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: Hot air?
Mon, 3 Jan 2005, 10:31 amHi Craig
crgwllms wrote:
> Grant Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> ...WHAT?? Only a COUPLE more??! We've been having this huge
> controversial discussion and getting Kerri all worked up at
> you, and now I find you're only quibbling about adding
> another TWO or so????
I've a suspicion that you've been listening to what others have told you I've been saying rather reading what I've actually contributed.
:-)
Certainly labelling this a "huge controversial discussion" is not a reflection of the bare dozen posts here from three individuals.
The quote from my post is clearly being taken out of context. We were discussing the min/max number of adjudicators required to see each play, not the number of adjudicators involved in the overall process.
You indicated yourself that you'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."
I wouldn't be that much happier with six. Would you?
Personally, I'd like to see ten to twelve involved in the process. Four to six of which must attend each play.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
crgwllms wrote:
> Grant Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> ...WHAT?? Only a COUPLE more??! We've been having this huge
> controversial discussion and getting Kerri all worked up at
> you, and now I find you're only quibbling about adding
> another TWO or so????
I've a suspicion that you've been listening to what others have told you I've been saying rather reading what I've actually contributed.
:-)
Certainly labelling this a "huge controversial discussion" is not a reflection of the bare dozen posts here from three individuals.
The quote from my post is clearly being taken out of context. We were discussing the min/max number of adjudicators required to see each play, not the number of adjudicators involved in the overall process.
You indicated yourself that you'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."
I wouldn't be that much happier with six. Would you?
Personally, I'd like to see ten to twelve involved in the process. Four to six of which must attend each play.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···