With the 2007 Calypso competition having just ended and the usual controversies around the decision-making process being to the fore, one devotee proposes a change to the judging of the competition.

Fixing Our Calypso Judging

Key Areas are:

1. Rank scoring, not raw scores
2. Tighter marking system
3. Publicizing anonymous score sheets 
4. Criteria for selecting judges 
5. Informing the public of changes

Since the days of Lord Shorty, and I’m sure long before, people have been interfering in Calypso: those of you old enough will remember Shorty reporting being admonished by Eric Williams for telling him what to do with his finger.

The differences we often see between expected and actual results can easily be explained by anomalies allowed by our current judging system, as I explain below.

Scores of 5 judges only are given for the purposes of the example. If only 2 of the 5 judges gave Calypsonian Y high scaled marks for either or both songs, the unexpected results obtained are easily explicable. For example:

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

In all three examples given, 3 judges would have scored Calypsonian X higher than Calypsonian Y (2 judges), but because of differing scales of scoring employed by judges 4 & 5 in the first 2 examples Calypsonian Y would have been declared the winner. Where judges 4 & 5 employed a similar scale to the other 3 judges (example 3), Calypsonian X would rightly have been crowned.

The current system equates one judge’s apples (points) with another judge’s oranges (points), and they are not always the same, even for experienced judges. This is one of the main reasons why we sometimes have anomalous placings, sometimes surprising even to the judges who took part in the process!

A ranking system where each artiste is given, say, 5 points if placed first by a judge, 4 points for second and 3 points for third, etc, should be utilized. The total ‘ranking scores’ would then be used to place the contestants, rather than the raw scores we currently use. Even now judges often use this method to break ties, but is not applied when there is no ‘raw points’ closeness as can easily occur (as in the examples above) when the raw scoring is skewed by incomprehensible scores given by one or two chosen or misguided judges.

Furthermore, the raw scores of all judges should be published anonymously, so that if there are any glaring anomalies of judging committed, the public can be made aware and insist upon a reckoning. Closer marking schemes are also important, and should form a part of Judging Workshops, which all prospective judges should attend regularly, as specified by the Calypso Committee regulations.

The public is accustomed to raw scores, and the change would have to be explained to them beforehand. We are a bright people and this is not beyond us, and the published raw scores with explanation would remove any doubt.We can accept the current system, and when it suits us, say “that’s how the judges saw it”. Or we can try to fix it. Apples are not Oranges.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 15th, 2008 at 11:36 pm and is filed under music & arts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.