Straw Man Awards
Thu, 30 Dec 2004, 10:43 pmGrant Malcolm14 posts in thread
Straw Man Awards
Thu, 30 Dec 2004, 10:43 pm"Do you think you have what it takes to be a Finley Adjudicator?"
So reads the bold question in a recent missive from the ITA committee seeking nominations for adjudicators. Not entirely sure what it takes to be an adjudicator these days, I read on. That was a mistake.
The ITA are looking for "committed, dedicated individuals". From the letter that's apparently all there is to being an adjudicator.
"No experience necessary."
No experience necessary? I can only hope this is an oblique reference to experience as an adjudicator. But I read on in vain for any indication that some theatrical experience was required or even likely to be considered.
Four dot points list the only other requirements provided in the missive. In a nutshell:
1) you can't direct or produce a play entered for the awards in 2005.
2) you are expected to see every entered production; approx. 40
3) no pay but some expenses
4) you must attend meetings every 6-8 weeks
Apparently no experience is necessary because these are the only things that really matter.
I argued in February that the adjudication process was running off the rails :
http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=18&i=3292&t=3283
Rather than choosing adjudicators based on their skills, experience, insights and the quality of their judgement we're apparently stuck with whoever is able to fit the narrow requirements listed above.
Personally I think we need to rename these to Straw Man Awards. The adjudication system has been turned inside out in order to counter "straw man" arguments that I'm not aware anyone has been seriously complaining about. E.g. too many adjudicators.
Finally, over the last 12 years of criticising the awards I've endeavoured to offer constructive suggestions. I've been disappointed at the lack of dialogue over the latest changes. Here's my latest offering anyway:
Ditch the adjudication altogether.
Embrace the popular vote.
Preserve the mystery.
Double the attendance at the Finley Awards overnight!
Have the Finley Award audience decide the winners on the night of the awards.
Give every person attending the awards a voting slip marked with the name of their club.
Every person attending can vote for any three productions. Two votes worth one point each and one vote worth five points that can only be assigned to a production at another company.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
So reads the bold question in a recent missive from the ITA committee seeking nominations for adjudicators. Not entirely sure what it takes to be an adjudicator these days, I read on. That was a mistake.
The ITA are looking for "committed, dedicated individuals". From the letter that's apparently all there is to being an adjudicator.
"No experience necessary."
No experience necessary? I can only hope this is an oblique reference to experience as an adjudicator. But I read on in vain for any indication that some theatrical experience was required or even likely to be considered.
Four dot points list the only other requirements provided in the missive. In a nutshell:
1) you can't direct or produce a play entered for the awards in 2005.
2) you are expected to see every entered production; approx. 40
3) no pay but some expenses
4) you must attend meetings every 6-8 weeks
Apparently no experience is necessary because these are the only things that really matter.
I argued in February that the adjudication process was running off the rails :
http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=18&i=3292&t=3283
Rather than choosing adjudicators based on their skills, experience, insights and the quality of their judgement we're apparently stuck with whoever is able to fit the narrow requirements listed above.
Personally I think we need to rename these to Straw Man Awards. The adjudication system has been turned inside out in order to counter "straw man" arguments that I'm not aware anyone has been seriously complaining about. E.g. too many adjudicators.
Finally, over the last 12 years of criticising the awards I've endeavoured to offer constructive suggestions. I've been disappointed at the lack of dialogue over the latest changes. Here's my latest offering anyway:
Ditch the adjudication altogether.
Embrace the popular vote.
Preserve the mystery.
Double the attendance at the Finley Awards overnight!
Have the Finley Award audience decide the winners on the night of the awards.
Give every person attending the awards a voting slip marked with the name of their club.
Every person attending can vote for any three productions. Two votes worth one point each and one vote worth five points that can only be assigned to a production at another company.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
Re: Straw Polls
Fri, 31 Dec 2004, 10:40 amHi Kerri
Kerri wrote:
> As an adjudicator, I am offended by your comments.
Because I've expressed disatisfaction with the criteria for selecting adjudicators?
:-)
I should have thought the current crop of adjudicators would be dismayed to think that next year's adjudicators were being selected from a pool determined by whether or not they were available to see all plays.
> The main
> point that the ITA were trying to make I think was that the
> now there is a smaller group of adjudicators, who need to see
> all the plays that are being nominated, people need to be
> aware of that when or if they apply.
>
> That is certainly not the only requirement and you know that
> only too well Grant.
Granted. However, by listing it as a requirement in the call for nominations, it's been made a deciding factor before consideration is given to any other attributes. I can't help wondering how many potentially excellent adjudicators will never consider applying simply because they know they won't be able to get to every single play.
> The adjudicators have worked extremely hard this year judging
> so many plays, meeting every 6 - 8 weeks, discussing every
> play at length, putting their marks on the table and having
> to be totally accountable for every mark that they give a
> play and having to justify those marks.
>
> I can assure you that I have found this year very rewarding
> and very challenging as an adjudicator. Whereas in previous
> years, no one knew the marks I gave and I could theoretically
> give any mark to any play, now my marks are looked at and I
> must defend them at every meeting. I have found this to be
> far more open and more honest.
This is truly excellent to hear, Kerri. As you've remarked I argued long and hard for a process like this and I'm very pleased to hear that it's now in place. I can imagine it's been an exhausting but rewarding process.
> Please dont knock the new system until you know the facts
> Grant.
Every time this debate comes up I'm told to get my facts straight. I'm still waiting for someone to point out what facts I've got wrong.
> I admit that the points in the ITA newsletter may not
> have described the requirements terribly well, but I think
> that the system works and works well.
I've had a call from el Presidente keen to set the record straight and it's good to hear that the major changes introduced this year are regarded as stages in an ongoing process of improvement.
> Feel free to conduct your own straw man awards Grant. I am
> sure that there will be people who are quite happy to join
> you. Then again, maybe they are the people who vote for
> Australian Idol believing that their vote will count.
Cringe-inducing as it might be, the popularity of populist awards might perhaps be one way of boosting attendance at the awards night itself.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
Kerri wrote:
> As an adjudicator, I am offended by your comments.
Because I've expressed disatisfaction with the criteria for selecting adjudicators?
:-)
I should have thought the current crop of adjudicators would be dismayed to think that next year's adjudicators were being selected from a pool determined by whether or not they were available to see all plays.
> The main
> point that the ITA were trying to make I think was that the
> now there is a smaller group of adjudicators, who need to see
> all the plays that are being nominated, people need to be
> aware of that when or if they apply.
>
> That is certainly not the only requirement and you know that
> only too well Grant.
Granted. However, by listing it as a requirement in the call for nominations, it's been made a deciding factor before consideration is given to any other attributes. I can't help wondering how many potentially excellent adjudicators will never consider applying simply because they know they won't be able to get to every single play.
> The adjudicators have worked extremely hard this year judging
> so many plays, meeting every 6 - 8 weeks, discussing every
> play at length, putting their marks on the table and having
> to be totally accountable for every mark that they give a
> play and having to justify those marks.
>
> I can assure you that I have found this year very rewarding
> and very challenging as an adjudicator. Whereas in previous
> years, no one knew the marks I gave and I could theoretically
> give any mark to any play, now my marks are looked at and I
> must defend them at every meeting. I have found this to be
> far more open and more honest.
This is truly excellent to hear, Kerri. As you've remarked I argued long and hard for a process like this and I'm very pleased to hear that it's now in place. I can imagine it's been an exhausting but rewarding process.
> Please dont knock the new system until you know the facts
> Grant.
Every time this debate comes up I'm told to get my facts straight. I'm still waiting for someone to point out what facts I've got wrong.
> I admit that the points in the ITA newsletter may not
> have described the requirements terribly well, but I think
> that the system works and works well.
I've had a call from el Presidente keen to set the record straight and it's good to hear that the major changes introduced this year are regarded as stages in an ongoing process of improvement.
> Feel free to conduct your own straw man awards Grant. I am
> sure that there will be people who are quite happy to join
> you. Then again, maybe they are the people who vote for
> Australian Idol believing that their vote will count.
Cringe-inducing as it might be, the popularity of populist awards might perhaps be one way of boosting attendance at the awards night itself.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···