[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Index by Month]
Re: AGA CONTEST - Digest V1 #158
Howdy again I ve got a few points to bring up (again??).
I did a a lot of cutting and deleting to respond to a couple of points
that got my eye this morning. Ken mentioned something about pre-screening
for altered/faked tanks , but he also was the first to mention ree tanks in
that context too. I believe that a reef tank is an aquascaped tank. On the
cutting in the bottom someone (James?) set up a list of tank cat. and
mentioned none planted and others where do we draw the line? We should make
all this clear, and not to sound elitist, now to the next point
Jennifer made a good point about an elitist list(group). If you wait
until you get all the entries in and then break them down to classes, you
may upset someone who wanted to be entered in a different class all
together. If you tell everyone there is no reef tanks allowed you may turn
off the group that have both types of systems (salt and fresh water).
As to "pre-announce 50 to 100 specific Categories and then only get 10
entries for the whole Contest" I do not believe that we could relly look
for that many, but if there was like 10 categories and only one entery in
one showed up call the enery or E-mail them and ask if they wouldn't mind
being moved to another that would cover the tank type. If I entered a
"Brackish tank" with fish from Asia as a brackish and there wasn't another
or enough enteries, move me to bio-type cat.
I think I've said enough today. I will be leaving for Boston on
Thursday AM, so I will not be getting any E-mail for a few days. JiM C.
>Judging Guidelines
>- - Should entries be pre-screened for altered/faked images BEFORE being
>passed to Judges?
>- - Should Criteria points be expanded upon so that ALL Judges know exactly
>what we expect to be consided under each main point? (Jose posted something
>
>Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 14:32:33 -0400
>From: "Jennifer Glover" <jglover@autometric.com>
>Subject: Elitist list
>
>Is this still the right list for the contest discussion? I seem to be
>seeing messages referring to another list/grouping of people that is
>private. I thought the point of this list was to have people's
>opinions on the contest and I would think that would include the mock
>contest as well. Maybe I missed something though. I sometimes don't
>get all the postings, so maybe I just missed this as well. I saw that
>James Purchase wanted some mock judges for the mock contest, but I
>thought that only the "respected" people on this list should apply as
>judges, so I didn't. I may not be the most advanced aquatist, but I
>would still like to be a part of the contest formation. My opinions
>may not get the same "weight" as others, but that doesn't mean that I
>should be excluded. Just what is the deal? I am not trying to be
>uppity here, just curious. I don't write well, so please excuse the
>tone of the message if it sounds harsh.
>
>Jennifer Glover
>Waldorf, MD
>- --
>Ken writes: I think we could be chancing it if WE decided to exclude ANY
>entry without first doing some investigation into a questionable entry. A
>simple telephone call or email to the entrant to ask him/her a few
questions
>about the authenticity of the entry should resolve the matter. Several
>volunteers could easily handle the few that would be questionable (I would
>volunteer to do this). However, we should make it VERY explicit that
>altered/fake entries will not be acceptable.
>
>James wrote: >> Clear guidelines provided on the number and viewpoint of
>individual images in each submission.<<
>
>Ken writes: Yes, definitely. To keep things simple, I suggest two, maybe
>three photos at the most (with only one encouraged). One overall, frontal
>shot and maybe two angled, front shots which some of the sides showing. All
>photos should be within a short time frame of minutes, not days or months.
>
>James wrote: >>- How many entries are required before a Category can be
>examined and a winner declared?
>Ken writes: If we wait until we see how many entries there will eventually
>be, I think this will fall into place. When we announce the
>showcase/competition, I think we should encourage all types of aquascapes
to
>be entered. We could tighten down the definition of "aquascape" to
eliminate
>things like "reef tanks", fakes, etc., but if we get some beautiful
examples
>of aquascapes we didn't have the foresight to predict, why should we
exclude
>them from the competition? In subsequent competitions/showcases, we should
>have a much better feel for what the categories will be. I just think it
>would be more prudent to wait to see what we are dealing with before the
>categories are decided.
>
>James wrote:>>- Is only First Place to be awarded, or do we award 1st, 2nd
>and 3rd Place? What about Honourable Mentions for tanks which are nice but
>don't place?<<
>
>Ken writes: I would go along with 1st, 2nd and third places, with honorable
>mentions in categories that have enough entries and deserve to be
mentioned.
>I would also like to see the Best of Show award too.
>James wrote >>General How feasible is it to provide Judges with all
entries
>on CD-ROM for judging? This is really up to Erik. How much would each
CD-ROM
>cost?<<
>Re: Categories - I can see the validity of what Ken says about Categories,
>and I think I had suggested long ago that we forego that kind of discussion
>until later or until we actually get the images. We'd look awfully stupid
to
>pre-announce 50 to 100 specific Categories and then only get 10 entries for
>the whole Contest. But the kinds of Categories I was thinking of here, and
>now, are really rather wide ranging and general, as in the following:
>
>Underwater Gardens - only natural materials allowed
>Underwater Gardens - natural and man-made materials allowed
>Biotope Tanks - only natural materials allowed, and the tank must be an
>attempt to re-create a specific natural environment.
>- - Planted
>- - Non-Planted
>Rift Lake Tanks
>Community Tanks - plastic and man made materials allowed
>Fantasy Tanks - anything goes, so long as the image is REAL.
>etc.
>
>These are _only_ suggestions and I'm putting them forward now because I can
>forsee major logistical problems for Erik if he has 200 entries of all
types
>and he has to try sorting them out himself before he burns a CD-ROM without
>having at least _some_ idea of general categories to go by.
>
>Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 18:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
>Subject: RE: Mock Judging Results - Ken's Points
>On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, James Purchase wrote:
>> Re: Point Scores and consistency between judges
>category is.
>
>[categories]
>
>> Underwater Gardens - only natural materials allowed
>
>Uh, we've been here before. I don't want to go here again. I think
>everyone would be disqualified in this category.
>
> - Erik
>
>- --
>Erik Olson
>erik at thekrib dot com
>
>
>>> Underwater Gardens - only natural materials allowed
>
>>Uh, we've been here before. I don't want to go here again. I think
>>everyone would be disqualified in this category.
>
>Hahahahaha! As I recall, while we were "discussing" underwater gardening
and
>everyone here was telling me that they don't try to design aquascapes to
>"themes" or "concepts", there was a thread on the APD about exactly that -
>and there seemed to be a lot people who expressed an interest in being as
>accurate as possible in their tanks.
>
>I'm not bringing up "underwater gardens" to re-open old wounds - I'm just
>trying to find a way of lessening or simplifying the amount of work that is
>going to have to be done once entries start coming in. We should have
_some_
>idea of general categories tanks might fall into...... seems reasonable to
>me.
>
>James Purchase
>Toronto
>
>
>
>
------------------
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