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: Deflating the myths
Mon, 3 Jan 2005, 06:19 pmGrant 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
>
> 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
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···