|
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Not to question your assurance of the chairperson, but if there's no discussions after the judges releases the composite of the Top 10 among the Top 15, then we are still left with more questions than answers. Because candidates after having already been scored for prelims, are now given another opportunity to be low balled or overly compensatedo to get a winner, in spite of their scores. Seems really unfair to those who were well rounded in every phase of competition and received high scoring, to be reevaluated. This is now where how the judges were charged comes in with the 6-10. Based on how MSCO charged the judges, judges can over rule their own scores to give a State what they want by low balling some and over compensating others points! Or the judges were NOT given the correct 15 from the onset and the TOTAL pageant was rigged. So unfair to candidates and people who believed in a crooked system.
|
Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]
|
Date Posted: Tuesday, July 23, 08:32:48am
>>>>>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.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
|
|
Feedback: 