future as well as catalog the problems so future teams know what they're getting into (i.e. don't complain, it's your risk)
Some questions to consider:
- How do we do the video-rubric test? Should it be the same video for all judges, should we do multiple videos? Should we time it so that they are forced to do it in real-time? Should we do multiple related videos so there's a comparison?
- Should everyone get access to the database, or just competition organizers and captains or something. The information should be available, but I'm not sure if I want it all publicly available, I'd prefer a libraryish system where you can request for information (if you're not already authorized as an organizer). This is to balance exposure vs. privacy. Still transparent and available, but just a barrier so that only people who have legitimate use for the info get it. (would also limit people from seeing rubrics and trying to leverage that in their own profiles). Just a thought.
- What about organizer-only content, to limit the exposure of judges but still give plenty of info to organizers. Over-exposed judges can cause headaches for organizers as well, since teams often times complain in advance without merit (Bruin has seen this I believe, I experienced some of it with Sin City). The goal is balance. The public has all necessary info, and we can give organizers just a bit more, such as a video of the judges explaining their rubric (to get a feel for their interpersonal skills).
Thanks,
Swi