Re: Categories

["David A. Youngker" <nestor10@mindspring.com>]

From: James Purchase
Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 2:22 PM


> I suggest the following as a "basic" set of Categories.
>
> Divisions:
>
> 1. Underwater Gardens
> 2. Natural / Biotope Aquascapes
> 3. Artificial Aquascapes
> 4. Miscellaneous Aquascapes
> 5. Paludariums
>
> You will notice that I haven't set up a separate division for
> Brackish Aquascapes...There is nothing "special" about a
> brackish tank other than the limits imposed by the salt
> content of the water. There is nothing special about the
> aquacsaping involved.
>
> The name of the "Miscellaneous" division could be changed
> to something more appropriate - I just think that we need a
> place to put things which don't fit elsewhere.
>
> If we further subdivide the "Divisions" into "Classes" based
> on tank size, we can separate small, medium and large
> aquascapes from one another. I think...that "small" be
> considered anything under 30 gallons, "medium" be 30 to
> 90 gallons, and "large" as anything over 90 gallons.
>
> This would give us 15 separate categories or "Classes":


From: David VanderWall
Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 8:17 PM

> ...I will say I deliberately avoided a misellaneous category,
> although the thought crossed my mind more than once.  Out
> of curiosity, can anyone think of a tank setup that they could
> not place into a category other than miscellaneous given the
> other types that James listed?
>
> I agree with brackish not being in it's own category since we
> are only interested in the aquascape and not the water
> conditions.  Good point there, James.

I, too, would have to object to the formation of a separate "Miscellaneous"
category - to me it connotes the "indecisive" factor and shouldn't be
introduced to the structure.

The comments concerning brackish environments would certainly seem to "hold
water" (groan...). Very few people are going to butt heads where the choice
of salt limits the "viability" of the tank and plant selection, but the
inclusion of water conditions - despite David VanderWall's remark - just
might have *some* bearing on the entry's judging. It does take a measure of
skill to properly select plant types for the environment and provide for
their long-term growth and formation, not to mention their "artistic"
placement and use, and I for one would not be overly impressed with an
entrant who decided to "dress up" his Spotted Puffer tank with a Madagascar
Lace prior to his or her photograph session.

As to placing an entry into specific categories ourselves, is that really
necessary? I'm hoping that the various comments I've read concerning that
are just thought processes and "thinking out loud" types of remarks. For us
to place an entry into a category unintended by the creator of the aquascape
may inadvertently effect its final outcome, although in some cases this may
work in favor of the entrant. Isn't the intended design goal of the
aquascapist part of the "flavor" of the tank and open to interpretation in
deciding how well that contestant *met* those goals during the judging
phase?

If we decide on a well-structured event, with 12 - 15 definable categories,
it should be enough to let the entrant choose their own competitive "arena".
We can step in later, if need be, to prod the entrant into a more "fitting"
category (if the entrant is readily available by, say, e-mail) or state in
the guidelines that, at our option, we may shift the placement to a category
which wouldn't unduly hinder the prospect's competitive chances. My guess
would be that the latter route would be sufficient...

-Y-

David A. Youngker
nestor10@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~nestor10


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