As some people will know, I'm the Adjudicator/Scrutineer at Britrock.
I wrote the method used for this competition and one of the important aspects of the method is transparency. Competitors should be able to look at what scores they received or how their eventual position was calculated.
However, last year this raised the possibility of a difficult situation. As the rules currently stand a competitor can find out what each named judge awarded. One of the judges told me they felt very uncomfortable about this as they are friends with many of the competitors - as are most judges. The judge felt that the competitors knowing what marks they gave might sour their relationships. And I have to agree with this possibility.
I am proposing a slight change to the rules to allow the judges to remain anonymous. The competitors would know what scores they received, but they'd only know the number of the judge that gave the score, not their name.
Everything would still be transparent as far as the scores and calculations are concerned. You just wouldn't know which judge had given you which score.
Please bear in mind that many Modern Jive competitions do not tell you what scores you received. Some don't even tell you how the scores are calculated.
So, how do people feel about this change?
I think it's a moot point to be able to identify judges by name. Each judge has equal power to promote, etc so it shouldn't really matter which judge gave which score.
The problem with juges being identified is that some people might be put off judging if they thought their friends might be upset by the scores they give. Also, there might be a subliminal effect in judges scoring if they thought they might be taken to task by a competitor about their scores - they might even find competitors arguing with them about the scores they gave. In my experience this has never happened, but it could and that might put some people off judging.
Giving the judges anonymity but still making the method and the marks public gets around the above problems. And the alternative is to do what Ceroc do for the London competitions and keep it all secret, the method, the scores, everything.
Do you want those people judging for you?
I think the other issue to consider is how to manage feedback from judges to competitors which is something that I expect competitors are more likely to seek from specific individuals if they have been marked lower than they expected by that specific judge.
Comparisons with other competitions is pointless. Just because the majority do it a certain way (either anonymously or without displaying individual scores at all) doesn't make it the right way (though to be fair there probably isn't a 'right' way in this context - whatever you do will not be to someone's liking.
Competitions are there to pick the best dancers on the day. They are not designed as a development tool and judges are not invited with that expectation. That doesn't mean judges can't perform the function. But that should be up to individual judges.
This comment has got me thinking though. If a competitor said to a judge "can you give me some tips after the competition" I believe that would introduce bias. This is because the judge would not be simply thinking "who is the best" or "what score should I give". They will also be thinking "how could this couple improve". Unless they were thinking the same about each couple there is a chance that the judge might look at some competitors differently from others. This could introduce bias in judgement.
Having considered the above a bit more, I believe it would be unfair for competitors to talk with judges about their performance until after all judging has finished. I will bring this up at the judges briefing - I'm glad we had this chat, very useful
More of a Scrudinicator
I must admit I didn't really give identity of judges any thought at all. I was really thinking about transparency of judging. It was only when a judge raised the subject that I started to worry about it. It's one of those things you only realise when it comes up.
Andy's not saying that his judges are unable to do their job properly. In fact, quite the opposite! They're concerned that by giving an accurate, honest and unbiased opinion, which is then made available to friends they have judged, their relationship with those people may suffer.
I think it's likely they're more uncomfortable with how some people*, who perhaps expect some preferential treatment, will take this honest and unbiased opinion, NOT the giving of it. Unless you have some extra information on the shady judges used for Britrock we don't have - do ya do ya DO YA ?
* especially really good friends who you gave positive vibes to when they were practicing; a judge doesn't want to be in the position to have to say "yes i know i said you were getting much better in practice, but today you were just worse than everyone else" Theres no need to worry with anonymous judging.
And that's the crux of it - their performance. Feedback should be limited solely to the specifics of that day's perfomance and the correlation between the performance seen and the marks given. Feedback should not be expected to be a free mini-private lesson. Of course useful feedback only really becomes feasible in heats or finals with low numbers of contestants.
Hopefully David or Lily will chip in given their experiences on both sides of the equation. I know they are friends with a good many of the top MJ competitors, past and present but my hunch would be that they don't feel they would have any problem in their individual scores for those friends being attributable.
I did gathered that this was the case.
It's the fact that they are concerned about what opinion they give is the worrying factor. It would be if I were competing (god forbid) and I knew that a judge was in such a debatical about a fellow particpant. I would worry if everything is fair. But that's just the way my mind works.
I didnt even know that you could find out who gave you what score at Britrock but we do normally approach judges after the competition for some feedback and we have found it has helped us to understand what they are looking for.
In some sports the judges are anonymous. To cut down on bias the highest and lowest scores are disregarded.
But isn't friendship about honesty too? I think the problem that lies is that people can't except criticism.. even off their friends. At the end of the day, a friendship should not become sour just because one reads what score their mate has put down for them on paper. Personally I'd learn from it and ask what would need to have been improved to acheive a higher result.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks