[AGA Contest] more from karen

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

From: "Karen Randall" <krandall@rdrcpa.biz>
To: <aga-contest@thekrib.com>
Subject: Re: [AGA Contest] various replies, incl judging... 
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 16:06:36 -0400

Phil wrote:

>> If we determine placement by the number of 1sts, 2nds, and/or 3rds given
an aquascape by the judges why bother with scoring them at all?<<

To help the judges sort out all the entries, order their thoughts and keep
in mind the most important aspects to be considered.  Just try doing it
without a "system"... I'm quite sure you'd have to develop one of your own.
The guidelines give the judges a framework to do their job a little more
easily.

>> If we've already got the numerical scores for each aquascape why not use
them?<<

Because the judges scores are pretty consistent within their own judging,
but vary WILDLY between different judges.

>> Also, going back to my above idea about using score vs. [place]ment
voting. Perhaps I'm being to idealistic and naive, but when we're scoring
each aquascape, shouldn't we be scoring it, and ultimately ranking it, based
upon the merits and faults of the design alone and not how it compares to
the others in the category? Yes, some aquascapes will be superior to others
in each category and those designs will get a higher score and potentially
earn that design a "place". I'm seeing this process as something akin to an
Olympic event where the gymnast performs individually and the judges score
the participant individually based upon how well his/her performance matches
the expectations of the judges for that event. Once all participants have
finished the scores are compared and the gold, silver, and bronze medals are
then given to the top three athletes. They're not judged against the
performance of the other participants, and I feel very strongly that we
should not be doing it either. It's completely unfair to all the
participants.<<

Ahhh, you ARE being naive.<g>  This is an area I know well, because I
compete and judge a type of horse showing (dressage) that is an Olympic
event, and is scored just that way.  To judge at the LOWEST level dressage
shows, you must have proven that you can either ride competitively above the
level you want to judge, or that you have trained other riders to show
competitively above the level you want to judge.  THEN you must spend large
amounts of time (we're talking hundreds of hours here) your own money to fly
around the country to various training sessions, and then practice judging
with licensed judges, then pass a rigorous practical exam.  Then you have to
preside as a "learner judge" over a number of low-level competitions over a
number of years.  Once you get your "judges card", you must maintain your
status by judging a minimum number of competitions a year, plus attend
mandatory continuing ed training.  Oh, incidentally, they do all that
because they get paid for judging (not a lot, but they do get paid) and it
adds to their status and reputation in the sports world.  Often this can be
parlayed into higher income if they also coach. (which most do at some point
in their lives)

Sooo... You think, with all that the judges would be in pretty close
agreement, right?  Wrong.  They spend HOURS wrangling over exactly what a
"7" movement should look like instead of a "9".  As a competitor you go to a
show knowing you will be showing under an "easy judge" or a "tough" judge.
As I'm sure you know, at the higher levels, there are often several judges.
The marks can vary widely, even with all the training they've had.

It is also naive to think the competitors in sporting events are not
compared with each other, even while they are being judged against an
absolute standard.  It is very, VERY hard to get a top score if you are one
of the first competitors to go.  The judges ALWAYs want to leave themselves
room for upward movement.  This can cause one of two things to happen.  If,
as time goes on, there is absolutely no question that no one can compete
with that early performance,the scores for the entire event are depressed.
If there are other comparable performances later, where a case could be made
either way, it is very likely that the latter competitor will score higher
than the earlier one with a very similar level of performance.  If your
order of go puts you right after someone who has made some mistakes, your
good solid performance is going to get a higher score.  If you go right
after someone whose performance was not only solid, but brilliant.  You're
going to score lower, with your good solid performance.  THAT is the reality
of the style of judging you talking about.  And as much as the judging may
all seem fair, and black and white, and objective from the livingroom
armchair, for the people who are involved in this type of competition, there
is just as much second-guessing the judges as we're seeing right here.<g>

We don't pay our judges.  We don't have the track record to be able to
define an "ideal" yet, even if we wanted to.  We don't have any system for
training judges.  Trying to use that form of judging is simply not realistic
at this point in time.  I'm not convinced it would EVER be the "right" way
to judge what many consider to be art, not sport.  If you mandate what is
absolutely "the" way to aquascape a tank to get a top score, you severely
limit people's ability to be innovative and creative.

Karen


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