A&S STandards and The Lack Thereof in Ansteorra

Mjccmc01 at aol.com Mjccmc01 at aol.com
Sat Jun 7 10:15:52 PDT 1997


I am in agreement with both Gunnora and Aquillane as to the need to
standards, particularly with regard to research papers.  However, a few
points we need to keep in mind should we consider this:

1.  Intimidation factor.  For whatever reason, a lot of our members seem to
have a great fear of writing.  When framing the research paper standards, we
need to do it in such a way that people don't run screaming in fear.  While
we do want the standards to give entrants something to aspire to, we don't
want the standards to keep the entrants from an attempt.  

I personally think the way SCA A&S competitions are generally run is not at
all conducive to encouraging excellence in a paper.   While academic journals
do have standards, papers are not usually submitted to a journal until they
have been floated around the department (or at least a few respected
colleagues for comment).  Then comes the delightful process of peer review,
suggestions and revisions.  In the SCA, the judge is very fortunate to have
two weeks to look over the paper, then a negligible amount of time to discuss
the paper with the contestant.  I wish we could come up with a way to do the
sort of "in process" critique that you find in academic circles.  Until we
can, I don't think we can apply that standard.

2.  Limitations on expertise.  It could very well be that we don't have
someone competent to frame standards in an area.  When I lived in Meridies, I
was told I couldn't enter a research paper I had done because (1) nobody
could read Anglo-Saxon and wouldn't know if my translation was any good, and
(2) they would rather not judge it at all that judge it incompetently.  ( A
custom I think should be adapted across the board, BTW).  I would hate for an
absence of some "official criteria" to discourage someone from breaking new
ground.

3.  Lack of flexibility.  Suppose one work is startlingly brilliant in one or
two areas but deficient in documentation, and another is adequate in all
areas.  If we are using criteria that assign "points per area,"  an adequate
work will be judged as having more artistic value than one that is flawed but
brilliant.  For this reason, I strongly believe that the criteria should be
guidelines, but should not be framed as "x number   of points for
documentation, x number of points for execution," etc.

I've noticed that attempts to formulate this sort of criteria sometimes fall
victim to the "forest and trees" syndrome (i.e., how many primary sources can
dance on the head of a pin).  Ask anyone who's ever judged A&S at Gulf Wars.
 Try to find someone who enjoyed his/her experience.  I haven't.  

In looking this over, I realize that I probably sound like I'm opposed to
formulating criteria; I am not.  I just think we are in a position to benefit
from the experience of other kingdoms who have implemented such a system and
avoid some of their mistakes.  I really don't mean for this to be a wet
blanket on the worthy pursuit of criteria development.

Feeling a bit like the bad fairy at the christening,

Fondly,

Siobhan



More information about the Ansteorra mailing list