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: Zephyrs and Zeppelins
Sun, 2 Jan 2005, 09:01 pmHi Craig
An interesting point but another straw man, I suspect.
crgwllms wrote:
> Currently, with 4 adjudicators, that's only 8 invites.
There's an assumption here that every adjudicator actually does see every single play. This isn't the case and I don't think it's anything to get too hung up about.
I think the whole idea that every adjudicator has to see every single play is a furphy. I think we're both agreed that provided a minimum number (you tell me!) see each play, the most important thing is that all adjudicators meet regularly to review, discuss and critique each others' marking.
> So my question to the various companies would be...in order
> for your shows to be judged, how many tickets would be the
> maximum you would be prepared to set aside each season? (a
> number between 4 and 200)..
I suspect that the maximum needn't be more than a couple more than the current four and perhaps with a minumum set at the current figure.
Next to the cost of entering a play for the awards, the comps don't respresent a huge actual cost. I think that most companies recognise that unless they're regularly selling out entire seasons, a ticket given away to someone who wouldn't otherwise pay to see the show doesn't cost anything and is excellent public relations - doubly so, if you win a nice award as a result of giving the ticket away! Some companies regularly sell out their performances, the vast majority don't. Those that do can readily afford to set aside seats for adjudicators. Those that don't have seats to spare.
To quote one of your much earlier responses:
> I think I'd have more confidence, and less inclination to complain about
> the results, with a larger number rather than if there was a gang of
> four responsible for all the decisions.
http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=18&i=3293&t=3283
If the system is going to be more accountable, less open to foibles and abuses, more representative, returning greater benefits to the community, a few extra comps is a small price to pay.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
An interesting point but another straw man, I suspect.
crgwllms wrote:
> Currently, with 4 adjudicators, that's only 8 invites.
There's an assumption here that every adjudicator actually does see every single play. This isn't the case and I don't think it's anything to get too hung up about.
I think the whole idea that every adjudicator has to see every single play is a furphy. I think we're both agreed that provided a minimum number (you tell me!) see each play, the most important thing is that all adjudicators meet regularly to review, discuss and critique each others' marking.
> So my question to the various companies would be...in order
> for your shows to be judged, how many tickets would be the
> maximum you would be prepared to set aside each season? (a
> number between 4 and 200)..
I suspect that the maximum needn't be more than a couple more than the current four and perhaps with a minumum set at the current figure.
Next to the cost of entering a play for the awards, the comps don't respresent a huge actual cost. I think that most companies recognise that unless they're regularly selling out entire seasons, a ticket given away to someone who wouldn't otherwise pay to see the show doesn't cost anything and is excellent public relations - doubly so, if you win a nice award as a result of giving the ticket away! Some companies regularly sell out their performances, the vast majority don't. Those that do can readily afford to set aside seats for adjudicators. Those that don't have seats to spare.
To quote one of your much earlier responses:
> I think I'd have more confidence, and less inclination to complain about
> the results, with a larger number rather than if there was a gang of
> four responsible for all the decisions.
http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=18&i=3293&t=3283
If the system is going to be more accountable, less open to foibles and abuses, more representative, returning greater benefits to the community, a few extra comps is a small price to pay.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···