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: Blown away
Fri, 31 Dec 2004, 03:31 pmHi 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%]
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%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···