Just a quick note about Bob's argument...
As for the "judge in question"...was he actually judging, or test judging? Was he an alternate judge? Assuming he was a new judge (since you dont seem to know who he was given your vast knowledge.....) perhaps he was scoring in the wrong box, was scoring the wrong round, etc.....you have no idea what was being changed. As the highs and lows are thrown out, this ONE judges score wouldnt have amounted to much anyway. If he was way off, his score would have been dropped....if he was within a place, his score wouldnt need to be "changed"...
...while his might seem pretty plausible, as someone who is interested in system manipulation from a gaming perspective, I'd like to correct it.
If Bev and Steve really were editing a fellow judges scoresheet then manipulation of the final result is NOT out of the question.
Let me give you a hypothetical example, which might better elucidate some of the seemingly counter-intuitive strategies that actually can pay dividends under these circumstances; imagine four bodybuilders named A, B, C and D who should fairly be judged 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively.
If two judges want to change the results and have bodybuilder B win, then they have several options available to them by interfering with a third judges score:
-they could create a consensus of three identical scoresheets; if three judges rank bodybuilder B in 1st place then the dismissal of the highest and lowest scores in each round has NO EFFECT. Even if they are the ONLY judges who rank bodybuilder B in 1st and one of their scores are discarded, then they still succeed in having two unfair scores counted. If all the other scorecards are fair, then no matter how many other judges there are they still change the result: bodybuilder B in 1st.
-they could use the interfered with score card to rank bodybuilder A in 5th place instead of first, thereby guaranteeing that this score is excluded and skewing the averages for the other competitors. The real lowest score (which should fairly be discarded) is then included putting bodybuilder A at a disadvantage.
-they could each place a DIFFERENT top three finisher well OUT of the top three, thereby slightly reducing the average of all top three finishers (except for their favorite).
There are lots of strategies, but you get the idea...
This kind of thing is not impossible given the current judging system... remember, in an averaged ranking, you can sometimes better rig the vote by awarding your favorite consistent 2nd places, while attributing 1sts and 3rds to his competitors.
But why am I discussing these subtle intricacies? Everyone knows bodybuiding shows are rigged by fixing the callouts... it's very easy to determine places by avoiding certain callouts. Until every competing bodybuilder is compared with every other competing bodybuilder in combinations of two; three or four with a live scoreboard at prejudging (and hopefully simultaneous audience voting) we won't have honest contests.
In fact, if you were careful to avoid direct comparisons, I'm pretty sure you could lock a guy who should be second (or maybe even first) in eighth place because he used to do a bit of porn.
The Luke
