[Ravensfort] -A&S Classes at Steppes Warlord

[L T]

--- CTernus <cternus at texas.net> wrote:
> From: "CTernus" <cternus at texas.net>
> To: <ansteorra at ansteorra.org>
> Subject: [Ansteorra] Re: Ansteorra digest, Vol 1 #450 - 6 msgs -A&S
> Reply-to: ansteorra at ansteorra.org
> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:57:42 -0500
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at ansteorra.org
> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/ansteorra


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/