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: Well I'll be blowed
Sat, 1 Jan 2005, 05:33 amGrant Malcolm wrote:
> In this case I believe the "criteria" are completely back to
> front. Potential adjudicators have effectively been dissuaded
> from applying unless they're prepared to see every production
> and "must be absolutely sure that [they] are able to commit
> fully for the entire year." To my way of thinking this
> criterion is desirable not essential.
>
> Limiting the field of potential applicants only to those
> making this committment certainly does nothing to ensure that
> successful candidates have plenty of relevant experience.
>
> I'd be interested to hear from the current crop of
> adjudicators whether the inability of all of them to attend
> every single play had any significant impact on their ability
> to reach decisions.
Seeing every production is absolutely essential if there is one adjudicator. It's hardly necessary if there is 100 (as I theorised in my February reply to you: http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=18&i=3293&t=3283 ).
I think the desirability scale must then slide according to how many adjudicators you want to employ (which seems to be the point in contention).
I would think attending MOST of the plays and ALL of the adjudicators' meetings would be the order of priority, but that's if they adopt your suggestion of more available adjudicators.
> > >> Embrace the popular vote.
> > >> Have the Finley Award audience decide the winners on the
> > night of the awards.
> Okay, so I was scraping the bottom of the barrel with this
> year's suggestion. :-)
> But it might merit consideration even if only as another fun
> award category on the night.
Actually, as an award category, this could well be worth looking into. If there were some easy way of collecting and tallying the 'audience's choice' for a particular category, it would be an interesting indicator, seen alongside the adjudicators' decisions.
> > My view is: the previous system seemed to cop a lot of flak.
> > So they changed it. We don't know yet whether this system
> > will satisfy everyone, but it's probably premature to judge
> > until it happens. Be a good idea to give it a go, and judge
> > it AFTER it performs, no?
>
> No.
>
> Most years the debate usually occurs after the Finleys and
> critical views are often dismissed as sour grapes.
> This year's adjudication process had lots of positives:
> regular meetings of adjudicators, discussion and debate of
> results, oversight and facilitation by an ITA committee
> members. But sadly this experience was only shared by four
> adjudicators, a third or less than than the numbers involved
> in previous years. Adding another few adjudicators would
> probably have no appreciable impact on the results announced
> on the night, but the opportunity to participate in the
> adjudication process, learning from each other's insights and
> to take those skills and experiences back to member clubs is
> a benefit we should be ensuring that we realise.
Can't argue with the logic here, except to say that just because this suggestion seems quite good, it doesn't mean this year's system is BAD.
A lot of effort has gone into reworking last year's system, and I imagine most will be satisfied with the improvements. Pedants like you and I will always be suggesting new ways of doing things, and there's bound to be room for improvement.
Cheers
Craig
> In this case I believe the "criteria" are completely back to
> front. Potential adjudicators have effectively been dissuaded
> from applying unless they're prepared to see every production
> and "must be absolutely sure that [they] are able to commit
> fully for the entire year." To my way of thinking this
> criterion is desirable not essential.
>
> Limiting the field of potential applicants only to those
> making this committment certainly does nothing to ensure that
> successful candidates have plenty of relevant experience.
>
> I'd be interested to hear from the current crop of
> adjudicators whether the inability of all of them to attend
> every single play had any significant impact on their ability
> to reach decisions.
Seeing every production is absolutely essential if there is one adjudicator. It's hardly necessary if there is 100 (as I theorised in my February reply to you: http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=18&i=3293&t=3283 ).
I think the desirability scale must then slide according to how many adjudicators you want to employ (which seems to be the point in contention).
I would think attending MOST of the plays and ALL of the adjudicators' meetings would be the order of priority, but that's if they adopt your suggestion of more available adjudicators.
> > >> Embrace the popular vote.
> > >> Have the Finley Award audience decide the winners on the
> > night of the awards.
> Okay, so I was scraping the bottom of the barrel with this
> year's suggestion. :-)
> But it might merit consideration even if only as another fun
> award category on the night.
Actually, as an award category, this could well be worth looking into. If there were some easy way of collecting and tallying the 'audience's choice' for a particular category, it would be an interesting indicator, seen alongside the adjudicators' decisions.
> > My view is: the previous system seemed to cop a lot of flak.
> > So they changed it. We don't know yet whether this system
> > will satisfy everyone, but it's probably premature to judge
> > until it happens. Be a good idea to give it a go, and judge
> > it AFTER it performs, no?
>
> No.
>
> Most years the debate usually occurs after the Finleys and
> critical views are often dismissed as sour grapes.
> This year's adjudication process had lots of positives:
> regular meetings of adjudicators, discussion and debate of
> results, oversight and facilitation by an ITA committee
> members. But sadly this experience was only shared by four
> adjudicators, a third or less than than the numbers involved
> in previous years. Adding another few adjudicators would
> probably have no appreciable impact on the results announced
> on the night, but the opportunity to participate in the
> adjudication process, learning from each other's insights and
> to take those skills and experiences back to member clubs is
> a benefit we should be ensuring that we realise.
Can't argue with the logic here, except to say that just because this suggestion seems quite good, it doesn't mean this year's system is BAD.
A lot of effort has gone into reworking last year's system, and I imagine most will be satisfied with the improvements. Pedants like you and I will always be suggesting new ways of doing things, and there's bound to be room for improvement.
Cheers
Craig
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···