Re: Fees, etc.

["Roger S. Miller" <rgrmill@rt66.com>]

On Sun, 11 Jul 1999, James Purchase wrote:

> If the
> AGA is able to fund the contest, then I think that it _should_ be free of
> cost for participants, members or not - we want as many people as possible
> to enter, and any entrance fee, however small, will discourage at least
> _some_ people. but this point remains open to general discussion and input.

The contest appears to be an excellent promotional opportunity for AGA.
I don't think it helps AGA to discourage entrants, including by charging a
fee.

> Internet access and a large part of the audience and potential "entrants
> pool" will be folks who do not have such access and it might be rather
> unfair if they are effectively "frozen out" of this portion of the voting
> process. If anyone can think of ways around this, I'd be glad to hear them.

To this point the internet orientation of the contest has been pretty
inherent.  As long as we keep it on line I think the costs will remain
low.  If we expand the contest to allow off-line participation the
costs will probably rise.

Requiring internet access for participation is a small requirement.
People can get access even without personal accounts and even in remote
places.  This was brought home to me last winter when I received email
from a friend who was passing through Bolivia.  On foot.  He found an
"internet cafe" and mailed from there.

Regardless of any internet availability, some people (like my
mother-in-law) will simply never use it, even if it would serve their best
interests.  Maybe it's harsh, but I think the cost of allowing those
people equal access to the contest will be prohibitive.

 ---------------------

On to other things:


Schedule:

As Robert Hudson pointed out, the timing of the contest is fairly
important to promotions.  I think promotion is an important aspect because
I want to see the broadest participation we can get at a reasonable cost.
Also, promotion is good for AGA.

I think this winter is probably the best time to do it.  How about
accepting entries from Dec. 1 through Dec. 31, and (after the
catastrophic Y2K crash, world depression and famine) have judging Jan
1 through Jan 31?

I suspect some folks on APD will be distressed at having the contest that
far in the future.


Judging:

Among the question marks on the draft outline I mailed, I put the 2nd
highest priority on the standards for judging.  We haven't talked much
about that at all.  I proposed a panel of 5 to be chosen from AGA.  There
would be other options.  I think that the artistry displayed in the
aquascape has to be the primary criterion.  This is not a simple criterion
and other criteria are probably needed.  We really need input and this is
a point where someone who has juried art shows might be able to give us
some good input.

Any ideas?


Roger Miller