You be the judge

[big923cattleya]

Ten foot poles are fairly rare?! I really have no idea.

 

[Tony]

... I'm not touching this with a ten-foot pole.

No fun

 

[tnyr5]

Okay fine, one ***.
An HCC isn't a consolation prize...
...
...
...
...
... It's a participation trophy.
* Takes off running *

 

[Tony]

As long as you're around nobody can call me the mean Tony.

 

[tnyr5]

I'm not mean; I'm evil.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

There will always be supporters and critic of any awards. And that’s ok.

Sometimes mistakes do happen and who knows what happened when an award (esp an FCC) was given. Sometimes the great size of the flower was the trigger, other times the color. The experiences of the judges should ideally moderate these extremes but sometimes a strong opinion of one could influence the scoring.

I am a big proponent of the peer review of the awards and have the judging HQ approve all awards prior to printing it publicly. This will avoid much grief and criticisms.

 

[Ozpaph]

i wouldnt think its impractical to review all awards. Perhaps all FCCs should be reviewed and 'active' feedback to the judging centre provided.

 

[big923cattleya]

Peer review really? I could not support that idea.
In my mind that defeats the entire purpose of having a judging system. If we spend the time and effort to recruit a judge, then train them, then certify them, and then we review all awards granted by the judges, what is the point in having judges at all???
I am sorry but that won’t fly with me.
Suddenly my knowledge, my opinion, are rendered useless. I would be out the door before you could blink.

AOS judging at shows would disappear. I have to travel to a show, perhaps get a room, have a meal or two out, pay for gas just to be second guessed?!?!?! That is just not acceptable. Judges are not paid or reimbursed financially and now you feel the need to second guess us “Volunteers”? Are you serious???!
What is the point????

If you feel the need to review any award for what ever the reason, that shows that you do not trust the judges to reach the correct decision. Says who?????

 

[Tony]

Peer review of every award is overkill, but there should be some way to challenge an obviously incorrect award. It is embarrassing that something like this is allowed to stand:

 

[big923cattleya]

Like I have said already, the system is not perfect. It can not be made perfect. If you feel errors are made, we kind of have to accept that they are going to happen.
You want to correct what you think is a mistake regarding Paph. Hung Sheng Eagle, who are you to say so, (not you personally Tony but anyone) it happens. Mistakes may be made and not everyone looking in may agree with an award but peer review or a challenge to an award is not a workable solution.
If you don’t agree, then you don’t agree.
If that is really the way to go, then throw all the judges out!!! Let robots do it! OR just do away with the entire judging system.

How long might it take a human being somewhere to complain about the awards granted by the robots?!?!?!?

 

[Tony]

Like I have said already, the system is not perfect. It can not be made perfect. If you feel errors are made, we kind of have to accept that they are going to happen.
You want to correct what you think is a mistake regarding Paph. Hung Sheng Eagle, who are you to say so, (not you personally Tony but anyone) it happens. Mistakes may be made and not everyone looking in may agree with an award but peer review or a challenge to an award is not a workable solution.
If you don’t agree, then you don’t agree.
If that is really the way to go, then throw all the judges out!!! Let robots do it! OR just do away with the entire judging system.

How long might it take a human being somewhere to complain about the awards granted by the robots?!?!?!?

It's not a Hung Sheng Eagle, it's a Chiu Hua Dancer and it should have been obvious to the judging team that they weren't looking at the right grex when they did their research. Somewhere between three and five people who each spent a decade or more training couldn't spot one of the most famous Paphs of all time (sanderianum) in a primary hybrid that should have been made with what is probably the single most important Paph species (rothschildianum) and you don't think anyone should be able to challenge that award? Every judge in that center should be embarrassed to have their names on that.

 

[big923cattleya]

Well I get it, it is a mistake but to call it into question, to review it, to invalidate the award is not going to keep it from happening again.

And to answer a question that you may want to ask me is NO, I am not embarrassed. I am going to eat my breakfast, have dinner, visit with my family today and drive home to Michigan tomorrow. I won’t feel any different because of this award, mistaken or not. My life will go on. It will disappear from my mind in a short while.
Like I said previously. All I can control is my little corner of the world. I can only work on what is in front of me.
When I pass, hopefully greeted by Saint Peter and allowed in, the fact that that award is not justified or is incorrect will have no real consequence. I don’t worry about things I can’t control. If that kind of stuff really got to me, I could not function as a person.
If peer review ever came to pass in my opinion like I said earlier, I think the system would fail and quickly disappear forever.

But it has been a thought provoking thread!!

 

[Tony]

So what value is there in a judging system where identification of the plants involved is diregarded and nothing can ever be questioned?

 

[big923cattleya]

No, we can ask that a species identification can be challenged. That does happen. If it is entered as Laelia anceps and an accredited member of the team does not think that is correct, a request can be made to have it ID’d. The award is then “provisional” until the species is verified by an accepted taxonomic authority.

There is no such system in place for a hybrid that comes to mind. Yes we can wonder if it is correct, we can talk about it and discus it but to refuse to accept it as entered is rough. We would need a strong reason, a certainty against the plant for us to dismiss it. We are suppose to judge it as entered. Perhaps in thinking about that, maybe I have been involved in an occurrence like that previously. But it is rare.
I know that I have been on a team where we suspect that we have an awarded mericlone in front of us, say Rlc. George King ‘Serendipity’. We are in fact almost 99% sure that that is what this plant is but the color seems a bit off, a shade no body has seen before. How can we prove that? Our suspicion is not proof. Just a suspicion. Maybe we could pass on it. I don’t remember a case of that happening to my recollection. Interesting though!
But as you suspect, the judges should know their stuff. But it depends on their training, their exposure to as many orchids as possible. But does anyone in the center or on that team know or realize that the plant is NOT what it reports to be. With the judging community getting smaller, older, etc. how can you reasonably safeguard against that?

But a peer review of every award to me is not the answer.

 

[big923cattleya]

The value in the system might be that 98 or 99.5% of all awards are legitimate. The very few that might not be correct can’t destroy the rest of the system.
Then it is a case of “the tail wagging the dog”! Should that happen? No. You don’t discard or invalidate an entire system over that. You try to improve it and move on.

 

[DrLeslieEe]

Peer review really? I could not support that idea.
In my mind that defeats the entire purpose of having a judging system. If we spend the time and effort to recruit a judge, then train them, then certify them, and then we review all awards granted by the judges, what is the point in having judges at all???
I am sorry but that won’t fly with me.
Suddenly my knowledge, my opinion, are rendered useless. I would be out the door before you could blink.

AOS judging at shows would disappear. I have to travel to a show, perhaps get a room, have a meal or two out, pay for gas just to be second guessed?!?!?! That is just not acceptable. Judges are not paid or reimbursed financially and now you feel the need to second guess us “Volunteers”? Are you serious???!
What is the point????

If you feel the need to review any award for what ever the reason, that shows that you do not trust the judges to reach the correct decision. Says who?????

What’s the point? Hmmm let’s see… we question some awards earlier, like the FCCs. There are some HCC’s and AMs which are questionable too if you look closely.

Anyways, just a suggestion. No need to rile your feathers as an insult. I never said AOS judges (like yourself) are not qualified at all. They are some of the best in the world. It’s more like a screening.

As Tony mentioned, any award can be challenged to AOS. If merited, they will look at it closely and adjust (or removed) if necessary… like that FCC roth.

So technically, it was done as a ‘peer review’ in a way. Challenged and removed!

Peer review is common for scientific papers. Just saying.

 

[Tom-DE]

In my profession, every few years, an independent peer review by another firm is required under the state laws and it limits future errors in our works...and it is a good thing.
I put my egos away when it comes to peer review.

 

[Tony]

Point scores could be second guessed and debated all day long but I would think that nullifying or correcting awards with clear taxonomic errors should not be controversial at all.

 

[big923cattleya]

There is a task force or process in place to handle questions of species idents. I have no idea as to the amount of those that they deal with over the course of a year.
We can question names of species, ID’s really, at the centers but it rarely happens that I am aware of.

Hybrids are trickier.
I am not going to rehash that at the moment.

 

[FrankRC]

And please let’s not forget about the obvious ethical issues in the judging system that call into question many awards. Peer review helps address some, not all, of the glaring ethical deficiencies and problems with AOS judging. Then we can move on to the obvious lack of adequate knowledge on the part of some judges, of which the photo of Chi Hua Dancer and that plant being awarded as a Roth hybrid is but one of hundreds and perhaps thousands of mislabeled and misidentified plants in the AOS award data base. Without a mechanism in place to address these two issues in particular, such as revocation of awards and suspension of judges who can’t ID a Phrag. longifolium but think they are qualified to judge the plants, the entire system is a house of cards in the process of collapsing. Thereafter we can address the obvious conflicts of interest in orchid dealers being orchid judges. Perhaps we will have a decent system one day. Unfortunately that day is not today.