Re: AGA CONTEST - Digest V1 #165

[krandall@world.std.com]

I'mmm  baaaack.<g>

First, just a note to say that I'm _very_ impressed with the amount of good
work that got done this last 10 days!

At 04:12 AM 8/15/99 -0700, James wrote:

>No, not at all - I just was leery of putting too many "suggestions" down -
>it seemed that Karen went kinda ballistic over the list I had posted
>earlier. Hopefully that had more to do with my suggestion that these things
>be requirements rather than suggestions. 

It was _only_ because you called them "requirements".  I've said before,
and I'll say again, the more "suggestions" or "helpful hints" you want to
give people to present their tanks in the best possible light, the better.
Just don't make the _requirements_ too onerous, or you won't get any entries.

I'd also like to suggest the following statement be included to address the
issue of "faked" entries in a realistic manner:

"While the organizers realize that in an event of this type it is entirely
possible for an unethical person to manufacture a digital image of a
non-existent tank, it is our hope that entrants will honor the spirit of
sharing and friendly competition upon which this event is based.  We are
counting on the honesty and integrity of our participants to submit only
images that are truly representative of their work as aquascape artists!"

This acknowledges that _we_ know that it is perfectly possible for someone
to pull the wool over our eyes, while at the same time appealing to
people's better natures.  In my experience, people are very often willing
to put their best foot forward if approached with the idea that honesty is
expected.  If they don't, then they wouldn't no matter what you did.

>People are always posting
>asking about the missing "details" and a great deal of speculation takes
>place because of it. If this is going to be of any value as a educational
>tool for all of us I think that the issue of details about how the aquascape
>was put together is important (especially for the better ones).

The nice thing about this taking place over the Internet, is that for the
most part, people can actually _ask_ those questions, and get an answer.
Most of the participants will be right here, waiting to answer.

>3. The contest organizers will collate the individual judges scores  and
>will determine the ranking of entries within each category for each judge.
>These rankings will be collated and used to determine the final ranking of
>all the entries within the category.

Have the judges complete this step themselves.  They should do it anyway,
to make sure they haven't created a tie.  They should also do it to make
sure that their ranking of the entries really reflects their choices for
placings.  Whoever is collating the scores should, of course, double check
the judges' math, and any discrepancies can be returned to the judge for
clarification.

>4. Should ties result following this collation, the judges will be requested
>to review the placed entries and break the tie.

I'd say "judging panel".

>5. Once the final ranking of entries within each category is deterimined,
>the contest organizers will request that the judges deterimine the awarding
>of prizes for each category.
>
>
>[This should be kept very open - not only because at this point in time we
>have no "prizes", but also to allow the judges to exercise their own
>discretion based upon the entries received. For example, if a category
>attracts a large number of poor aquascapes and even the highest placing
>aquascape is nothing to brag about, the judges should have the ability to
>"reserve" the awarding of _any_ prizes within that category. 

I don't think we've gotten to the point of making a decision of how many
prizes to award per division of how many entries, but I think it is a
decision that _must_ be made before the official release of contest rules
and regs.  I think we should just make a decision that we can live with,
and go with it THIS TIME. If it all goes well, and we want to do it again,
we can adjust accordingly.  Even if _all_ the entries in a division are
pitiful by the judges standards, they _still_ made the effort to enter, and
deserve to be placed in whatever order they fall in.  (let's call it an "A"
for effort<g>)  Would we really want to put 4 or 5 images up on the web
site with a note saying, "the judges thought all these entries were
pathetic, and refused to award them any prizes"?  Not likely to win
friends, but might very well influence people.<g>

We can have fairly nice rosette ribbons with triple streamers made for
about $2 each plus set up charges. (we can even have the AGA logo put in
the middle of the rosette for a minimal additional charge... about $30 if I
remember correctly)  If we award to 3 places in each division, and agree
that we won't make more than 20 divisions of not less than 3 (5?) entries,
we're talking, even with set up charges, less than $200 For ribbons.  I
suspect AGA won't have a problem with that figure.  I would give computer
generated certificates for "honorable mentions", and let _those_ be at the
discretion of the judges.  

If we get later get manufacturers to "sponsor" their favorite divisions,
they can award whatever other prizes they want to the winners in those
divisions.

>Judges have the discretion of awarding any
>workable combination of these awards as they see fit. More than one
>Honourable Mention award may be granted, at the discretion of the judges.
>[i.e. the judges may decide to only award one or more Honourable Mention
>awards without awarding 1st, 2nd or 3rd place awards, should they feel that
>the entries within a category not merit such an award.]

I wonder (as I have in the past) who these "experts" are, that they should
be able to high handedly decide that no entry in a class "deserves" to be
first. (or 2nd or 3rd)  James, I hope you don't feel that I'm jumping on
you again, I'm not.  It's just that when I've made "gentle" observations,
they seem to get lost in the shuffle.  So I'm speaking out, which is what
you said you want us _all_ to do.  Make the judges fish or cut bait.  If we
are giving them the authority to assign places, they should do so.

James wrote later:

>What is needed
>is someone in the group to actually receive the stuff, hold onto it for a
>few months, send it out to the appropriate people at the end. It's like a
>combination stock clerk/shipping & receiving clerk, nothing too demanding.

If we have manufacturers sponsor specific divisions of their choice, we can
bypass the need to collect and store prizes.  The manufacturers are going
to have to ship the item someplace, anyway.  Ask them for a "certificate"
stating what they will award as a prize.  This can be mailed to the winner,
who can then redeem the prize directly by mailing it to the manufacturer.

>We shall also need people to perhaps go visit their local stores and hand
>the manager/owner an information sheet and/or go to their local fish club's
>fall meeting and talk about the showcase and encourage people to enter.

This will have to be done by _everyone_, those on this "committee", on the
APD and members of the AGA.

James wrote:

>I don't see this event as being all that expensive to run - the main cost is
>going to be postage. Notices are going to have to be mailed out to as many
>groups as we can think of. Erik has outlined the costs associated with the
>production of CD-ROMS - they too will be minimal and it can be done on an as
>needed basis. But the actualy cost is going to be really hard to pin down
>without knowing up front how many entries will be received.

If we are going to send prizes to people other than just ribbons and/or
certificates, I'd bet my bottom dollar that the _big_ cost of this contest
is going to be shipping all that stuff all over the world.  (not to mention
the costs involved in replacing things that people say they didn't receive
after the fact... the mop-up could go on for years!<g>)

Erik wrote:

>This surprised me as well, but the folks who suggested that made some good
>points about it being easier, so perhaps this makes sense.  If this is the
>way we go, though, I think we should do something special for best of
>show, like a plaque or trophy.  

I like that idea too.  Shipping ONE bigger "thing" wouldn't cost that much.  

James wrote:

>Dave was worried last night about entrance fees. I've pointed out that
>should a fee actually be levied, it would pose no real problem for
>international entrants to obtain some way to get the money to the AGA in the
>proper currency (AGA also can accept VISA I believe).

VISA is  _definitely_ not an option, particularly for non-AGA members.  It
costs the AGA more per year to allow people to use VISA for their dues than
we receive in memberships submitted that way.  We continue the practice at
a loss _only_ to remain as receptive as possible to members from countries
other than the U.S.A.

James wrote:

>. A nice three fold brochure to send out to interested parties would be
>really nice but could be moderately expensive to produce - especially if we
>do it in color. I've suggested that perhaps the AGA DTP specialist be
>consulted on this, as he might be able to offer suggestions. I have done
>such things, but only produced a "master" which was then photocopied. Larger
>runs would be cheaper actually being printed but I have no idea of exactly
>how much (espeically as Canadian pricing and American pricing can differ a
>lot). I also don't know how many we might need.

Since the AGA brochure is usually spread around by our members printing it
locally, I'd hate to suggest that they pay to print huge numbers of flyers
for a contest like this.  We went through over 1000 AGA flyers in ONE
WEEKEND at a flower show where one of our members set an AGA table.  I'm
sure we got a _few_ responses, but the costs would not have justified the
return, had not the local member gotten his company to donate the paper and
printing costs.  

I suggest that we ask APD and AGA members to get behind this contest as a
grass roots effort.  Make the flyer available for download and local
printing, and ask EVERYONE to get involved in spreading the word.  If
people aren't interested enough to do that, we're not going to have much of
a contest in any case.  Throwing more paper at them isn't going to increase
their interest.

>3. Entrance Forms and supporting materials for non-Internet hobbyists. We
>are going to HAVE to have a way to send out little "kits" to people who do
>not have Internet access (this would be required by the AGA). These kits
>would consist of an Entrance Form, a copy of the entrance guidelines,
>judging guidelines, etc. These things could be photocopied on demand, and
>shouldn't be much of a burden. Mailing them out would cost more.

This only needs to be printed in TAG once to reach every AGA member.  We
_should_ have some one willing to send them out to those few non-AGA,
non-Internet people who express an interest, but I suspect there won't be
that many.  

>8. Mailing of prize winners list out to all entrants - this would be nice,
>but I don't know if it is necessary. It would also be time consuming if
>there were hundreds of non-internet capable entries received. We could avoid
>this by just publishing the list in TAG. (and informing everyone how to
>obtain a copy).

I would just publish the list in TAG and on the web site.  Otherwise, only
contact the winners.

>As this is the first time around for this - any figure I could give for
>"total cost" would only be a guess. I know that the AGA is probably going to
>want a concrete figure but I'm at a loss until we have been thru this once.
>I think that surely it should cost under $1,000.00 - and that would cover
>EVERYTHING.

That sounds high to me.  I'm only one member of the AGA MC, but I'd have a
hard time voting that kind of expenditure for this type of contest.  I
don't see that much benefit to our membership as a whole.  (I am speaking
personally here, not wearing my "official" AGA hat.  As the "other" AGA MC
member here, how do you feel, Erik?)

>Given the exposure that the AGA will get out of this, and the increased
>interest in planted tanks which we hope to generate, I have a definate
>preference to suggest to the AGA MC that they agree to eat the costs
>entirely and that we not be required to charge any entrance fee. 

"Hope to generate" is the operative phrase here.  I don't think you can
guarantee _any_ direct benefit to the general AGA membership from this
project, although we would all like to believe this will be a huge success.
 I think asking the AGA to just write a check for up to $1000 with no
assured benefit is asking them to take an awful lot on faith.  Would I feel
like I was acting responsibly with our members' money to fund this project
to that extent?  I'm not sure.

Another point to ponder:  There have been numerous mentions of making this
an annual, or at least repeated event.  I seriously doubt that the AGA has
enough excess in the budget to gift a single event with $1000 annually.
_For the most part_ AGA projects in the past have come close to supporting
themselves.  That doesn't mean that AGA hasn't put up the money up front to
fund a project, but we need to use our member's funds responsibly.  

>If an
>entrance fee IS required by the MC, it would only be applicable to non-AGA
>members and would be a deterrant to entrants (and I don't think it should be
>more that $5.00US per entry).

I don't think that there is any reason to charge more than $5 per entry for
anyone, member or not.  I _do_ think that with a complete unknown like
this, there is a safety factor of knowing that you have a certain amount of
income that is _directly_ tied to the number of entries that are received.
If there are few entries, it won't amount to a hill of beans, either in
terms of income _or_ expense.  If we get swamped, there is some comfort
level knowing that we won't be left with a huge deficit.

On a related subject, I think we should consider a cut-off number for
entries.  I'm really not expecting that many, but could we handle 100
entries?  What about 1,000 entries?  We really should decide what we _can_
handle, and state that entries will be closed when that number has been
reached.  This has the side benefit of encouraging people to get their
entries in early if they are serious about wanting to be included.

>I'm going to suggest that we contact Martha Stewart Living and have Karen do
>a segment with Martha about how beautiful a fully planted aquarium can be (a
>real GOOD THING!). Knowing how Karen feels about Martha, that ought to be a
>segment to watch! 

 Oh!  NOW I see why we need that $1000...  We're going to PAY to have my
house cleaned and redecorated before the segment with Martha Stewart. (Of
course the TANKS are in _PERFECT_ condition, but there's no way Martha's
coming to my house without a complete make-over first... maybe we need to
contact Oprah too... I like her better anyway, and I bet HER house isn't
perfect ;-)

(only kidding, James <g>)

As a serious aside, I _did_ get contacted recently by a reporter for a
yuppie-type Boston magazine about a piece she was doing on aquaria as home
decor.  When, in the course of the interview, it became obvious that they
were only interested in tanks from the point of "decorations" to be set up
to match people's black and white leather furniture, and maintained by an
outside service company, I think I told them more than they wanted to
hear.<g> (James, you have _no_ idea what I can be like when I really get
aggravated by someone ;-)

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