Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

  1. #21
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Fife.
    Posts
    5,701
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    To cut down on bias the highest and lowest scores are disregarded.
    I like this idea.

  2. #22
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    In some sports the judges are anonymous. To cut down on bias the highest and lowest scores are disregarded.
    This wouldn't work for the method we use. Where we use scoring it's to find the ranked position for each judge. Each judge can only have one person in 1st place, 2nd place, etc. I am a firm believer that the use of raw scores means that some judges have more influence over the result than others. Removing the highest and lowest scores is an attempt to moderate this inequality. However, it doesn't remove it. Taking out the highest and lowest scores just means that some judges have no influence over the result whatsoever - but the next highest and next lowest probably have more effect on the score difference than the judges who score nearer the middle.

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Crewe, Cheshire
    Posts
    1,681
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    This wouldn't work for the method we use. Where we use scoring it's to find the ranked position for each judge. Each judge can only have one person in 1st place, 2nd place, etc. I am a firm believer that the use of raw scores means that some judges have more influence over the result than others. Removing the highest and lowest scores is an attempt to moderate this inequality. However, it doesn't remove it. Taking out the highest and lowest scores just means that some judges have no influence over the result whatsoever - but the next highest and next lowest probably have more effect on the score difference than the judges who score nearer the middle.
    Did the olympics just bypass you?

    The removal of the lowest and highest scores are used in so many sports (two lowest & highest in diving).

    Surely it's a tried, tested & fair way of doing things.

    As for the bold =>

  4. #24
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven666 View Post
    Did the olympics just bypass you?

    The removal of the lowest and highest scores are used in so many sports (two lowest & highest in diving).

    Surely it's a tried, tested & fair way of doing things.

    As for the bold =>
    In the Olympics people perform individually. This means it's much more difficult to judge people against each other. In a dance contest they mostly (apart from Showcase) dance at the same time, against other dancers. This means that the judges can rank each competitor against the others at the same time. Even in the showcase it is entirely possible to use ranking for each judge, even though scoring is used, it's to find the ranked position for each competitor. The scoring method I use is used in most dance competitions as far as I know.

    I believe that ranking gives each judge equal voting. Unlike scoring for which can give an individual judge greater influence over the eventual score and position of a competitor. Using raw scores there is a good chance that a competitor who was marked second by all judges could win a competition - even though NO judges thought they should win - is this right? We've had this debate before. I suggest you do a search rather than me repeating myself.

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Crewe, Cheshire
    Posts
    1,681
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    Using raw scores there is a good chance that a competitor who was marked second by all judges could win a competition - even though NO judges thought they should win - is this right? We've had this debate before. I suggest you do a search rather than me repeating myself.
    Surely you have to impress more than one judge to win. If all but one put you second then you should be second...

  6. #26
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven666 View Post
    Surely you have to impress more than one judge to win. If all but one put you second then you should be second...
    You'd think so, but the use of raw scores makes this situation possible. You'd win, but none of the judges thought you should have won. That's why it's better to use a different method to calculate the winners.

  7. #27
    Registered User Billi Wiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South Shields NE
    Posts
    115
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    hMMM - My head's beginning to hurt keeping up with this... All I know is when it comes to competitions you could give evryone a medal and someone would still have a moan... lol!

    Good luck to yer!

  8. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Crewe, Cheshire
    Posts
    1,681
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    You'd think so, but the use of raw scores makes this situation possible. You'd win, but none of the judges thought you should have won. That's why it's better to use a different method to calculate the winners.
    Failing to see the logic there but I'm bored now.

  9. #29
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    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 if you want to go for transparency, you should go for it, and not compromise it.

    And if you're willing to be a judge, you should be willing to have your judgements transparently recorded. And if judges don't like being put on the spot, or are worried about what their friends think, they shouldn't be willing to be judges.

    Mind you, that's easy for me to say because I'm not a judge and obviously don't have any friends.

    What do other (ballroom) competitions do?

  10. #30
    Registered User frodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,156
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by David Bailey View Post
    I think if you want to go for transparency, you should go for it, and not compromise it.
    Transparency is usually considered a means towards other goals.

    For example if the end is fair elections in a political system:-

    Transparency in the voting system would normally aid towards this, and in many cases be thought essential, as it makes it harder for the government to fiddle without being detected.

    But if you treat transparency as a goal in itself and extend it to the ballot box, other sources of unfairness such as buying votes, or votes where the individual cannot make their own choice because of a dominant employer, religious leader etc. can often dominate.

  11. #31
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by David Bailey View Post
    I think if you want to go for transparency, you should go for it, and not compromise it.

    And if you're willing to be a judge, you should be willing to have your judgements transparently recorded. And if judges don't like being put on the spot, or are worried about what their friends think, they shouldn't be willing to be judges.
    I believe that anonymity at the ballot box is a good thing. It allows people to vote as they choose, based on their judgement. They do not to have to explain their voting to the people or those they have voted for - or against. This means their voting can be completely unbiased.

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    In the Olympics people perform individually. This means it's much more difficult to judge people against each other. ...
    They are not being judged against each other, they are being judged against a standard. e.g. leg not straight - lose a mark.

    I believe that ranking gives each judge equal voting. Unlike scoring for which can give an individual judge greater influence over the eventual score and position of a competitor.
    Right

    Using raw scores there is a good chance that a competitor who was marked second by all judges could win a competition - even though NO judges thought they should win - is this right?
    If every judge votes for their home town contestant in first place, and their best buddy in second, and the best dancers as third then it is possible that the best dancers will win with nobody rating them higher than third. This could happen with ranking, and it could happen with points scoring.

    Say there are five contestants. With ranking the judge is limited to the decision that a couple is some increment of 20% better than another, or some increment of 20% worse. The judge might actually assess the difference as 3%. Ranking makes it far more likely that the computed verdict will differ from the judges actual opinions.
    [quote=Andy McGregor;495694]You'd think so, but the use of raw scores makes this situation possible. You'd win, but none of the judges thought you should have won. That's why it's better to use a different method to calculate the winners.

  13. #33
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    I believe that anonymity at the ballot box is a good thing. It allows people to vote as they choose, based on their judgement. They do not to have to explain their voting to the people or those they have voted for - or against. This means their voting can be completely unbiased.
    Sure, but judges are different from voters; they're both volunteers and professionals. And they're not "voting for a candidate", they're detailed scores for each category.

    To me, judgements are almost by definition recorded.

    OK, whether these should be published in all their details or not is another matter - but they should always be available for scrutiny, if only be the organisers.

  14. #34
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by David Bailey View Post
    Sure, but judges are different from voters; they're both volunteers and professionals. And they're not "voting for a candidate", they're detailed scores for each category.

    To me, judgements are almost by definition recorded.

    OK, whether these should be published in all their details or not is another matter - but they should always be available for scrutiny, if only be the organisers.
    I do not believe there is anything to be gained by competitors knowing which judge gave them particular scores. However, there is a benefit for future development in competitors knowing what scores judges gave them or where they were placed by judges to give the final result.

    I believe that the juges being "outed" to their friends would make it difficult to recruit judges and might make judges modify their scoring if they thought their friends could see what they were being given.

    There will be a coding on the forms that allows the srutineer (plus his bitches, Phil and Lynda) and organisers to find out what each judge gives. Therefore we could look into any suggestion of bias by individual judges. However, I believe that the careful selection of judges would ensure that bias is unlikely.

  15. #35
    Basically lazy robd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Nr Cambridge
    Posts
    3,696
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Possible Change to Britrock Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    I do not believe there is anything to be gained by competitors knowing which judge gave them particular scores.
    If I competed and I knew that judges were open to giving feedback on competitor's performances I think I would have a lot to gain by knowing which judge had scored me to what level. If the judges are unwilling (or unable) to give that feedback then I'd agree there is less to commend such transparency.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The rules of advertising on here ?
    By stewart38 in forum Forum technical problems / Questions / Suggestions..
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2nd-November-2008, 03:02 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •