Ethical or not, that’s how I’ve always seen it done. It is interesting to see how the sausage is made.
There is some value in the discussion, especially if the judges re-taste (“you’re right, there is a little diacetyl; I missed that first go-around.”)
In my opinion, the IDEAL procedure would be
- both (all) judges fill out the scoresheet, both scores and comments,
- judges talk through their impressions,
- if the scores are very far apart, and if resources permit (probably not common), an additional judge is called to fill out a scoresheet (also before talking to the other judges),
- the lead judge writes up any additional comments from the discussion in a separate section, but the original scoresheets are not changed, and
- a consensus score (which does not need to be the numerical average of the individual scores and can also reflect the discussion) is assigned.
Instead, what has happened EVERY time I’ve judged (a moderate but not large number of competitions) is
- the judges fill out their scoresheets,
- judges discuss,
- the competition organizer has set some maximum number of points that scores can differ by,
- if the scores are farther apart than this, the judges adjust their scores, and sometimes their comments (“I could take few point more off of mouthfeel…”), and
- a consensus score, which does not have to be the average but almost always is, is assigned.