Hi All

Is there some form of training course to become a FISM jugde ??
Or any other big size magic competition ??

I know it takes a lot of experience, both how do they find a line in the voting ??

Thanks in advance

In this question, the answer is quite simple. There is no training to be a judge.

I have yet to see any criteria posted other than mine, which rates contestants on an objective basis. So far all contests are subjective and rates contestants, on personal experiences, feelings, opinions, what they like or dislike, what they do, etc.

This is not how professional ratings should be scored.

There should be lists of expected behaviors for each dimension. The dimension is specific such as originality, presentation, etc.

There should be a 4 point scoring system so the "average" score cannot be selected. Either the candidate is above average or below average. How much determines the final score.

This has been posted in several locations.

I posted this in this section "way back". I have been trained in developing "behaviors skills/techniques" for a variety of job descriptions.

If you are serious about winning contests, you will evaluate your act with the below criteria. It is no guarantee because most judges do not have the skill or techniques necessary to judge fairly. Personal preference cloud their judgments, they judge by "feelings" and not tasks. They also do not know what is original, or have stage presence to determine presentation skills. If they like what they see, then that is the way they judge. Often points scales are prejudice. the larger the scale the more errors are made. One judge given a candidate a (1) on a 10 point scale, eliminates the candidate completely. A four point scale is the best. There are no averages, you are either above or below average. and in that category you are either better or less than the others being judged. No one can say what the difference between a 6 and 7, or 8 and 9, or 3 and 4, it is very subjective.

Another major fault in judges is allowing their personalities to determine who they think is better than others. One can be a stickler for perfection, another could view the candidate not as good as them, one could feel for the candidate and give an undeserving higher score. There are many other "errors" that make the coring systems faulty.

Here is a great guide to determine if you are ready for a contest:

To increase your chances in winning, remember you are performing for professionals who have seen a lot of magic so out of the package stuff and standard routines and patter won't cut it.

In studying contests, in general, I was developing a list of behaviors or dimensions which I would judge an individual. These are not IBM or SAM or anybody else's requirements, just expected behaviors of a performer. They are practical and some form of written guidelines to follow to ensure a successful chance of winning.

I rated on a 1-4 scale and purposely left out average because average is a point where one can't make up their mind, therefore, one needs to be above average or below average. These guidelines also are designed for a judge who has been around a lot and can be reasonably objective based on a broad understanding of the magic entertaining business. The purpose of these guidelines is to eliminate subjectivity.

Scoring Criteria: will be based on a one to four scale in each dimension:

• 4. Exceptional Performance
  
• 3. Above Average, No Glaring Mistakes or Errors
  
• 2. Below Average, Mistakes Obvious
  
• 1. Needs Work
  

Scoring Dimensions: Contest entrants should be judged on the basis of the following dimensions:

• Presentation: The performer connected with the audience
  
  4. The performer "WOWed" the audience, connected with the audience, and the audience could see the performance over and over again.
  3. The performer demonstrated smooth transition between routines, and a positive connected with the audience, a repeat performance would also be enjoyable.
  2. The performer has some transitions between effects, connected with the audience but needs work on entertaining the audience.
  1. There was little transition between effects or routines, it appeared to be a series of unrelated effects, haphazardly presented with little or no audience connection.
  
  
• Stage Presence: Confidence in one's abilities, attitude of assurance knowing the routine extremely well, well practiced, eye contact with audience, comfortable performing.
  
  4. The performer demonstrated confidence and was comfortable with the routine, well rehearsed, with an attitude of assurance in performance
  3. The performer demonstrated confidence and was comfortable with the routine, and made NO obvious mistakes or exposures.
  2. The performer demonstrated confidence and was comfortable with the routine, but made glaring mistakes or exposures.
  1. The performer needs a lot of practice, made glaring mistakes or exposured how the effect was done.
  
  
• Audience Appreciation: The audience obviously is enjoying the performance, the audience is having fun and being entertained
  
  4. By the applause and/or visual actions of the audience, they really appreciated the performance, and could watch the performance again, and again.
  3. By the applause, the audience appreciated and enjoyed the performance and wouldn't mind seeing it again.
  2. The applause was "forced", the performance was enjoyable, but once was enough.
  1. Little applause and the audience seemed bored or demonstrated a lack of interest in the performance, the entertainer did not entertain.
  
  
• Skills/Technique: The performer demonstrated the skills of a craftsman in the performance, clearly indicating a professional entertainer (magician).
  
  4. The performer clearly demonstrated manipulated skills with no mistakes, with cards, coins, canes, TTs, or any effect required skill to do well.
  3. The performer demonstrated manipulated skills with little or no glaring mistakes, with cards, coins, canes, TTs, or any effect required skill to do well.
  2. The performer demonstrated manipulated skills with glaring mistakes, with cards, coins, canes, TTs, or any effect required skill to do well.
  1. The performer demonstrated manipulated skills with several mistakes or exposure, with cards, coins, canes, TTs, or any effect required skill to do well.
  
  
• Originality: The performer developed, enhanced a routine that is original material.
  
  4. The performer demonstrated a routine and effect, which is clearly his own.
  3. The performer demonstrated a routine, which is clearly his own, and used standard effects. (Professor's Nightmare, 20th century Silks, etc.)
  2. The performer demonstrated a "stock routine", which for the most part is a common method.
  1. The performer copied a routine from another, with insufficient original material added.
  
  
• Humor: The performer entertained the audience with "appropriate" use of humor.
  
  4. There were numerous bits of business with continued laughter from the audience.
  3. The audience laughed over the added bits of business and the routine had several humorous elements to it.
  2. The audience smiled, chuckled and the routine has obvious humor elements.
  1. There was little or no laughter from the audience.
  
  
• Children Entertainment Value (Kid Show Contest): The performer clearly demonstrated an ability to entertain children, using humor, audience involvement and a child assistant.
  
  4. The routine was clearly geared for children, used audience participation, lots of humor, and involved a child's assistance.
  3. The routine was clearly geared for children, involved the audience, was funny, and involved a child's assistance.
  2. The routine wasn't clearly geared for children, used little audience participation, some humor, and did not involved a child's assistance.
  1. The routine wasn't clearly geared for children, used little or no audience participation, little humor, and did not involved a child's assistance.
  ---
  The below rating makes up for some dimensions that are not listed above and is uses as an adjustment score. It seemed perfect but something was missing or it wasn't perfect, however, it really was a outstanding performance.
  ---
  
• Overall Satisfaction of Performance: You were clearly entertained, you feel good about the performance, you had fun, and could watch the performance again because the performer has the right combination of skills, originality, stage presence, humor, music, effects, color, costume and connection with the audience.
  
  4. The performance has the right combination of skills, originality, stage presence, humor, music, effects, color, costume and connection with the audience.
  3. The performance has most of the right combination of skills, originality, stage presence, humor, music, effects, color, costume and connection with the audience.
  2. The performance lacks the right combination of skills, originality, stage presence, humor, music, effects, color, costume and connection with the audience.
  1. The performance needs much improvement related to combining skills, originality, stage presence, humor, music, effects, color, costume and connection with the audience.

Obviously, the Children's Dimension is for a contest which focuses on children entertainment. Not all the dimensions are required for every type of contest.

What is left out is Use of Music because music can take a bad act and push it into a good act. It can enhance a performance tremendously or it can hurt a performance equally by inappropriateness, timing is off and numerous other possible positive and negative behaviors. Music will push an act above a four and it can pull it below a one. The best acts use music and take that chance!

Hi Dennis

These rules are great, the use of 4 grades is giving a more fair contest
but I still think there will be more 3 grades then othe rbecause it is the safest.

You are right about the difference about 3-4 ect. know one knows the diffence.

One question is on my mind, which is the average level, and how to set it before a contest ??
Because if the average we jugde from is to high or low there will be a problem.

Have you ever send the rules to FISM ??

No Because I've found most organizations don't want to know the right way, and there should be training involved.

Average is left out so a person, must choose above or below.

The major drawback is this method could produce ties.

It is possible to have three fantastic acts.

Hi Dennis

I know you left out average, but the judges must be agree about the average level before the contest starts otherwise there will be the same difference between the votes as the “normal” system creates.
Because the judges will have there own opinion about average, and still make big difference between the votes.

But how do we select an act for the average level ???

I will try to implement your guide lines for our next competitions in Denmark

Thanks

Ask 10 people what an average magic act is and you will get 10 different answers.

What I think is average is based on my exposure to the acts in that category.

My best guess for average in this case is simple. Before they even start, they are given the benefit of doubt they are average. It is up to them to convince me they are better or worst than average. If they can't do better then they are worst.

Since they are competing, they believe they are good enough to win, hence they entered the contest. It up to me and my above criteria to compare each act with that criteria. Not compare "Act with Act".

You can have two totally different acts, both warrant a 4 in every category. If I was to compare acts, my subjectivity would be bias to my personal beliefs, opinions, and experience, etc. To avoid this the Act is compared to specific behavior actions (dimensions) which is very specific.

One other method to judge contestants, is to give all of them fours (4s) to start. From there what they lack reduces that score.
They move down to a three, missing some of that, they move down to a two.

When you have 3 (min) or 5 judges, and the scores are compared and a final average is calculated, you will be amazed at how close each of judges score. It then comes down to scores like 3.765 and 3.666. The winner is easily determined.

If there is a Master Judge, who reviews the scores and sees a score way out, then that score should be eliminated. Example Two judges score 4 and the third judge scores a 1. the master judge makes the determination which is correct. Are the 4's justified or are they friends of the contestant? When you have 5 judges, this error diminishes because 4 judges that score a 4,4,3,3, and another judge scores a 1, then there seems to be an error in judging. The 1 would be eliminated and the average score would be 3.5, with two comments on why this contestant didn't get a 4.

Add in a judging note why they think the contestant doesn't warrant the next score above, makes sure the judge is scoring correctly.

The Master judge (who doesn't physically judge them, just coordinates the scores), can compile these notes and give it to the contestant for improvement.

The Scoring Dimensions Dennis posted is very well thought out. The only thing I want to add is that Judges should NOT be magicians. They should be laymen. I found that there is favortism and bias among magicians in competitions that lay people would score more better.

I've also noticed that the winner of magic competitions should have been the loser and the act that was voted worst should have won. Sounds counter intuitive, I know

HH

Magicians can rate magicians if they focus on expected behaviors, not personal beliefs. Lay persons may not know what is skill from a TT trick.

I did give this chart to a person who had minimal experience and very new to magic. She took the chart and applied the criteria with two other well experienced magicians and the scoring were almost identical.

The big difference was in originality. She could not tell or even know if the act was original. The two magicians, pointed out the DVD in which the act was "lifted" from move by move.

Five judges from a "variety of walks of life" can do this well, however, a subject matter expert needs to be included so the raters, can ask technical questions.

Originality needs to be done by experience individuals.

One other point, no system is perfect.

SAM has one of the best judging systems I have ever worked with. It judges each act on its own not against each other.

But I agree with Dennis. In most other judging situation, I give the first act a 7 no matter how good he is. That allows you to go up and down according to other performances.

But I as I said SAM is the best. Paul Critelli picks a very good blend of judges ranging from illusions, manipulation, historical and stagecraft. This allows a very good cross section of opinions and expertise.

Richard

In Richard's case "I give the first act a 7 no matter how good he is." This is a subjective number with no objective behavioral criteria to support it.

The next "guy" arbitrary picks a "0" and they can only go up, or another guy picks a "10" and they can only go down. Some one starts at average "5" and they go up or down arbitrary. In all these cases it still is subjective.

Without objective criteria to support a starting point, the judging is in error even before the contest begins.

One needs a specific starting point and the smaller the range in numbers, the less likely subjectivity creeps in and the more likely a tie.

Example:
Scoring "1 or 2" : They are good (2) or not(1). Lots of ties.
Scoring "1 or 2 or 3" : They are Good (3) Average (2) or Poor(1). Lots of ties.
Scoring "1 through 9": : They are Good (7-8-9) Average (4-5-6) or Poor(1-2-3). minimal ties

In each Case, there is no specific criteria and that makes it completely subjective. The scoring is based on numerous factors. One's experience, or lack of experience, one's personal likes and dislikes, friends, and much much more.

Place Richard and another Layman with no experience together, and the possibilities in scores are limitless, from "harsh scoring" to "easy scoring" based on the personality of the scorer. One's personal likes and dislikes are the basic criteria. A TT performance equates with an illusion if presented right.