Jim - thank you for your explanation. I never thought of how you presented as an explanation and I do see your point. Personally, I don't see the downside of judges discussing the results, if it is a positive experience and beneficial for judges and bands. I think it would make judges more accountable, but at the same time I still don't think that this necessarily will affect the overall result. Using Jim's example if by talking to the other judges he might have switched two bands placings but maybe he might not have. Based on Jim's example maybe both bands had a basis for their placing.
Just further proof that the endless tinkering and fidgeting with rules is a sure sign that a system is fundamentally broken all over. More to the point, that human subjectivity, ego and personal interests will always be the reason we chase our tails. Constantly. The cowboys get a free shot, once again. Fail.
Martin: often when you're judging you're pressed for time and you're writing and when you're writing you're not focusing on the performance. Yet, if you don't write, people come back at you wondering why they didn't do better. So you have to write. So while you're writing or focusing on something else, maybe in the back of your musical mind you notice the strathspeys are slow, but then they are into the reels and you're listening to something else and it doesn't register like it should and you kind of forget it. Then when you consult later you tell the others where you had that band and a couple of them say, "But bygawd the strathspeys were so slow!" and then you remember, oh yes, they were. And you adjust your result. This kind of musical 'oversight' happens all the time and any judge who says it doesn't needs a good dose of humility. It's particularly the case when you do ensemble and there is far, far, far too much to assess and write in sometimes as little as four minutes.
Jim I would agree that contests are rarely ever black and white. What type of hunches would cause you to change your result? I hope you don't take this as attacking, merely asking for knowledge. Thank you.
I've judged consultatively and I've changed my result after the discussion at least once. Results are rarely black and white and people who don't judge might be surprised at how often a judge walks away from a contest wondering, "Geeze, did I do the right thing?" It's great to be able to check out your hunches and doubts with the others. The three-man bench in a solo event is in some ways good but often you end up with a result none of the three is happy with. At least with consultative judging you get input from the others but were still able to submit your own result. I thought it was a great system. I have to say the more our Society fears its own innovations the less I like it.
I only read the article quickly so maybe I missed something, but what is the big deal? I really don't know how this affects any outcome of a contest or puts a band in a better or worse shape by not having the consultation. I do like the aspect of judges getting together to compare notes, but at the same time if a judge doesn't hear something another judge said they heard I wouldn't want them to necessarily change their placing on heresay. I am open to hearing why this will affect outcomes.
I am still trying to understand what this is really about. Why are people so threatened all the time by change. Desperate and to stop at nothing to try and get an edge. Paranoia will destroy ya. And it goes like this.
In December 2012 "The society's Board of Directors has distributed a survey to leaders of the more than 40 pipe bands that are included within its membership, asking for a Yes or No response to the question, "Does your Pipe Band want the PPBSO to use Consultative Judging for PPBSO sanctioned band competitions?" Confidentiality of specific responses (was) promised in the snail-mailed letter." Does anyone know the results of this survey?
"The PPBSO's Music Committee, made up almost entirely of accredited adjudicators, voted to keep consultative judging, with only one member reportedly voting to eliminate it." How does this make any sense? The committee's opinion clearly didn't matter here. There will be some wild scores this summer!
This is so wrong - so sad - I just don't know where to begin. This is so (so..."infinity")disappointing. As Bruce says, a judging approach where judges consult has been good enough for the learned benches (and the leading competitors they assessed) for scores of years of our very best solo piping contests - Willie Ross and GS McLennan never complained - and, I should add, judges who consult, who discuss, is good enough for the supreme courts of most of the world's consultative democracies (maybe PPBSO members who voted this down want to look at the definition of "consultative democracy" - google it: it's free). This move is so cynical, so backward-looking. I seriously doubt the integrity of the data of these results, by the way, when the band I play in never received a - ready for this Internet world - a paper-based /"see attached and complete" survey [or so I hear] survey. My God.