What qualifications are necessary for a Good Judge?

[Ricky]

It's all about transparency.

Disregard the final page of the upper and lower level. It was included in this PDF by error.

-Faizan

I don't think judges even utilize these judging rubrics in general iv seen good rubrics and teams adjust to follow these rubrics but when it comes down to placing these rubrics are disregarded....ahhemmmm ELITE 8. As a judge your watching this performance in the moment and scoring a team , a lot can change in terms of perception regarding which team performs first or last that's why a lot of emphasis should be put on the score sheet and not deliberation after the fact. According to the rubric and points and in the moment judgement the team that scored higher should outweigh the deliberation points that are made but deliberations are still key but shouldn't determine a winner. Secondly that's when i think the idea of some sort of video review should come into play, in order to go over set highlights and lows i feel like this would help judges make a more informed decision.

Faizan I really like the rubric i hope that WBBC can stick to this as teams will put their blood sweat and tears into making a set and perfecting it and and the last thing that anybody would want to see is the team the deserves to win doesn't. I truly hope that some teams can bring that edge and break out of that robot bhangra style and bring that out of box thinking, develop their OWN style something that can differentiate themselves from other teams.

 

[Worlds Best Bhangra Crew]

Ricky,

1. "Secondly that's when i think the idea of some sort of video review should come into play, in order to go over set highlights and lows i feel like this would help judges make a more informed decision."
This year, WBBC will be utilizing instant replay for the two top teams if they are within 15 points of one another. Before deliberations begin, judges will be given an opportunity to view each team over again via video, without pauses, rewinds or forwards. Just a straight up, GTV provided, HD replay. WBBC will be the first competition to implement this and we hope it helps. This is an idea we announced months ago.

2. I don't think judges even utilize these judging rubrics in general iv seen good rubrics and teams adjust to follow these rubrics but when it comes down to placing these rubrics are disregarded
This year's rubrics were formulated by me and the 6 judges we chose. We made it together, it is there baby as much as WBBC's. Additionally, each judge will only be responsible for one category. Their focus will be on one thing, not a bunch of things which essentially get hard as hell to track because no one has perfect vision or attention to see it all. Additionally, the judges scores are all run through a massive analysis and team get this analysis so they can see what each judges scored and why.

3. As a judge your watching this performance in the moment and scoring a team , a lot can change in terms of perception regarding which team performs first or last that's why a lot of emphasis should be put on the score sheet and not deliberation after the fact.
WBBC is the first competition to give special consideration to teams 1 and 2 in the lineup. If you end up within 15 points of the top team, and you went 1st or 2nd, this factor is a mandatory consideration that each judge must look at when deciding the winner. So no more, "oh fuck we got first, we lose" Everyone has a fair shot.

4. WBBC is the first competition to do video conferences with teams WELL IN ADVANCE (at least 5 weeks) BEFORE the show, to make sure everyone is on the same page. Competitions who do judges meetings the day before the show need to stop. It is a complete waste of time.

4. This year, in response to the outcry from the circuit, WBBC has decided as follows:
2 weeks after the show we will be sending teams an anonymous survey. This survey will allow teams to give comments and feedback regarding judges based on the analysis of their scoring and their feedback before and after the show. Additionally, teams will be able to rank the judges. These surveys will be made public (and redacted as to any offensive comments). Everyone will know the judging placings. If a judge sucked, you will all know. Team's get ranked. So should judges.

-faizan

 

[mrchicity]

Faisan, if wbbc is using harjot's camera for a replay, make sure you get one that is a top view instead of a front view. While his videos are great to watch, the majority of them are front views that don't give a proper view of formations.

And in general, someone needs to make a list of judges and their strengths/weaknesses. Do it here if possible. I would do it myself, but I've been a judge a couple of times and I don't wish to provide critiques of people I've worked with.

 

[yraparla]

BhangraJudging.com died, but I'm down to bring it back again. I have a better idea of what I want to do with the site this time.


All those interested in being on an email thread about it, use this form: http://goo.gl/forms/Wem0Y957u0

We can have a brief discussion, and I'll provide an opportunity for people to get involved (I can always use tech help, bio validation help, etc). There's 3 things I want on it:


1) Judges List - bios, type of judge, etc. Everything a comp needs to pick someone and a team needs to understand their tendency
2) Rubrics - a list of sample rubrics, how to modify them for the comp-style, and existing comp rubrics/comments
3) Blog- Have active judges write up thoughts/articles on common and interesting topics. Not to take away from BTF (no discussion). But to provide a static platform for ideas next to the judges list (so how to put together a panel, what tyeps of rubrics judges prefer, whether judges shoudl be involved in picking a lineup, etc).


All these things will have lots of opportunity for people to be involved.


Questions to ask:

• What info goes on the database (and what stays private for a comp to ask for directly)
• Who gets to decide the list?
• What are the requirements or qualifications to be on the list?

 

[shwinerz]

Probably not the most in the know person about this, but I reckon UK judging has come on a long way and there could be something to take away.

Like mentioned earlier, transparency is absolutely key. NachdaPunjab comps release the full results publicly for each team on the Monday after the comp, so anyone can see what judge awarded any given team on any given part of the rubric. Even if teams are unhappy with the outcome it means it can be fairly debated with others.


Even then, our circuit is so small that you couldn't have people on teams not affiliated to the judges at all. On top of that, all potential judges have been in the scene for nowhere near as long as some in NA. In my opinion I reckon judging at UK comps has been fairly good, of course not everyones been happy but thats natural, and even if some people don't agree with each placing they'll understand why judges may have put them in that order.


Also, at least for the NP comps, there is a section focused on overall entertainment value if I'm not mistaken, which could help in regards to numbers not being able to properly portray how a performance made a judge feel, but by doing it in that manner its not too overbearing on overall scores. Worth giving it a look though

 

[Archana]

2 things I'm gonna add:

1. We should have judging reviews the same way we have comp reviews. But I don't think any teams are going to publicly say anything negative about a judge for fear of either getting screwed over by that judge at a future comp or coming across as a whiny, butt-hurt team. There should be a way to get this information while allowing teams to maintain anonymity.

2. One of the biggest problems I've seen with judges isn't the fact that they're biased, but the fact they won't even admit or realize that they are. Bias will always influence how a judge scores and reviews a team no matter what the rubric says. The question is whether or not a judge is smart enough to realize that they lean more folk, modern, etc. and be self-aware enough to not penalize another team for not completely conforming to their pre-conceived idea of what a team should do.


Example: Telling a co-ed team that they didn't place because they didn't do enough cutesy, guy-girl interaction.

Aditya,

You make a great point about bias', however, many judges that I have come across have danced different styles. For example, one judge may have been on a co-ed team, a live team, and an all guys team. Every judge has different opinions on what they think is creative. So when saying that a co-ed team didn't do enough "cutesy or guy girl interaction" that is their opinion. It may have stemmed from when they have danced or just what they think is creative and can push the bar for that team. Saying a team didn't place because of that is poor judging, there are many factors that come into a team not placing. This is the thing, you can have all the judges be from well established teams and captains, but either way, every judge will come with their own opinion one what they feel would be a great set. Everyone should just embrace opinions. Now whether you want to take it and apply it to future sets is the teams decision. One can't say that this specific judge sucked because they lean towards folk traditional sets, it is their opinion on a set. Yes, they must go by the rubric, but the amount of points that will be given for tradionality will differentiate between judges.

 

[mafzal]

1. We should have judging reviews the same way we have comp reviews. But I don't think any teams are going to publicly say anything negative about a judge for fear of either getting screwed over by that judge at a future comp or coming across as a whiny, butt-hurt team. There should be a way to get this information while allowing teams to maintain anonymity.

BhangraJudging.com died, but I'm down to bring it back again. I have a better idea of what I want to do with the site this time.

All those interested in being on an email thread about it, use this form: http://goo.gl/forms/Wem0Y957u0

Yes and double yes. I remember I talked to you about updating the site around the holidays, Swi. I'm on board to help. Also, once re-launched we need to make sure every competition is aware of the site

 

[yraparla]

Yes and double yes. I remember I talked to you about updating the site around the holidays, Swi. I'm on board to help. Also, once re-launched we need to make sure every competition is aware of the site

You number one on the list lady, counting on you for sure

 

[DamanSingh]

I agree with much of what Sid and Sue have posted, and I like Aditya's idea about having a website dedicated to judge reviews - a ratemybhangrajudges.com would be nice. If I remember correctly (and I think this has been mentioned above), there used to be such a website - it would be great to see it revived. Team dancers or captains may be fearful of posting named, so having the option of posting anonymously is essential as it would encourage honest review. If the upcoming version of BTF allows for anonymous posting, then there may be no need for this website altogether.

When a big-named team comes on stage, there is a HUGE disregard for the things that they judged the small teams SO harshly on.

I've noted this as well. Sadly, sometimes judges place teams (higher) solely because of name value.

 

[Saleem]

If the upcoming version of BTF allows for anonymous posting, then there may be no need for this website altogether.

Ive heard mixed opinions on this feature. It'll be up for discussion

 

[Gsimz]

I don't think current dancers should be judges. I know many of the judges today, who are current dancers, are very knowledgeable. I'm also aware they contributed to the circuit is various ways, but I think it should be a few years until they judge to avoid any personal bias.

 

[Gabroo Tv]

I don't think current dancers should be judges. I know many of the judges today, who are current dancers, are very knowledgeable. I'm also aware they contributed to the circuit is various ways, but I think it should be a few years until they judge to avoid any personal bias.

100%

 

[scaplash]

I think one way to avoid judges placing teams based on name is maybe treating the performances like audition videos are ideally treated-in which the judges don't know the actual teams-and have to judge based on solely on the actual performance
While this will allow for more objective judging, I think the biggest barrier is the fact that some of the biggest names in the circuit have such distinct and recognizable styles-but on the flip side of this argument, I think it will push all teams to define their own style- something that a lot of teams I feel now struggle to do.
This method would also require teams to not have any identifiers, like mix shout-outs or banner gimmicks with their names/logos.
Just a thought for discussion-what do we think about the feasibility of this?

 

[Cherag]

I don't think current dancers should be judges. I know many of the judges today, who are current dancers, are very knowledgeable. I'm also aware they contributed to the circuit is various ways, but I think it should be a few years until they judge to avoid any personal bias.

Personal bias is present in judges who have been removed from the circuit for a few years as well. I think affiliations with a team directly is where the line should be drawn. I've been to a competition where two of the judges had previously danced on two of the competing teams at that. One was only a little over a year removed and the other at least over four years removed. How can it be certain that their bias wasn't present? Maybe if the teams that they were on presented a more aesthetically appealing execution of Bhangra, when it came to things such a set flow, execution of traditional steps, all common categories on a rubric. Which isn't wrong because it's what they've seen the most at a dancing regard. Affiliation leads to people doubting the ability of the judge, even if their former team deserved to win. It plays against the legitimacy of the judges ability to judge teams that they were once on in the past. I'm not saying that these judges did the wrong thing because nobody really wants to come in and tarnish their reputation by placing the "wrong team". But it makes things harder for a competing team to think that everything would be "fair", if it is the situation at hand.

Now a days competitions will go ahead and get judges more local, or those who are willing to spend money to the competition, not entirely removing the fact that these same judges may have affiliation. The bhangra community has given me a lot over the past 9/10 years of following it and being involved off all of the ups and downs has been an awesome ride. Being involved and judging to me is going ahead and giving back while providing teams fair judgement so that they are not screwed over. And on top of that to be able to give feed back. It is good open forum to meet new dancers, and be able to give them feedback in person on how to get better and have their team grow.

Judges should go off of the rubric they are given. Short and sweet. What should happen is that judges should be tested on their ability to judge based on a certain rubric. A competition may want a traditional team to win, or they may want a heavier gimmick based team to win. Based on how the judges score the teams and chose the winning team, should decide whether they judge or not. At the same regard the competition MUST make it clear to the teams applying and judges applying on what kind of winner they want. Which should be fine because the it clarifies to teams that this is the type of competition they are applying to so I know what I'm getting myself into. It also makes sure the judges know how to judge that specific competition. Just my two cents and an idea that I thought would legitimize judges for each competition they are judging.

 

[KushK]

Gsimz I see where you are coming from but I gotta go with Major Selhi on this one. I also believed until recent that people dancing shouldn't be judging. However after seeing the last year or so and the placings that have come out of it, I can't complain much. The best panels need to consist of dancers that are still dancing because they know what is "In" and what isn't. I had the honor of judging my first competition this past year and the difference in people who have been removed from the circuit as opposed to people still actively involved is just insane! Current dancers have been part of panels such as Tdot, Bruin, Burgh, Fever and etc. where I think the placing have been just fine. The point is to make sure that the top 3 teams of the night place and the best team wins.

Last year there was a comp or 2 where much controversy was caused and I think it probably had to with the fact that the judges had been so far removed from the circuit that they just had no clue what was happening anymore. As usual though the issue was turned into Folk vs. Modern (usual drama) thanks to our bhangra gods, but the problem was they had no clue what was even happening in my honest opinion. Selhi hit it right on the mark. Judges need to judge by the rubric they were selected for and keep their personal opinions to themselves. Explain why they were docked points and what can done to fix it and not worry about them using markers because it took away from the presentation of the set.... ;D

 

[KushK]

Gsimz I would endorse you as a judge over half the judges in the circuit

 

[SGupta7]

I think one way to avoid judges placing teams based on name is maybe treating the performances like audition videos are ideally treated-in which the judges don't know the actual teams-and have to judge based on solely on the actual performance
While this will allow for more objective judging, I think the biggest barrier is the fact that some of the biggest names in the circuit have such distinct and recognizable styles-but on the flip side of this argument, I think it will push all teams to define their own style- something that a lot of teams I feel now struggle to do.
This method would also require teams to not have any identifiers, like mix shout-outs or banner gimmicks with their names/logos.
Just a thought for discussion-what do we think about the feasibility of this?

This wouldn't really work. Aside from distinct styles, people who follow the circuit can recognize vardiyaan, parts of the set, and of course faces. If judges have watched previous sets, they may recognize particular parts which indicate which team is competing. Even if a judge doesn't know someone on a team, they'll most likely meet the captains at the judge's meeting the night beforehand and will be able to recognize people. Additionally, not being able to incorporate elements pertaining to your name/city into your set is a huge problem. Lastly, teams can't be introduced to the audience by MCs and the like and people in the crowd can't chant team names. Unless you take a judge from the pind who doesn't know a single thing about the american bhangra circuit (which is also a horrible horrible idea), this will never work.


Ankush and Cherag, you guys make great points and I think the majority of people on BTF would agree with you. But judging will never ever be completely objective. It's just human nature to carry your own biases and make assumptions based on what you've seen/heard in the past. I honestly don't think there's any way around it, especially if you want the judges to be involved in the circuit (I know I do).


I think the best we can do is to ensure that competitions are made aware of the availability of certain, qualified judges (maybe through this bhangra judges website) and to hope that having multiple judges will provide a system of checks & balances that overrides the strong biases of any one judge.


One solution may be to add more judges. Most competitions have 3-4, but maybe having 5 or 6 will allow a diverse enough panel to negate any strong tendencies toward traditional/modern, past affiliations, etc. This of course requires a large number of qualified judges, but I think it's definitely possible.

 

[DamanSingh]

I don't think current dancers should be judges. I know many of the judges today, who are current dancers, are very knowledgeable. I'm also aware they contributed to the circuit is various ways, but I think it should be a few years until they judge to avoid any personal bias.

I really think it depends on the individual personality and qualifications of the judge more than his/her status as a retired or active dancer. I believe that active dancers can make excellent additions to a judging panel, but I also believe most are less capable of suspending bias because of their level of involvement. Ultimately, however, it depends on the individual - a good judge is one that can write on rubrics and discuss feedback with a neutral mindset.

Shawn is absolutely right. I don't think that idea is feasible either - you can't really have full anonymity, and it is very easy for anyone, even a regular spectator, to identify a team based on faces. The issue of name bias can only be resolved with good, competent judges who don't take the name value of teams too seriously, but rather focus on the rubric.

As far as the number of judges goes, I prefer quality over quantity. In my opinion, even three judges is sufficient as long as they are well-qualified and capable.