How should judges deal with a problematic beer from an entrant?

In a judging context, particularly under the guidelines of the BJCP, it is essential for judges to maintain a respectful and professional demeanor when evaluating beers. Refraining from public derision aligns with the principles of constructive feedback and professionalism. This approach ensures that all entrants feel valued and encouraged, regardless of the quality of their submission.

Judging should not be an intimidating experience for participants, and public criticism or open disdain can discourage them from entering competitions in the future. It is important for judges to provide feedback in a manner that is both educational and supportive, fostering an environment that promotes learning and improvement. By choosing not to publicly criticize, judges uphold the integrity of the competition and support the brewing community as a whole.

Furthermore, discussing a problematic beer openly among judges can still be part of the process, but it should never devolve into negative commentary that could be overheard or construed as ridicule towards the entrant. Silent judging, while it may seem less confrontational, does not provide the opportunity for collaborative or educational discussions regarding the issues with the beer. Ultimately, the priority should always be about providing fair, constructive, and respectful feedback that benefits both entrants and the overall quality of the competition.