|
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: This would also explain why you would low ball certain girls or rig a pageant to keep the best talents from advancing to top 10. Because it was televised. Think about like this: If you want a certain outcome, and willing to do what it takes to get it, would you not have done, what appears to be a rigged pageant. No one in the top 10 represented the best talented well rounded candidates. Even, Sarah Floyd was not the best talent in her group. I guess she and Ashley Byrd both being from the same town had NOTHING to do with it?
|
Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]
|
Date Posted: Monday, July 22, 12:32:48pm
>>>>Judges are charged to score as follows: 1,2,3 below
>>>>average 4,5,6 average, above average 7,8,9,
>>>>outstanding 10. Prelim scores precentages with
>>highest
>>>>and lowest dropped from a panel of 5 judges.
>Example:
>>>>girl with strong interview&OSI getting 2nd in EG and
>>>>weak/averg talent--interview 25% 10+10+10=30×2.0=60
>>>>Talent 50% 5+5+5=15×5.0=75 OSI 15%
>>>>10+10+10=30×1.5=45 EG 15% 10+10+9=29×1.5=43.5
>total
>>>>prelim points=223.5
>>>>
>>>>Girl with average interview OSI & EG but strong
>>>>talent/prelim winner---interview 6+6+6=18×2.0=36
>>>>Talent 10+10+9=29×5.0=145 OSI 6+6+6=18×1.5=27 EG
>>>>6+6+6=18×1.5=27 total prelim points=235
>>>>
>>>>This is only one of many possible scenarios. If girl
>>1
>>>>was scored below average (1,2,3) for her talent, it
>>>>would be extremely difficult for her to make the top
>>>>15 out of 50+ contestants. Threes in talent drops
>her
>>>>score by 30 points bringing her below the 200 point
>>>>mark (60+45+45+43.5=193.5)
>>>>
>>>>Please note once you make the top 15 these prelim
>>>>numbers are deleted and a composite score from each
>>>>judge based on how that judge sees your overall
>>prelim
>>>>performance is given. The judge should stay
>>consistent
>>>>with their scoring and not elevate a contestant when
>>>>assigning this score. Discussion is allowed in this
>>>>meeting. Executive board is present. Composite is
>25%
>>>>of the score.
>>>>
>>>>So both contestants make the top 15. It is possible
>>>>for judges to score girl with weak talent higher in
>>>>composite because they felt she was strong in 3 of
>>the
>>>>4 categories. As it is to score a talent prelim
>>winner
>>>>lower because of being seen as average in 3 of the 4
>>>>categories. (If MAO wanted a reality TV show,
>>>>recording and airing this meeting would get them
>huge
>>>>ratings)
>>>>
>>>>Girl 1 composite 9+9+8=26×2.5=65 girl 2 composite
>>>>7+7+6=20×2.5=50 though girl one scored less than
>>girl
>>>>2 in prelim she is now 15 points ahead of girl 2
>>based
>>>>on assigned composite score before final competition
>>>>even starts. This is why so many say the competition
>>>>is won in interview. The judge falls in love and he
>>>>gives you a pass on your poor talent. Basically you
>>>>need enough points to make the cut to 15. Then you
>>>>might move ahead just as above in composite scoring
>>>>because you were so impressive in interview and your
>>>>speaking ability on stage.
>>>>
>>>>Now on to final competition. Please note once a
>>>>contestant is in top 15, judges are asked to not
>>score
>>>>below a 6 during final competition. Girl 2 will need
>>>>to make up points to move ahead of girl 1 or anyone
>>>>else scoring higher in composite. This is not likely
>>>>because she would need to score 9s while girl 1
>would
>>>>need to score 7s. Remember they already like girl 1
>>in
>>>>her speaking abilities. This is why some say the
>>>>judges meeting determines the top 10 and top 5.
>>>>Placement among the 15 is hard to change post one
>>>>category of competition. Meaning if you are placed
>>>>12th it is not likely you will bump out 11 and 10
>>>>after one category and move into the top 10.
>>>>
>>>>Girl 1 composite 65 talent 6+6+6=18×3.0=54 OSI
>>>>10+10+10=30×2.5=75 EG 10+9+9=28×2.0=56 Total
>final
>>>>score 250
>>>>Girl 2 composite 50 talent 9+9+9=27×3.0=81 OSI
>>>>7+7+7=21×2.5=52.5 EG 7+7+7=21×2.0=42 Total final
>>>>score 225.5
>>>>
>>>>Girl 1 makes top 5 girl 2 does not. Note girl 2 fell
>>>>behind even more as talent percentage decreased to
>>>>30%. Top five scores are wiped clean and girls are
>>>>given a final question that is not scored but viewed
>>>>to help with the ranking of the final ballot. Judges
>>>>are to rank from 1 being highest giving 10 points to
>>5
>>>>being lowest giving 0 points as to whom they feel is
>>>>the best over all candidate for the job of Miss SC.
>>>>Where this gets crazy is when the 1s are split among
>>>>the judges. Basically anyone in the top five can
>come
>>>>up on top. Judges are charged with staying
>consistent
>>>>with ranking based on their scoring but judges are
>>>>human and can have a change of heart when it comes
>to
>>>>ranking. There are too many scenarios to post here
>>and
>>>>this post is long enough. I will leave you to play
>>>>with numbers for final ballot and this final
>>thought.
>>>>
>>>>It is not all about the scoring numbers in SC and
>>most
>>>>of you know that. Fund raising efforts are seen by
>>>>judges during competition top 5 and awards are given
>>>>out on stage. This may or may not have an effect on
>a
>>>>judge consciously or subconsciously. Emphasis has
>for
>>>>a number years has been on being the Miracle Maker.
>>>>Whether anyone likes it or not fund raising plays a
>>>>role in this competition. Tell me one Miss winner in
>>>>the last 7 years that did not either sell the most
>ad
>>>>pages, bring in a diamond sponsor or make top 5 for
>>>>miracle maker.
|
|
Feedback: 