Re: AGA CONTEST - Digest V1 #179

["David VanderWall" <dvanderwall@uswest.net>]

James wrote:

> Make sense?

It does make sense.  I reread some of the original postings, too.  I don't
want to rehash the name issue, but this seems to be relevant to this latest
turn.  Roger Miller's name suggestion in his initial draft was "The Aquatic
Gardeners Association [or The Krib's] On-line Aquascaping
Festival"  It's interesting that the word(s) "On-line" are in there.

And this is from the first time I chimed in:

>D.  (Name) Is it too late?  I like (not featured in the original lineup)
>"AGA Internet Aquascaping Showcase and Competiton"
>
>What would be special about this "contest" is that we are getting together
>as a result of the Internet, organizing it via the Internet, and publishing
>it via the Internet.  Anything beyond that is icing.  The AGA can't sponsor
>a contest that _may_ exclude some of its members?  What if one of those
>members is a judge?  Does that mean the contest won't be sponsored since
>judges must not participate?  I know I'm being difficult here, but this
>thing is probably going to happen almost exclusively on the Internet."

Ignore the stuff after "icing" except for the last sentence. :-)  If the
name were "AGA's Internet Showcase And Aquascaping Contest" it spells out
AGA's ISAAC.  Cool.  I'm kidding around here.  I'm just wondering how much
typing would have been saved if we would have acknowledged that this was an
Internet-based event by getting the name right in the first place. ;-)

>
> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:02:51 -0400
> From: "Ken Guin" <kenguin@homemail.com>
> Subject: RE: Back to basics
>
> BTW, I am wondering how the publicity volunteers are coming along with the
> societies in their states (David V. has anyone provided you with a list
> yet?).

I have received a couple of lists from Jim C. and Jose.  I will try to have
those posted on the web site tomorrow or the next day.  I will also post the
"duty roster" for those that have volunteered to do contact lists.  I think
it is evident from James' message that we are very interested in email
addresses at this point (although I will be taking all submissions in case
we find a use for them).  Anyone who wants to try to fill in some of the
email blanks, eventually, by perusing the contact web site is encouraged to
do so.

>
> As far as who can enter this event, I have never liked the idea of
limiting
> the number of contestants to a specified number. I know that some of the
> best entries would probably come rolling in shortly after we hit the
magical
> limit. Besides, I am not sure I have ever heard of a contest that limited
> the number of entries - cut-off dates, yes - but not the number of
entries.
> I know I have never entered any with such a limit.

This is one of those double-edged swords.  Sure, we probably won't get
enough where we have to set a limit, but what if we do?  I'm reminded of one
of the early messages from Karen where she said she would love to be
overwhelmed by entries, though I don't know how true that was simply by
definition of the word "overwhelmed."  :-)  I think we will keep the number
of entrants down through one of the restrictions mentioned in the last
message James wrote.  (Free = 1, $5 = 3)  Regardless of whether we announce
the number, there IS a practical limit to what we can handle.  I think
that's been set at 300 for now.

>
> I also think we should set an entry fee of $5.00 an entry whether they are
> an AGA member, or not (I am a member, so I think I can be fair in
suggesting
> this). Besides, who was going to coordinate finding out whether the
entrants
> were AGA members at the time their entry was submitted.

I'll leave this one to the AGA members here, and for someone who might be
able to write about how much cross-checking work that is.  I'm sure someone
would have to do it.

>BTW, I would
> suggest that the entry form state that any residual funds will be turned
> over to the AGA for financing future events similar to this one.

This idea was kicked around a little while ago.  Karen, did you say that the
AGA probably wouldn't go along with this?  It seemed like there was an issue
about the commitment to the project in years to come.  Couldn't we just say
_if_ we do the contest next year we will have the opportunity to use a
percentage of any overage that was generated?  Maybe we could afford those
ribbons and posters next year.  ;-)  <-- winking about the poster part


Dave VanderWall
Minneapolis, MN

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