Quality judges.. reminds me of Military Intelligence and other Oxymorons...

Seems like anyone around here is allowed to judge a show. Why do you think I stopped judging?

It's coming around Dave, the words "quality judges" will start meaning something again soon. Plans are in the works for an upgraded system for judges.

Mark, I understand what you're saying about devaluing judges by working for free but I can tell you this is not a common practice. I believe this situation is unique, and the way I'm looking at it is if we do this for next year, we've made the commitment to our competitors that we're willing to step up and bite the bullet to see SQ back at Audiothunder. It's up to them now to step up and compete at Audiothunder to show the guys at Pro Sho that it's worth having SQ at the show. It's not my intent to judge for free all the time; but I'm willing to make the investment to see SQ back there next year.

I hope this helps clarify...

I think it's because the wifey put her foot down!! [img]tongue.gif[/img] lol jk, i'm just hassling ya dave ;)

I think properly reimbursing judges is very important for their travel and experience level. Some sort of format needs to be created to standardize this so that it’s a level playing field. So I’m just going to throw out some ideas here.

I think that it's important that IASCA comes up with a tracking system to track a judge’s participation over the year(s) and also important is some sort of performance review system. And why I say performance review system is this………….. we also recognize that there are some judges who many not be the brightest lights hanging from the ceiling and they do not add much to the process. Therefore it is very important that this is recognized. It could be a very simple grading system completed by the head judge at the end of a show. 1 to 10……. how did the judge perform and did they add much value. 1 if you dawg-ed the show and 10 if you went beyond the scope of what you were expected to do. A head judge could get feedback from the competitors (instead of sitting on his or her can all show!). Your participation and performance review would become a points system and is what would allow you to graduate to a higher level and receive greater compensation for your efforts. For example, each show completed, a judge could receive 10 points plus the 1 to 10 received for a performance review. After accumulating 300 points, you could apply to graduate to the next level. And why I say apply is this. If you did a whole pile of shows but consistently scored 1’s and 2’s in your performance review, it may be questionable as to whether or not you should be bumped up.

I also think judges should be compensated directly for their mileage, rounded to the nearest $5. The mileage should be from their registered address to the event and back at a set fee per km as set out by IASCA. The distance covered can be easily accounted for by using something like Yahoo Maps. Yes, effort is involved in doing this by the organizer or even maybe the head judge.


Anyways, just some thoughts………………… [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]

Dawg, you thought that out !!! (j/k) :D

As a matter of fact, your thoughts are very similar to what I just posted on the IASCA forum a few weeks ago. I have presented the system I described in the forum to Paul and we're reviewing it; some of the details you list would work well with it (points sytem, allowance for mileage, etc...)

Do you mind if I bring these ideas to Paul's attention ? I think these ideas would be an invaluable addition to a possible first rate judging program.

Dawg, Moe.. Make that happen and give me back credit, and I am in!

Done deal my friend ! I'll keep you up to date...

I think this is a great idea.. [img]graemlins/thumb.gif[/img]

Looks like a conspiracy to keep new blood out of the judging pool.As I see it, if you took the judging course and past the exam than you are qualified in IASCA's eyes to judge.sometimes it is not always bad to get some new blood to revive things.companies have been using this approach for many years as a way to stay competitive and to stay on top.As a new and I quite agree with the term rookie judge. I have been told by some seasoned competitors that I have picked things out on install and sound that have been over looked by experienced judges .One comment coming from an Iasca world champion in ultra s.q.i this year was "you aren't no rookie judge".He also thanked me for pointing this stuff out after finals.I also was thanked from a rookie world champion for helping improve his system over the course of the season.So if not having new judges join the seasoned veteran judges things could get stale quite fast.I do agree with tom that there should be a rating system.Only because some people may just be going through the motions.Judges should be professional and should be able to take some criticism from competitor feed back.We should have comment cards attached to competitor score sheets to help evaluate a judges performance at events.
just my veiw
from a rookie judge.

I don't see it that way. I see this as a way to recognize and distinguish the judges that do an amazing job time after time and year after year. This would also benefit good new judges, if your good you will get a good rating, if not it'll give ya something to work for..