[Ansteorra] Re: Ansteorra digest, Vol 1 #450 - 6 msgs -A&S

[CTernus]

Greetings from Radegund,

I am organizing a few classes for Saturday during Steppes Warlord.  Some are
hands-on, how-to-do classes.  Others are to be about documentation and
judging.

In the works is a judging class where I'd like to have interested folks
judge a couple of works, with varying degrees of documentation.  Then a
couple of seasoned A&S judges can share their own judging of the same
pieces.  Some of the ideas I hope to get across are
1) judging can be hard and take a lot of time and effort.
2) informative documentation can make a world of difference to a score
3) different judges want to see different things, you can't please them all,
and but you can please most, or
 the 3 X 5 card vs. the doctoral thesis - there is a middle ground.
4) it's not all about the score.  You don't get fed less or make more money
if your score is high or low.
5) understand the venue in which you're thinking of showing your work and
have realistic expectations.  Some songs are great for campfires but not for
judged competitions, and vice versa.  Some items are great for use in the
SCA but not for judged competitions, and vice versa.

Also in the works is a documentation class, covering some of the above
ideas, but from an active, these-are-some-ways-to-do-it viewpoint.

It was suggested to me that interested parties might want to participate in
a documentation/judging round table, but I think the above two classes may
accomplish the same thing.

If anyone wants to participate in the above classes or has
comments/suggestions, please contact me at cternus at texas.net or reply to the
list.

Thank you,
Radegundis Turonensis
(HL Radegund of Tours)




Giant snippage follows.

> Message: 5
> From: "Christie Ward" <val_org at hotmail.com>
> To: ansteorra at ansteorra.org
> Subject: RE: [Ansteorra] The Journey: A&S
> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:35:19 -0500
> Reply-To: ansteorra at ansteorra.org
>
> I tried to figure out who said what to whom, but I couldn't see clearly
who
> said what.  So I'm just going to address some points as they occur in this
> thread in general.
>
> >In a static A&S you may or may not get to talk with the judge who may or
> >may not know as much as you do about what you are doing.
>
> In much the same way, an =FCber-Duke can walk out and get one-shotted by
an
> absolute newby fighter. Sometimes it's luck and who's there and what kind
o=
> f
> day everyone is having.
>
> It is always a possibility that at a judged competition there may not be a
> judge available who does know more about your topic than you do.  This is
> why we need your documentation.  Any Laurel should be able to pick our
> quality craftsmanship in a piece, even if it is not their field of
> expertise.  Given solid, basic documentation, and an awareness of
> craftsmanship, the judge can usually figure out more or less how to
evaluat=
> e
> an entry.
>
> On the other hand, if I had a farthing for every A&S entry that I've
judged
> that had no documentation, or where the documentation didn't cover even
> minimal basics, I'd own a *much* larger farm by now.  Documentation isn't
> (despite artisan rumors to the contrary) some obscure torture the Laurels
> put you through for our own twisted amusement... it's very frequently
> completely critical to us being able to judge your work at all.
>
> >Also you are competing, like in bardic, against everyone at the same
time.
> >It is a different type of competition.
>
> Not exactly.  What we've been trying for is a "dog show" type of judging.
> We're not basing your A&S score on that of anyone around you, or how
> well/poorly others did.  We are *attempting*, within the limitation of
each
> judge's very human and subjective understanding, to consider your item
> against a "Breed Standard" for whatever type of thing it is.
>
> So, for example, if you enter a reproduction of a carved 9th century
> Icelandic whalebone earspoon and I end up judging it, I'm going to
consider
> your reproduction against your documentation and what I know about
horn/bon=
> e
> carving and about personal toilet items in the early Middle Ages.  Then,
> following the predefined areas on the judging sheet, I have to rank how
wel=
> l
> you did in various categories.
>
> This is harder than you'd think. If you have never judged using our forms,
> come ask me or another Laurel at the next A&S competition to help us
judge.
> I think *every* artisan competing should do this at least a time or two,
> just so you can understand where we are getting these numbers (and no,
we'r=
> e
> not usually pulling them out of our colons!)
>
> When considering on, say, a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being high, a 5 would
mean
> that you were absolutely perfect and needed no improvement whatsoever, and
> there was no way I could think of to offer suggestions for possible
> improvements.  On that scale, a 3 would mean that you were doing pretty
> good, you got a lot of things right and there are some areas that you
might
> want to investigate further for future projects.  A score less than that
> probably in real life means that your documentation was so bad that we
> couldn't score you any higher, because you didn't give us enough info to
be
> able to do so.
>
> >When A&S is judged, we are judged against a masters skill. It would be
muc=
> h
> >like if I knew that every time I stepped onto the tourney field I would
> >draw you at your peak performance...why bother stepping on the
> >field other than for the sheer pleasure of getting my toosh wooped.
>
> To which someone (possibly Pendaran) replied:
> >>This is incorrect. People are asked for their level of expertise on the
> >>judging form. If you rate yourself as an expert, you'll be judged as
one.
> >>If you rate yourself as a novice you'll be judged as one.
>
> The first point in this pair is just not right at all, and the second kind
> of misses the point altogether (though it's true insofar as it goes).
>
> When we are juding an A&S competition, we are not judging you again a
> Laurel's skill level.  We are not deducting points for poor performance.
>
> Our job is to look at the object, and where possible make useful
suggestion=
> s
> on how you can make improvements, either in the object itself or in future
> projects of a similar nature.  Simultaneously, we have to fill out that
> little judging form.
>
> Think of the scoring not as "points deducted" from the score, but rather
> that we start with a zero and *add points onto the score* based on the
> entry's merits when compared against your documentation and the judge's
> knowledge of the art.
>
> In theory, every judge should be writing commentary on your forms.  We
> should be including comments about what was good about the piece, as well
a=
> s
> offering suggestions on ways to improve either the piece or future work in
> the same field.
>
> In reality, sometimes this doesn't happen.  Heck, I write more than most
> people and sometimes we get so swamped dur to lots of entris and few
judges
> that I even don't do as good a job as a should.
>
> What the Expert/Intermediate/Novice info on the form is supposed to do is
t=
> o
> help the judges in structuring the commentary they give back to the
artisan=
> .
>   I'm going to spend more time and warm fuzzies on a new artisan than I am
> to some crusty old reprobate who has been working in that field for years.
> I'd be wasting the expert's time with trivial feedback -- or I could
> overwhelm the new person with too much detail and too many
recommendations.
> A novice needs one or two basic, concrete suggestions for improvement,
plus
> encouragement.  An expert needs good, solid, factual feedback at as high a
> level as it can be offered, often in very nitpicking areas of the field.
>
> >On the field, your weapons vary, in A&S although I can do stainglass or
> >calligraphy or weaving and so on, the battle is still faught with the
> >printed word. Very infrequently do the judges interview the
> >partisipants.
>
> Actually, whenever possible judges usually try to talk to the artisans if
w=
> e
> can.  Sometimes time constraints or lack of enough personnel makes this
les=
> s
> possible.
>
> But I disagree that it comes down always to the documentation -- excellent
> work and craftsmanship is the weapon with which you do battle in this
venue=
> .
>   The documentation is not even always read by the judges -- and yes, we
> should always read documentation, but people are human and sometimes they
> don't.
>
> But, nonetheless, just as a chivalric fighter may prefer melees over
> individual tourament fighting, or spear over sword-and-shield, if the
> documentation makes your skin crawl you always have the option of entering
> only A&S venues such as Laurels' Prize Tourney, where it's a body of work
> display; or you can enter competitions which have the winners selected by
> votes from the populace, etc.
>
> >Also, unlike combat, no one says you can not swing that way because it
can
> >not be proven that people swong that way in period. I have been told more
> >than once that tatting is not period. It was started by the
> >egyptions 2000bc, but did not enter the household of the european rich
> >until after 1600ad, so "it is obviously not period." and there is no
> >research done to say what it was being used for in the 3600 years
> >between those dates.
>
> If you can document the art to any place and time prior to 1600, then that
> info needs to be in the documentation for the judges.  If it is in the
> documentation and the judges overlooked that, you need to track them down
> and talk to the individual judge about that in detail.
>
> No one will tell you that you can't tat things for use in the Society, nor
> even that you cannot enter them in A&S competitions, so your fighting
> analogy on this one is wrong.  If you don't explain why it's period in
your
> documentation, though, you can't really complain if the judges base their
> scores on what *they personally know about the art*.
>
> ::GUNNORA::
>
> (One of those Southern Ansteorran Laurels)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world=92s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> From: "cehuse" <cehuse at sbcglobal.net>
> To: <ansteorra at ansteorra.org>
> Subject: RE: [Ansteorra] The Journey: A&S
> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:10:09 -0500
> Reply-To: ansteorra at ansteorra.org
>
> So, this leads me to ask....What makes for good documentation? How do you
w=
> rite
> documentation? I've not entered anything because I know nothing about
writi=
> ng
> documentation. When I have asked, the only answers I get are vague and
> confusing.
>
> Maria