Howard: thanks for your patience with me. I obviously am not doing a very good job of explaining this. And Bill: thanks for saying what I was trying to say.
It seems to me that comparing total scores (and thus, resulting placement of pilots, as in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd) is more concerned with excluding favoritism by judges. By comparing the judge's maneuver scores, one is trying to actually discern which judges are doing the best job of scoring. I think that developing this method would benefit our judging core by helping show who is on the mark and who isn't. I don't think that (within reason) it should matter that a particular judge scores high or low as long as they score consistently. But, total score comparisons as done now, tends to drive towards an average. If your goal is excellence, your target should not be "average".
Career-wise, I wish I had known this stuff about 20 years ago to use as a management tool.
Bill: I'm not sure how much I can help, but would be glad to go over anything you suggest.
I hope you guys do great in Poland!
Scott