Re: [AGA Contest] Re: more biotopes

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, roger wrote:

> The category is not "biotopes", it is "Biotope/Natural aquarium."  In reading
> the aquarists description it is sometimes possible to tell whether they intend
> the entry to be a biotope or whether they intend it to be a natural aquarium.
>  It isn't always possible to tell and surely those two things are not the 
> same.  

Recalling the 1999-2000 planning for the first event, that by calling it 
"Biotope/Natural" we were attempting to encourage people to enter tanks 
that may not have been 100% biotypically-correct, but were trying to 
emulate a natural setting.

> Among all the entries in all the contests there are a handfull of actual
> biotopes, and most of those are rift lake rocky slope biotopes.  There are
> very few "Natural tanks."  I imagine we could argue about what does and does
> not constitute a natural tank.  One thing I suspect we could agree on is that
> CO2-injected tanks are probably not natural.

Again, I don't think "natural" meant "low-tech".. I think it meant more of 
"poor-man's biotope".

> There are a few non-biotope/non-natural tanks that were entered that were
> probably entered as a mistake.  One in particular comes to mind because it was
> entered by someone who's native language is not English and who may have
> interpreted "natural aquarium" to be equivalent to Amano's "nature aquarium."

I have been able to "pre-filter" about 50% of these "mistakes" in previous 
years.  But I don't want to presume that I'm one of the judges, so I end 
up e-mailing the entrant and asking discreetly if that was in fact the 
category they intended.  About half figure it out and change it.  The 
other half either have a language barrier or are just plain confused, or 
dropped out of e-mail contact.  So their entries stand.  And the judges as 
a whole figure it out, even if one or two don't as individuals.

> Do the rules spell out any requirements for a "Biotope/Natural aquarium?"  If
> not then I suggest that they should.  Judges probably also need some guidance
> on how to rate a tank that is clearly not a biotope or a natural aquarium, but
> is entered in that category.

There are no specific rules on this, but I beleive I have instructed the 
judges to give "extra" weighting to the appropriateness of the materials 
as part of the overall impression.  

I guess that brings us back to where we were yesterday, which is that I 
would like to see some better *guidelines* for entering biotope aquaria.  
I want to hear Steven chime in because he spent a lot of time thinking 
about this and writing up a document (OK, with Phil... I didn't know that 
yesterday!).

I agree with Scott that with only a handful of entries, I don't want to be 
too heavy-handed here (so to speak).  I think we should encourage people 
to try, even if they can't get everything "right".  

> I can't see having Erik triage the incoming applications to see if they
> qualify.  I also wouldn't want to be the judge that disqualifies an entry for
> not fitting the description.  On the other hand I also wouldn't want to award
> a prize to a tank in the "biotope/natural tank" category if it isn't really
> anything but an aquatic garden with mediocre aquascaping.

And I don't think any of these things have happened yet.   Seriously, I 
think if we had three actual biotope tanks entered, they would win 1st, 
2nd and 3rd.


-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com

  ------------------
  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".