Misc. cont.

[krandall@world.std.com]

David A. Youngker wrote:

>(20 divisions? Wow, that's quite a large structure!)

That was simply an arbitrary number.  There can most certainly (and
probably should be) less.  But I doubt there will be more, so that's what I
calculated the costs on.

I wrote:

>>I think we should pick an arbitrary maximum number of classes that 
>>seems reasonable in order to present a proposal to AGA. I think 20 classes 
>>gives us plenty of flexibility, but I'm open to other numbers.

James wrote:

>O.K., but remember that I have no experience with "fish shows" - do we just 
>pick a "number" or do we set out the classes and descriptions of those 
>classes now? 

AGA isn't going to care how the classes are divided, and as we've said
before, we won't real know what divisions we need until we start getting
entries.  My arbitrary pick of 20 classes was a HIGHEST number of classes,
for the sake of working out a budget.  We don't NEED to use that many
classes.  If we don't the costs will be less.

>at times you seem to advocate a
>loose event and then you come back later with a much more structured version
>of your suggestion.

I advocated being rather liberal in terms of what types of entries to
accept, (in order to attract as large a number of participants as possible)
and in allowing the judges to use their expertise and trusting them to do
the job requested of them.  Those are completely different issues than the
actual structure of the event.  Without a structure, you can't even begin
to guess what costs might be associated with the event, or how big the work
load might be.  That kind of issue _has_ to be discussed, and outside
limits established, even if they are rather broad.  I don't see any
dichotomy in this.  It's like telling an artist, "I'd like a painting.  It
can be be of any subject you choose, and you can use any style and medium
you prefer, but this is the wall I have available to hang it on, so it has
to be no larger than this."  Most artists could manage to express
themselves creatively within that framework.

> please
>don't tell us to be gentle and open in one breath and then come back and
>tell the judges to fish or cut bait in the next. 

You think that withholding awards because we, (or the judges) with their
superior talents decide someone's earnest efforts are "unworthy" is
handling people gently?  It's sure not in _my_ book!

>If you HAVE a scheme of judging which in YOUR
>experience will work better than my "impression" of what I thought you
>meant, please commit it to words and post it. 

I thought we had a good workable judging standard.  It was my impression
that _you_ later added this business about judges being allowed to just not
judge something they felt was unworthy.  We had a point standard that
worked pretty well, and could be applied to any tank.  We tried it out, and
it worked to everyone's satisfaction.  We decided that obvious fakes would
be disqualified, but that if we couldn't tell the difference, we'd probably
better let them stand.  I _thought_ the concensus was that we would award 3
places in each division, although the awarding of "honorable mention" was
still a little vague.  I also remember that a Best-in-Show award was widely
supported.  I don't know why we need to add or substract from what was
already decided, and I certainly didn't realize that it needed any
"interpretation".  Maybe if you tell me what you feel is unclear, I can try
to explain it better.

> I am not suggesting that we foist the cost of printing and
>mailing of materials for this event off on the members of this list as part
>of their "contribution". Especially if this gets approved with Entrance Fees
>attached for non-AGA members, I would expect that any "costs" someone
>encounters in promoting or conducting this event would be covered by those
>fees.

I am not the Financial Sec. for AGA, but I know if I _were_ there would be
no way I'd be willing to write $2-$5 checks to 50 or 100 people across the
U.S. let alone the rest of the world.  Feel free to include that clause if
you want to, it's your show.  _DON'T_ expect that AGA will be happy with
unexpected surprise costs down the road.

>The prime purpose of any printed material was for the convenience of those
>AGA members who are not Internet savy. 

No, you were developing a list of aquarium clubs, pet stores, etc. to
distribute this stuff to.  As I've said before, _EVERY_ AGA member will be
notified via TAG.  There is _NO_ cost to this contest for that.

>As far as I am concerned, personally,
>I would be just as happy to limit this whole thing to the Internet aware and
>reachable. That way we would cut out all the worry about mailings and
>postage. But I am realistic enough to know that not everyone in the world
>has cheap, affordable access to computers and the Internet as those of us
>who live in the United States and Canada. And I am hopeful that we might be
>able to reach some hobbyists who are not as *well connected* as we all are
>and share our experience of this hobby with them.

Unfortunately, reaching those people could prove very, very, costly.

>On the scope of our potential "entrant pool"
>>Non-Internet _AGA MEMBERS_, which is a _much_ smaller subset.  You're now
>>talking about plastering the whole country (maybe the world) with
>flyers.<g>

I said this in response to you saying that it was _me_ who insisted on
including non-Internet aquarists, while your original idea was for this to
be a wholey Internet event.  I think you know that.

>That wording was merely a _suggestion_. 

And my response was merely a suggestion.

>How about if there IS a surplus, and
>the contest IS held again, that the money would be made available for the
>contest in future years? Please remember that if this DOES go ahead, many of
>the organizers and volunteers are not AGA members. If they choose to put
>their time and effort into this and if it realizes a profit (I do say IF), I
>think it would be unreasonable of the AGA to say "Sorry, but we spent the
>money you raised on other things. Care to get kicked again?

James, you can word it any way you want, and present any _thing_ you want.
Any suggestion that the AGA is or will be unfair or unreasonable in it's
dealings with your project are pure conjecture on your part.  That has not
been my experience with the group, and I've worked with the other members
for a number of years now.  

>I'd hate to think that the AGA MC is going to come back at us with a "We'd
>love for you to organize, plan and execute this event. You do the work, you
>charge everyone not a member of our organization a fee to participate, you
>pay for any costs associated with publicizing it, you give us all of the
>monies raised and we give your our "good housekeeping" seal of approval. 

Again, this whole hypothetical conversation comes from _your_ head, nowhere
else.  Let me _further_ point out that YOU are THEY!!!  WHO do you think
AGA is?  It is a group of US, the MEMBERS.  No more, no less.

Remember, if you want to do this without AGA financial support, you are
going to need to either provide the up-front money yourself, or talk a
bunch of other individuals into forking it over.  Again I will point out
that this whole paranoid discussion is being held without the AGA
management team having _any_ idea that it is taking place.  

>Unless of course, the "plan" is to have US organize it, and for the AGA to
>actually IMPLEMENT it - with exclusively AGA volunteers. If that is the
>case, that's fine - in that event the AGA would be entitled to spend any
>possible surplus as they see fit.

James, PLEASE let me know now if this is the way you want to go, so I can
quit wasting all my time and effort on it.  I'm getting mighty tired of it.
 I _should_ be able to separate your pot shots at AGA from myself
personally, but since I feel a strong sense of loyalty to the organization,
I cannot.  BTW, the _only_ difference between you and me in terms of
"status" or "pull" with the AGA is that I have been volunteering my time
and efforts for AGA projects for a number of years now.  I am "just" a
member, just like you.

>I don't know if there will be a surplus - that depends on a lot of factors -
>the ratio and number of AGA vs non-AGA entrants, the per entrant cost
>associated with the event, the number of CD-ROM's sold (I doubt that there
>will be very many). 

I agree.

>It is more likely that if we DO charge a nominal fee of
>say $5.00/entry it will only serve to do two things, prevent the AGA from
>having a huge deficit at the end of the affair and prevent _some_ people
>from entering. 

The goal is the former, an unfortunate side effect _might_ be the latter.
But the bottom line is that I agree with you, I think there is more
potential here to lose money than to make money.  And you are, I assume,
expecting AGA to take on that risk?  You are not promising to organize some
other project to fund the deficit down the road?  Do you see where I'm
going here?

>But if 300 AGA members enter the event and we get 100 non-AGA
>members each paying $5.00, and the contest ends up costing $800.00, I don't
>think the AGA MC would have much cause to complain at having spent $300.00.
>That would be $1.00 per member. 

I think that's reasonable. (although as I have said numerous times in the
past, I am _not_ speaking for the organizations here)

>If there IS going to be an entry fee, then
>it is to everyone's benefit to maximixe the participation of paying
>customers in order to cut the cost to the organization.

Of course, I never said that AGA members _needed_ to be free either.  I
think we need to put a handle on the costs before we can even guess at what
a reasonable entry fee is.

>I can't help
>remembering though, that comments were recently made about getting bogged
>down in too _much_ what-if detail and there were suggestions made that
>seemed to me to be a "let's jump in and be flexible - we'll work out the
>problems as they crop up" sort of attitude. We can't have it both ways,
>either this gets planned properly or it will end up a fiasco.

In one case we were discussing judging rules, and possible odd-ball or
faked entries.  In the other, we are discussing frameworks and finances.
If you're mushy with the financial arrangements, someone will stand to take
a bath.

>And to be perfectly honest - I'm worried more about MY reputation than I am
>about that of the AGA. <g> 

Which is why I've hung in here as long as I have.

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