Design absolutely impacts the score. The point being made here is that it isn't the entire score, it just contributes to it in a way that can be enhanced (or diminished) by the performers.
Design absolutely impacts the score. The point being made here is that it isn't the entire score, it just contributes to it in a way that can be enhanced (or diminished) by the performers.
The point here, I think, being that it can be argued that for some of these shows we're seeing scoring so well in General Effect, it is indeed the second subcaption of PERF that is carrying the REP subcaption. The article says that the PERF score can boost the REP score because as performers "sell the product" more, the judge buys in, understands, and is able to read out of the performance more of the design's intention - hence adding to the effect. But, if the show has design flaws, judges shouldn't be keeping the REP score at a stead pace with the PERF score. It's frowned upon to give a bottom heavy score (8.5 in REP and 8.8 in PERF,) because this seems as you're saying that what was performed on the field was perfect, so perfect in fact, that the performers are actually outperforming what's been given - they need more. It also raises the question of how can a performance be better than the design of what is being performed - we think that the PERF subcaption is mutual exclusive to the REP subcaption, and is certainly taught that way in some circles (not implying it is at DCI.) But what bottom heavy scoring like this could perhaps tell a designer is that while the design of the production needs work, the performers are achieving at such a high rate that they are, in fact, out performing the production.
I really like to view it as Repertoire Quality and Performance Quality. That helps nullify the question posed of how the performance can be better than the rep, however we still see those numbers staying super close instead of having the separation that honestly, I personally think should be there more often. If you're going to have a .5 or .6 spread in favor of the Rep, you should also be able to see that in favor of Perf.
Design absolutely impacts the score. The point being made here is that it isn't the entire score, it just contributes to it in a way that can be enhanced (or diminished) by the performers.
Yes, it’s the performance of the design that creates effect. And excellent performance can elevate a lesser designed program.
The point here, I think, being that it can be argued that for some of these shows we're seeing scoring so well in General Effect, it is indeed the second subcaption of PERF that is carrying the REP subcaption. The article says that the PERF score can boost the REP score because as performers "sell the product" more, the judge buys in, understands, and is able to read out of the performance more of the design's intention - hence adding to the effect. But, if the show has design flaws, judges shouldn't be keeping the REP score at a stead pace with the PERF score. It's frowned upon to give a bottom heavy score (8.5 in REP and 8.8 in PERF,) because this seems as you're saying that what was performed on the field was perfect, so perfect in fact, that the performers are actually outperforming what's been given - they need more. It also raises the question of how can a performance be better than the design of what is being performed - we think that the PERF subcaption is mutual exclusive to the REP subcaption, and is certainly taught that way in some circles (not implying it is at DCI.) But what bottom heavy scoring like this could perhaps tell a designer is that while the design of the production needs work, the performers are achieving at such a high rate that they are, in fact, out performing the production.
I really like to view it as Repertoire Quality and Performance Quality. That helps nullify the question posed of how the performance can be better than the rep, however we still see those numbers staying super close instead of having the separation that honestly, I personally think should be there more often. If you're going to have a .5 or .6 spread in favor of the Rep, you should also be able to see that in favor of Perf.