Feedback on this years Showcase.. (fwd)

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:31:33 -0500
From: Phil Edwards <biotypical@hotmail.com>
To: erik@thekrib.com
Subject: Feedback on this years Showcase..

Mr. Olson,

        Since Saturday night I?ve received a large number of messages from 
people 
and thought you would like the feedback and suggestions people have shared 
with me.  We all strongly support the mission of the AGA and want to see the 
organization flourish.  Everyone kept saying how they felt that this year?s 
participation was of the highest quality yet and how they?re already looking 
forward to next year.

        The first, and most popular, opinion is that an African Rift Lake 
aquascape 
is an inappropriate entry.  For an association dedicated to the hobby of 
aquatic gardening, allowing an aquarium with no visible plants seemed out of 
place to just about everyone.  Would it be uncalled for to require all 
participants to have some sort of planting to qualify for entry into the 
showcase in the future?

In addition, some have cited that the mostly decorative nature of recent 
?African? tanks should further disqualify them from entry into a category 
dedicated to natural re-creation.  Having pored over past years? biotope 
entries I?d like to cite Mrs. Olson?s Tanganyika aquarium as being a notable 
exception to this argument.  Her tank had the appearance of a natural lake 
bottom environment, which in my opinion should qualify for entry into a 
biotope/natural aquarium competition.  In past years different categories 
were added, including an Artificial Aquascape category, would it be 
appropriate to create a separate Rockscape and Artificial Aquascape category 
for next year?

If I might insert my personal opinion I feel that the ultimate and absolute 
goal of creating a biotope aquarium is to re-create a piece of nature in 
captivity as closely as possible.  I?ll admit to being one of the more 
conservative individuals when it comes to what qualifies as a biotope.  I 
realize quite clearly from personal experience that it?s practically 
impossible to be 100% true to life.  However, I do believe that every 
reasonable attempt at accuracy should be made in that re-creation.  This 
will often result in an aquascape that is less than attractive by 
conventional standards, even though it might be more authentic.  I greatly 
appreciate that the AGA has included biotopes in the showcase and hope that 
it continues in the future.

Another common opinion was against allowing professionals to compete in the 
same divisions as amateurs.  Some have argued that this only increases the 
quality of competition.  To some degree I know it does, the quality of 
entries this year is a testament to that.  However, with the increased 
resources available to professionals the great majority of people feel it 
unbalances the nature of the competition.  As a soon to be full time 
aquarium design professional I feel that a Professional Aquascape category 
would be appropriate and would not take away from the quality of future 
participation.  I believe this separation can only increase future 
participation, create excellent competition at both levels, and will 
continue to give amateurs inspiration and a goal to work toward without 
feeling like theirs is a lost cause.

Further comments were made in regards to the judging process and participant 
feedback in particular.  To be honest, most of the messages I?ve received 
have been less than constructive, however even gold can be refined from the 
dross.  Many of the participants who?ve spoken with me would like to be sent 
a copy of their judging sheets after the results have been tallied.  I know 
we discussed this not too long ago but I would like to bring it up now that 
I know I?m not the only person who feels this way.  Next year would it be 
possible to make the judges worksheets available to participants?  Everyone 
who expressed this opinion to me feels it would be very helpful in improving 
his or her technique.  Even receiving the numeric marks would go a long way 
toward making the participants feel better about their entry was judged.  
Most people simply want to know the answer to the age old question?.?why??

On one of the discussion boards I frequent the idea of having different sets 
of judges who would only judge two, maybe three, categories.  If there were 
three people judging all Small and Medium Gardens with another group 
reviewing the Large/Extra Large categories.   That would conceivably give 
each group more time to spend on judging, conferring, and providing 
feedback.  A similar idea I had would he to have two judges per group with 
one person judging Technical Achievement and the other Layout/Design with 
both reviewing for Overall Impression.

Thank you for your time and consideration in reading this.  I realize that 
I?m a new face in the AGA and that issues like these have likely come up in 
the past.  However, I?m of the opinion that changes for the better can?t be 
made until obstacles have been identified and addressed.  I hope these 
concerns and suggestions could be of assistance to you and the AGA.



Sincerely,

Phil Edwards
Charlotte, NC
Biotypical@hotmail.com




_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  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
  When asked, log in as username is "aga-contest", and password "second".