Straw Man Awards

"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%]

Hello Grant

As an adjudicator, I am offended by your comments. 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.

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.

I think you will find Grant, that people who apply to become adjudicators go through a process of audition , very much set up along the lines that you started a number of years ago Grant. I remember going to your "audition" when I became an adjudicator.

Please dont knock the new system until you know the facts Grant. 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.

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.

Kerri

Hi 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%]

Salutations Grant

While I cannot claim to be any sort of expert on adjudication, I have been privy to Kerri and others, very strong desire to make the judging as valid, professional and fair as possible, at the same time making the process as open as possible.

Kerri and others have given an enormous amount of time, thought and effort to the adjudication process, I would suggest that you give them the grace of waiting to see the result of their efforts in the new year, before applying the blow torch.

In reference to the search for new adjudicators, it would seem reasonable to initially try and find people who can see all productions entered, before compromising.
Cheers and a happy New Year.
Greg Ross

G'day, esteemed arguers.

A couple of points I think are worth bringing up:


>> "No experience necessary."

If a job advertises ‘no experience necessary’, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to employ half-wits or incompetents. It usually means there will be on-the-job training…and also the candidates with the most experience will still get offered the post.
In the case of The Finlays, they have opened the field as to who can apply, but not necessarily as to who they select...I daresay the successful candidates will have plenty of relevant experience.

I have been put in an adjudicating position as someone who supposedly has experience, and yet many of my decisions still end up being matters of personal choice. How much 'training' or experience does it take to exercise personal preference? If you opened the voting up to the audience, that's pretty much what it would be anyway.




>> Embrace the popular vote.
>> Have the Finley Award audience decide the winners on the night of the awards.


One, this presents the mirror image of the problem of a judge not being able to attend the performances. It means only those who can attend the Finlays on the night can have a say. Most performance seasons give the judges a number of opportunities to see each show. Limiting it to a single night seems to be the opposite of what you are arguing for, Grant!

Two, the 'popular' vote could merely turn out to be the most 'populous' vote. Large cast productions will have advantages over small ones, larger clubs over smaller ones, local over out-of-town...depending on who they can get to rally for their support. Many people will arrive with a pre-determined idea of who they will vote for, regardless of the quality of the competition.

Three, a huge proportion of the audience will not only belong to a particular club, but will be cast/crew members of nominated productions. You won't allow a director at a club to be an adjudicator.... Are you going to have to not allow directors, actors, and crew to be in the audience?

And four, if all the awards are based upon what you see on the night, it turns into an audition. You can't assume that the audience in attendance has seen all of the previous nominations in production. Wouldn't any system of judging therefore have to come down to the extracts you can see on the night? Who wants their play to be judged this way? How would you determine a 'best newcomer' or 'best supporting' under these circumstances? Unless the evening becomes a VERY long marathon!



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?


Cheers,
Craig

Hi Craig

crgwllms wrote:
> >> "No experience necessary."
>
> If a job advertises ‘no experience necessary’, it doesn’t
> necessarily mean they are going to employ half-wits or
> incompetents. It usually means there will be on-the-job
> trainingÂ…and also the candidates with the most experience
> will still get offered the post.
> In the case of The Finlays, they have opened the field as to
> who can apply, but not necessarily as to who they select...I
> daresay the successful candidates will have plenty of
> relevant experience.

In a process almost uniquely australian, potential job applicants, particularly for public service positions, are usually asked to respond to selection criteria. The criteria are generally divided up into "essential" without which you won't be considered and "desirable" which might make you a preferred applicant.

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.

> >> Embrace the popular vote.
> >> Have the Finley Award audience decide the winners on the
> night of the awards.
>
> One, this presents the mirror image of the problem of a judge
> not being able to attend the performances. It means only
> those who can attend the Finlays on the night can have a say.
> Most performance seasons give the judges a number of
> opportunities to see each show. Limiting it to a single night
> seems to be the opposite of what you are arguing for, Grant!

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.

> 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.

My post was in response to the call for adjudicators for 2005.

Most years the debate usually occurs after the Finleys and critical views are often dismissed as sour grapes. Although Kim pointed out to me this morning that she's joined a long line of Finley Award winners critically examining the adjudication process and working for change and improvement.

There's also an assumption inherent in the notion that we should wait for the results that the only worthwhile outcome from the adjudication process is whatever happens at an awards night in January and that we should judge the process simply by the awards presented. I've always maintained that if this were the only benefit from the adjudication process, it's a frightful waste of energy.

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.

Cheers
Grant

[%sig%]

Grant 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

crgwllms wrote:
>
> 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).


Seems to me part of the problem causing the contention is (let me exaggerate the numbers again): if I had 100 adjudicators who were expected to see all the plays; and as common practice is to offer your VIPS two comps; that means every company would hypothetically be giving away up to 200 tickets a season...!

Currently, with 4 adjudicators, that's only 8 invites. (And I understand these figures would be halved if they didn't bring partners, but I'm looking at the maximum threshold).


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)...?


Cheers,
Craig

Hi 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%]

Hi Grant

I am an adjudicator for the Finleys and in 2004 I did see every single play and musical that was nominated.

Thanks.

Kerri

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 was really hoping you'd be pushing for at least the 96 additional adjudicators I've been hinting at... now I really do feel like I've had the straw knocked out of me.


Gawd, give him his extra two and be done with it.


Cheers,
Craig

Hi 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%]

Hi Kerri

Kerri wrote:
> I am an adjudicator for the Finleys and in 2004 I did see
> every single play and musical that was nominated.

No question, your efforts and those of the other adjudicators are laudable. I'm not quite sure what the community theatre equivalent of a knighthood is, but you've earned it! There are a few years I can remember attending as many as forty or fifty plays, but I'm afraid to say that if I were an adjudicator required to see every play submitted, there would probably be a few productions that I may not particularly want to sit through again!

I was suggesting though, that the most important thing was not that every adjudicator attend every play but that "all adjudicators meet regularly to review, discuss and critique each others' marking." As I asked earlier, I'd be interested to hear whether an adjudicator missing a play had any significant impact on the team's capacity to reach a decision.

Cheers
Grant

[%sig%]

Grant Malcolm wrote:
>
> 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.

No, I always read and appreciate your comments, Grant ...and generally agree!

> Certainly labelling this a "huge controversial discussion" is
> not a reflection of the bare dozen posts here from three
> individuals.

Controversy = a prolonged argument or difference of opinion; I saw there was an opinion contrary to yours, and in provoking you to justify yourself, the argument has been prolonged. I admit, though, that 'huge' is probably a tad short-focussed of me..!


> 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?


Well, my quote is also taken slightly out of context. Arguing for the situation in general, yes I still agree with that logic. And I was responding to an argument where people had been complaining and were brainstorming to develop a new system...I still stand by what I said in that context. But applying it to my PERSONAL situation, well, I would've had no inclination to complain in the first place, so it's not such a strong argument from me!

The situation I usually find myself in is to have my work judged by ONE commentator...the opinion of an arts critic. In lucky cases there may be an alternate view from another paper. I'm interested, but not enough to be too concerned about it.
And the awards system that I sometimes get judged in, the Equity Guild Awards, has a system of about four adjudicators (But I believe this year there were three?). So I can't answer your question 'would I be not much happier with six?', because I'm actually not unhappy with the way it works now. The decisions I've seen made by those judges, I strongly concurred with.
The main thing for me is that the industry in general gets a profile through these awards, and there is an element of recognition by one's peers.

In the case of the Finlays, I'm putting forth arguments from a purely logical standpoint. I have no affiliation with anyone involved, and have not yet ever attended one.... which is probably why I was asked to help host them this year...should be interesting!


Will I see you there?


Cheers
Craig