Re: [AGA Contest] Re: A straw dog

["roger" <roger@spinn.net>]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:11:08 -0500, Steven Pituch wrote
> Roger,
> 
> I think what you have written is good if we accept Erik's statement 
> (and we should):
> >I think the folks that created the contest disagree here.  The primary
> >purpose of ALL the categories is aquascaping.
> 
> Also your "Biotope Aquascape" name would be appropriate.

I think adding "aquascape" to the category name would emphasize that we aren't
really judging the quality of the model so much as its appearance.  That
clearly is an easy misunderstanding to come by.

> I am  just wondering where Jeff Senske's 2002 and 2003 biotope 
> entries would fit in.  They had no real documentation, but are 
> considered great aquascapes.  I  would think your biotope 
> requirements if applied now would lessen their score.  I guess in 
> that case this type of tank would do better in an "Aquatic Garden" 
> category.  I certainly don't want to do harm to entries of this caliber.

I can't speak for 2003 or for any other judge, but I know for me the results
of the 2002 judging would not be altered.  There were only three entries in
the category that year.  An all-rock aquascape might be a disappointment to
some but it is both an aquascape and (at least apparently) a true biotope
tank. I'm not a rift-lake expert and even if documentation were provided I
probably would not have been able to determine that the documentation was
either sufficient or correct.
 
> I am now wondering if everything should left alone, as is.  As long 
> as I now realize that biotopes will be considered as aquascapes, 
> clears up the lack of understanding that I had.  And I seem to have 
> been the only one with that problem.  I have no problem with the 
> concept of showing the non-aquascaping part of this kind of biotope 
> work in magazine and Internet articles, as someone suggested is more 
> appropriate.   So maybe its really not broke, and we shouldn't fix it.

I think the category needs a little work, but not an overhaul.  The problems
as I see them are:

1) Entrants misunderstanding the category.  Erik shouldn't have to spend much
time at all reviewing the entries and getting the entrants to move things into
the right categories.  

2) Heterogeneous entries.  The category in the past has hosted everything from
biotopes through theme tanks to neat looking tanks that didn't have anywhere
else to go to non-biotope low-tech ecotanks.  It's very hard to judge such
diverse tanks.

3) An uneven playing field.  I think freshwater biotope tanks are neat.  I'd
love to see them get more attention and I think if they did that they would
bring even more people into the hobby.  From an aesthetic point of view,
biotopes can be difficult to work with; it's like painting a picture with two
colors and a pallet knife -- it can be done, the effect can be great, but it
isn't easy.  Someone who does a regional theme has a *lot* more tools to work
with -- especially if the region in question is something like the Amazon
basin.  For several reasons I don't want to rewrite rules to eliminate the
semi-biotope tanks, but for the sake of the competition I'd like the rules to
level the playing field a little.

The unfortunate thing is that we may not be able to fix things much without
losing entries.


Roger
  ------------------
  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".