ANST - Documentation (wordy)

[Michael Tucker]

Greetings, all (but especially Mistress Aquilanne),
from Baron Michael Silverhands:

Dory Grace (Mistress Aquilanne) wrote:
> You're not foolin' anybody y'know.  ;->  Can't swing a documentation-cat
> around without waking up a few opinions.  But you *knew* that, and probably
> sat back and grinned the whole time knowing how deeply many of us would
> swallow the bait. <g>

Well, I *admit* that once I saw the avalanche, I permitted a chuckle or two at
the realization of what I had set in motion. It seemed I had discovered a method
for determining which Laurels subscribe to this list (sort of like
echo-location). <wicked grin> But, I *swear* I had no idea beforehand that the
fireworks would be so... um... impressive. <g>

Thank you for characterizing my long-winded blather as "logical deduction". I
*try* to be both brief and complete, really I do, but sometimes the brief falls
short, and you know what *that* means... <g>

You ask:
> Besides, where do you draw the line? If an artist provides no
> documentation, do you disqualify their entry?

If you make documentation a requirement for all judged competitions, then yes,
without hesitation. HOWEVER: I would do everything in my power to help every
entrant meet the requirement. Consider: some dinner clubs require you to wear a
coat and tie. If you don't have one, they'll loan you one. We require everyone
who attends our events to wear "a reasonable attempt at garb". In the Barony of
Stargate, we try to have loaner garb at the gate. Let's take a similar approach
to judged A&S events: if someone shows up with no documentation, hand them a
one-page form to fill out (the "A&S_EZ"? <g>), with places for the absolute
minimum information. I.e.:

   My name is (who?):

   My entry is a (what?):

   To the best of my knowledge, historically:

      things like this were used (where? when? how? why?):

      things like this would have made this (how? why?):

   I actually made this piece (how?):

   My methods for making this piece differed from history (how? why?):

   I learned about things like this from (what sources?):

> What about the entrant who
> had met 70% of minimal required documentation? Do you disqualify them, or
> go on and judge their entry with no thought to the inequities that might
> arise?

No, both of those solutions seem unsatisfactory, leaving all concerned unhappy.
I suggest that we check the entrant's documentation (when they submit the entry)
for those absolute minimum bits of information listed above and discussed
elsewhere. If anything's missing, point it out and hand them a pen. If all else
fails, hand them the form to use "this time", and gently suggest they brush up
their documentation for "next time". This way there can't be any such thing as
"70% of minimal required documentation". You're going to the trouble to help
them meet 100% of the minimum requirement. If someone is flat unwilling to come
up to this minimum bar, then yes, "you disqualify them".

The point is to help them meet a minimum standard required for their entry to be
judged fairly (or at all). If this seems like a lot of trouble, remember that we
check every fighter's authorization card and thoroughly inspect their armor and
weapons before we allow them to enter a tournament. If we find any shortcomings,
we show them what needs to be fixed and hand them a roll of duct tape (or
whatever). If they can fix it on the spot, we let them enter the tournament. And
we gently suggest they repair their gear for "next time".

One VERY important point: I think it's ok for someone to cite their source as
"oral tradition" or "examples", i.e. "I studied the works of Master
Godsgifttoswordmakers, and made my sword in the same style and using the same
techniques". Just point out to them that the judges may take points off for
"authenticity of the work" if they don't have some kind of verifiable, published
reference that the entry is indeed historically authentic.

Also, someone might write "I read about things like this in the library, but I
don't remember what books I read". Ok, that's pretty poor documentation of their
source, and the kind of mistake a new artisan might make. Again, just point out
that the work will probably lose points for authenticity, since the judges have
no standard against which to judge its authenticity. But if they're willing to
fill out the form, however poorly, let them enter the work and let it and its
documentation stand on their own merits. If nothing else, they should be able to
learn some valuable lessons from the experience.

What I'm stressing here is that the *work* loses points, not the
*documentation*. The *documentation* is proof of the *research*, which is [or
ought to be] an inseperable part of the *work*. The documentation is simply the
vehicle that allows the work to be fairly judged.

> As another thought, it's a bit harder, as a judge, to give concise feedback
> without a standardized template. We're trying to meet a lot of needs here
> and, frankly, when I'm judging *I* don't always remember all the points
> that need to be covered. Standardization of documentation requirements and
> scores helps make sure all bases are covered.

I agree with the "standardized template" for documentation. (Not that everyone
has to use the same form, but that everyone's documentation has to have a
certain minimum set of information.) And I heartily endorse the development of a
"standardize template" for judging. But I still don't see the point of scoring
the documentation, unless the documentation is itself an entry to be judged
(i.e. a research entry). On the other hand, I realize that many great minds (and
egos <g>) have approached this issue, I'm just the "new kid on the block" adding
my two cents to the discussion. :-)

My whole reason for bringing the issue up in the first place was to try and find
a way for us to be able to judge THE WORK, rather than obsessing about THE
RESEARCH. I really feel that if the research is there, it will show up in the
work. You just need some assurance of the artisan's understanding of the
historical relevance of the piece, and what to look for when you're judging it.

Also, as you noted:
> Most of us don't have the time or necessarily the inclination to
> read a thesis or look at 47 8x10 color glossy photograph (especially the
> ones with the paragraphs on the back explaining what each one is ;-> ).
> That kind of work should be entered as a research paper, and the item
> should be entered with a one-page summary covering the above "what it is,
> etc," info with a note to see the research paper if the judge is so inclined.

Exactly! I read elsewhere a comparison of A&S events to dog shows, where you
don't necessarily compare the dogs to each other; you compare each dog to the
ideal for dogs of its breed. Hopefully, you have an expert in every breed
present at the show, so you know what the ideals are. But failing that, there
are written *minimum* standards for every breed. Anyone familiar with judging
dogs can compare a dog to the written standard, i.e. full chest, "equine" neck,
preferred coloration, etc. At best, the documentation for A&S provides that
written standard. Like in my made-up example, where "widgets were historically
made from 5 pounds of gold and were worked with fire-hardened sticks". Ok, now
the judge has a standard against which to compare this widget. It doesn't have
to be wordy, just complete. (Please, God, help me to keep my documentation short
and to the point when the day comes that I enter an A&S competition.) <g>

Finally, you patted my head thusly:
> >really *did* experience what I related. I was attempting to be a Good
> Baron by
> >sharing those comments with you all, to see what you thought about them. I
> was
> >pretty confident I would find one or two of you with opinions on the
> matter. :-)
> 
> You were being a very Good Baron indeed.
> 
> Aquilanne

Thank you! It's easy to feel like a complete idiot (or butthead) for questioning
the way things are. But I feel it's better to *seem* foolish by asking, than to
*be* foolish by remaining ignorant, or by allowing a possibly solveable problem
to go unsolved just because you were afraid to bring it up.

Yours in friendship and with thanks,
Michael
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.