Here's the situation. The delta between the scores was almost twenty points. It was one of those beers that people either loved or hated (50% of the non-flight judges who tasted the beer loved it whereas the other fifty percent thought that it should be dumped). I was going to give the beer a courtesy score of 13 before I saw the other judge's score sheet. Our comments were so different that it made me believe that we must have tasted different beers. I bumped my score up to 29, but there was no way that I was going to give a seriously flawed beer a forty. The other judge would not budge. The head judge was clearly uncomfortable judging the category. He did not have an opinion one way or the other, so he adjusted his score up to move the beer on. I finally reached the point were I told the head judge to throw out my score because there was no way that I was going to give the beer a score anywhere near forty.
If you gave it a 13 and the other guy gave it a 40, then you thought it was flawed and the other guy didn't. What flaw did you find?
I often have to force myself to be objective when judging IPAs as I really don't like CTZ hops, but a lot of people do, so I have to try to be objective even when I feel like dumping the beer down the drain.