Access to the "other" web-site

["James Purchase" <jpurch@interlog.com>]

Jennifer Glover wrote:

> Okay, so that I might understand the next few days of discussion, is
> it possible for me to view the web site?  Is it too late to be a
> judge?

James responds:

Of course it is possible to have access - I will send you (and any other
member of this list who cares to know) the URL in a private e-mail if you
wish. The "mock judging" is over, so I don't want to see your scores, but it
might help you in making sense of the discussion to have at least seen the
site and the images. But I do request that you not spread it around to
people who are not party to this discussion.

David Youngker wrote:

> It's understood that the contributor of some of the photos was reluctant
to
> expose them to a general website, but isn't this list a restrictive enough
> subset of possible viewers? The mock judging itself had been opened to all
> members by invitation, and had everyone decided to participate then those
> same pictures would have been exposed to the entire (and still limited)
> audience anyway.

This list is open to anyone who cares to participate. As I told George Booth
a long time ago, it's no "SECRET". As the archives of our discussions are on
the KRIB, the discussion itself is also not "secret". I know of numerous
people who are not on the list and/or who have never been on the list, who
are following the discussion via the archives.

I appreciate the permission which was given to me by one particular
individual to use his/her images for the "mock judging" and I also
appreciate their concerns that their images not be made widely available.
This list is NOT restrictive, and I will NOT publish the URL of the other
website publicly for that specific reason - no other. Anyone else who does
so will find themselves "unsubscribed" to this list.

However, any member of this list who wishes to have access to the "other"
website merely has to send me a private e-mail asking for the URL. But I
also request that you respect the individual's privacy (and copyright) and
not spread the URL to others.

> It may be that one of the seven who *didn't* participate may have a
> consideration in examining the outcome, but cannot contribute meaningful
> input in that they won't have the same reference base from which to make
> sense of the discussion.

Seven people participated in the "mock judging". There are a LOT more than
seven people on the list, quite a few of whom have not said anything to
date. I would love it if they would speak up, but I'm not holding my breath,
as I don't look good in blue <g>.

> The "anonymity" of the judges who did participate will be impossible to
> maintain at any rate, since they will be the only people actually carrying
> on a discussion without an inclusion of the group.

There is no real requirement for anonymity of the "mock judges". I failed to
mention people by name merely to prevent anyone from taking personally any
comments which might have been made regarding their scores or their
comments. Judges are free to come out of the woodwork any time they wish. As
long as we _all_ realize that (as far as I can tell) only ONE of the "mock
judges" has any experience at all in this sort of judging. Be gentle....

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