Re: AGA CONTEST - Digest V1 #148

[krandall@world.std.com]

At 04:12 AM 7/29/99 -0700, Olga wrote:

>Eric posted:
>
>It's funny, actually, I helped judge a fish show last weekend (something
>which convinced me I'd much rather be photographing than judging), and in
>the "community aquarium" category one of the criteria was "lack of toxic
>materials -- 1 to 3 points".
>________________
>This is hilarious.  There is a decoration at the lfs that consists of a
>[non toxic] platic grouping of black barrels labeled "toxic" and leaking
>purple stuff.

What about the little "cherub" we saw in the tank in Manaus "peeing"
bubbles into the tank!<g>  A lot of ammonia there!

>"Camoflauge"...now there's a good one! I have to admit that I sometimes
>find peoples placement of heaters, filters etc. most unappealing.
>"Container suitability".... humm... toilet bowls would probably score low.

It worked for Charlene on the trip.  I have it on film. Of course, she
mostly used terrestrial plants.

Seriously, although I don't think we should bar anyone from entering
whatever they want, I think the judges can easily sort that stuff out
without our "helpful" guidelines.

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

 Jason Luebke wrote:

>Subject: My thoughts on Judging Guidlines
>
>Just a few thoughts:
>I like Version A for the most part. I would prefer to use (B.5) instead of
>(A.5), then it would look like:
>
>Version A -
>
>1. Theme / Concept
>2. Selection / Use of Materials
>3. Composition / Balance / Use of Space
>4. Viability
>5. Overall Impression
>
>Comments:
>1. Theme / Concept
>       I think this should be weighted lower than the others, I think that
>5% which was already suggested is reasonable. This is  for more
>accomplished aquascapers, but is worth some value as well.

I'm still not sold on "Theme as a category, though I won't argue it if
others feel it's really necessary.  As Jason points out, I wouldn't give it
a high point value.  Use it more as "extra credit".

>2. Selection / Use of Materials
>       25%.
>3. Composition / Balance / Use of Space
>       Use of colour would come under this section. 25%.

Then it should be included in the description for the criteria.

>4. Viability
>       15%.
>5. Overall Impression 
>       I think that this one is relatively important. When I look at a
>tank, my first impression is worth a lot. I would probably give        this
>one 30%. Other than that, I prefer the wording compared to the WOW factor
>although it is basically the same idea.

I'm not sure I'd split the points exactly this way, but I thought we were
holding off on that for now?  

Just for the record, I never seriously presented "Wow factor" as the _name_
of a category.  I was trying to get a specific point across.  I don't think
anyone really expected that "wow factor" would be the wording used in the
judging criteria.  But it sure got everyone's attention.  There was no
argument about what I _meant_!<g>

Karen
  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
  with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
  in the same message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest