Post by Kanashimi on Jul 7, 2016 12:27:53 GMT -6
How to Judge in an Amtgard A&S Tournament
By Baron Master Thalen Tannon
I’ve been entering Arts and Sciences competitions since 1992 and
judging tournaments since 1995. In all that time, I’ve only noticed a decline
in A&S in the last few years. Not particularly in terms of quality, but
definitely in terms of quantity. I believe that the decline is caused by the
lack of faith in the A&S system. The methods of the system aren't as clear
cut as a fighting tournament because the judging criteria can change with
every competition.
More often than hearing artisans tell me what they hope to enter in an
upcoming tournament, I hear several complaints from entrants about the lack
of organization of the tournaments themselves and about the quality of the
judges. I suggest restructuring and standardizing the organization of our
tournaments for Arts and Sciences. To achieve that goal, we should train
our Masters and Knights in the Art of Judging: something that we expect
from them, but rarely teach.
These pages contain a proposal for a standardization of judges and for
the method by which those judges score an A&S entry.
Selecting a Judge
When you’re dealing with such a wide variety of artistic endeavors,
it’s improbable for any one judge to know the ins and outs of all of the
possible categories and sub-categories. So if it’s improbable to find one
judge, then likely it’s impossible to find three or more. So what is an
autocrat to do when faced with such a Herculean feat? In the past, they were
resigned to ask their friends or ask those Knights and Masters who are
usually called upon to fill such roles and hope for the best. I offer another
option.
First, it’s important when selecting Judges that an autocrat chooses a
variety of talented individuals. For example, if possible, choose a Dragon, a
Garber, and a Owl rather than three Owls or three Garbers. While the
Judges don’t have to be Masters, choose Judges with at least 5 orders of a
particular ladder award. It’s important that the Judges have enough
experience to perform their duties. Additionally, try to choose Judges who
understand the impact of their duties. It may just take an hour or two out of
their event time but it could have a lasting effect on the entrants.
Once the autocrat selects the judges, then it's time to show them what
they're looking for.
The Judging Criteria
In order to regain the confidence of the artisans, it’s imperative that
we standardize what the judges are looking for in any given entry. In this
way, the competitors know in advance what’s being expected of them
beyond the initial creation of their entries. Then, with proper presentation at
the tournament, the playing field is leveled and the judges can more
efficiently do the job we’ve asked of them.
There are five different criteria that the judges should look for when
judging any entry:
Documentation aka “The Write Up”
Documentation is the foundation of a good entry. It provides the
judges with the necessary details of the conception and creation for the item
entered. It shows the entrant’s understanding of the overall techniques and
the adaptations that had to be made for this specific project. Many times the
competitor is more knowledgeable in the specific entry than the judge and
the documentation should reflect that knowledge. It should answer any
questions that the judge may have in regards to that entry.
Judges may give a lower score to entries for a lack of color pictures or
for not putting the write up into a binder. However, while organized
documentation should score higher than disorganized or hard to read write
ups, this is less important than a document that shows an overall
understanding of the work involved.
Scope of Work
This section is used to determine the depth and breadth of the work.
The judges should try not to look at the piece as it is, but what the entrant
was envisioning from the start from what is written in their documentation.
For example, if they are trying to produce a piece of court garb, their
documentation might indicate that they were attempting to replicate an outfit
from a movie. They may include stills shots of the outfit from that movie.
This would be their scope of work. The Judge would then attempt to
determine how closely the finished product matches the intended result.
Various factors that increase the scope are the level of complexity of
the piece, availability of source information, number of elements, time
required, etc.
Relevance
While we aren’t “Period Specific” like they are in the SCA, Amtgard
DOES have a time period and place that we’re trying to represent. The
Rules of Play define that period by declaring that “Every persona must be
either of an ancient, medieval, or swords and sorcery related background.”
That gives us a lot of time and space to work with. Keeping that in mind,
the entry should bear some relevance to what we do in Amtgard. The
obvious things like garb and weapons are easily recognizable as relevant, but
it might take some real thought to decide if a bardic entry is “Amtgard
Relevant”.
A Judge should ask themselves “If Amtgard were real, would this
(insert entry here) be out of place?” If so, the Judge would need to determine
to what extent and critique the piece accordingly.
Skill + Complexity = Workmanship
This is the section where experience in the field of the entry is the
most helpful. In this section, the judges will determine how well the entrant
completed the piece. Complexity is the degree of difficulty in creating the
item. Consider how much physical time the entry took to construct, the use
of elaborate or sensitive processes, and the availability of materials used in
the creation of the item. Workmanship is the degree of quality of the item
created. It shows the entrant’s skill in the use of the documented processes
and materials.
Creativity
Creativity is the degree in which the entrant shows their understanding
of the processes and materials to create an original item. It also shows how
well the entrant can adapt and interpret what they have learned. Is this an
original work? Did they do anything innovative or creative in the
production? Did they employ a degree of experimentation in the creation of
this item?
For example, the entry is a sword. Is it “Old Tech” or “New Tech”?
Did they use foam other than the typical noodle? Is the grip wrapped in a
new technique? Does the cover match their heraldry or their company
colors? Any deviation from the standard Rules of Play sword would be an
example of their creativity.
Judge's Observations / Aesthetics
This section is designed to cover how all the other sections fit
together; what is the overall effect of the piece? Aesthetics is the degree in
which the entry is pleasing to the eye.
This is the judges’ one spot to let their personal feelings through. If
the entry has documentation, matches its scope of work, is well crafted and
original but the judge just does not like it, this is where that opinion goes.
On the contrary, if you like the piece you're judging, score high!
The corollary, however, is that for all the other criteria, the judges
must remain impartial and objective.
The Critique
The most difficult task for a judge is offering a meaningful critique on
the entry. The critique should tell the entrant how well they did in regards to
the judging criteria. It should also tell the entrant areas in which need
improvement and offer comments about the entry. The critique is also the
appropriate place for the judge to ask questions about the artist's work.
The Points Awarded
One of the most important duties for a judge is to rate the item upon
the criteria by assigning to it a point value. A judge should develop a set of
standards for each criterion that they compare the item to for assessment.
For the two 5 point values, use these criteria and divide by 2. The following
is a suggestion on establishing such a standard:
9-10 Points: The item meets the criteria perfectly or near perfectly. There is
little to no room for improvement for the item in regards to the specific
criteria and it is exceptionally done.
7-8 Points: The item exceeds expectations for the criteria. There may be
room for improvement but it is well done.
5-6 Points: The item meets all expectations determined. There is room for
improvement but it is properly done.
3-4 Points: The item is lacking in meeting the expectations you have
determined for the criteria. A definite effort has been shown and it is
adequately done.
1-2 Points: The item shows a rudimentary effort in meeting the expectations
A basic effort has been shown and it is marginally done.
0 Points: No effort at all made to meet the criteria.
At the end of the scoring, the result will be a number from 1-50. Once
this number has been obtained, moving the decimal one space to the left
gives us the 5 point score that we traditionally use. The method of
determining the winner based off the score may vary with the Autocrat.
Dos and Don'ts for Judges
Do
• Read the entrant's documentation thoroughly - The answers to any
questions you may have may well be present in the documentation, but may
not be obvious at first glance. Entrants will complain about being marked
down for items that were explained in their documentation.
• Ask for help if you are not sure how to interpret a specific line or
wording in the criteria.
• Let the tournament-crat know if you have any food allergies or aversion
to alcohol when signing up to judge cooking or Brewing/Vintner entries
• Keep an open mind to new and different techniques and approaches.
• Make comments frequently; it is especially good to make a comment
whenever you give a less than perfect score to answer the inevitable entrant's
question "Why?"
Don't
• Don't judge an entry you are uncomfortable judging; it's okay to say no!
• Don't judge a project based on your own research. Personal research
and/or experience with a project certainly aides in interpreting skill and
scope and helps you give useful comments. However, entering into judging
with predetermined ideas of how a project should have been done and/or
how the final result should appear can result in you unfairly penalizing the
entrant.
With the application of the methods and concepts within this proposal,
the standardization of the judging process should help restore the confidence
in the Arts & Sciences tournaments. Once implemented, I believe there will
be a noticeable growth in both quantity and quality of entries and informed
judges.
A & S Competition Entry Sheet & Source
By Baron Master Thalen Tannon
I’ve been entering Arts and Sciences competitions since 1992 and
judging tournaments since 1995. In all that time, I’ve only noticed a decline
in A&S in the last few years. Not particularly in terms of quality, but
definitely in terms of quantity. I believe that the decline is caused by the
lack of faith in the A&S system. The methods of the system aren't as clear
cut as a fighting tournament because the judging criteria can change with
every competition.
More often than hearing artisans tell me what they hope to enter in an
upcoming tournament, I hear several complaints from entrants about the lack
of organization of the tournaments themselves and about the quality of the
judges. I suggest restructuring and standardizing the organization of our
tournaments for Arts and Sciences. To achieve that goal, we should train
our Masters and Knights in the Art of Judging: something that we expect
from them, but rarely teach.
These pages contain a proposal for a standardization of judges and for
the method by which those judges score an A&S entry.
Selecting a Judge
When you’re dealing with such a wide variety of artistic endeavors,
it’s improbable for any one judge to know the ins and outs of all of the
possible categories and sub-categories. So if it’s improbable to find one
judge, then likely it’s impossible to find three or more. So what is an
autocrat to do when faced with such a Herculean feat? In the past, they were
resigned to ask their friends or ask those Knights and Masters who are
usually called upon to fill such roles and hope for the best. I offer another
option.
First, it’s important when selecting Judges that an autocrat chooses a
variety of talented individuals. For example, if possible, choose a Dragon, a
Garber, and a Owl rather than three Owls or three Garbers. While the
Judges don’t have to be Masters, choose Judges with at least 5 orders of a
particular ladder award. It’s important that the Judges have enough
experience to perform their duties. Additionally, try to choose Judges who
understand the impact of their duties. It may just take an hour or two out of
their event time but it could have a lasting effect on the entrants.
Once the autocrat selects the judges, then it's time to show them what
they're looking for.
The Judging Criteria
In order to regain the confidence of the artisans, it’s imperative that
we standardize what the judges are looking for in any given entry. In this
way, the competitors know in advance what’s being expected of them
beyond the initial creation of their entries. Then, with proper presentation at
the tournament, the playing field is leveled and the judges can more
efficiently do the job we’ve asked of them.
There are five different criteria that the judges should look for when
judging any entry:
Documentation aka “The Write Up”
Documentation is the foundation of a good entry. It provides the
judges with the necessary details of the conception and creation for the item
entered. It shows the entrant’s understanding of the overall techniques and
the adaptations that had to be made for this specific project. Many times the
competitor is more knowledgeable in the specific entry than the judge and
the documentation should reflect that knowledge. It should answer any
questions that the judge may have in regards to that entry.
Judges may give a lower score to entries for a lack of color pictures or
for not putting the write up into a binder. However, while organized
documentation should score higher than disorganized or hard to read write
ups, this is less important than a document that shows an overall
understanding of the work involved.
Scope of Work
This section is used to determine the depth and breadth of the work.
The judges should try not to look at the piece as it is, but what the entrant
was envisioning from the start from what is written in their documentation.
For example, if they are trying to produce a piece of court garb, their
documentation might indicate that they were attempting to replicate an outfit
from a movie. They may include stills shots of the outfit from that movie.
This would be their scope of work. The Judge would then attempt to
determine how closely the finished product matches the intended result.
Various factors that increase the scope are the level of complexity of
the piece, availability of source information, number of elements, time
required, etc.
Relevance
While we aren’t “Period Specific” like they are in the SCA, Amtgard
DOES have a time period and place that we’re trying to represent. The
Rules of Play define that period by declaring that “Every persona must be
either of an ancient, medieval, or swords and sorcery related background.”
That gives us a lot of time and space to work with. Keeping that in mind,
the entry should bear some relevance to what we do in Amtgard. The
obvious things like garb and weapons are easily recognizable as relevant, but
it might take some real thought to decide if a bardic entry is “Amtgard
Relevant”.
A Judge should ask themselves “If Amtgard were real, would this
(insert entry here) be out of place?” If so, the Judge would need to determine
to what extent and critique the piece accordingly.
Skill + Complexity = Workmanship
This is the section where experience in the field of the entry is the
most helpful. In this section, the judges will determine how well the entrant
completed the piece. Complexity is the degree of difficulty in creating the
item. Consider how much physical time the entry took to construct, the use
of elaborate or sensitive processes, and the availability of materials used in
the creation of the item. Workmanship is the degree of quality of the item
created. It shows the entrant’s skill in the use of the documented processes
and materials.
Creativity
Creativity is the degree in which the entrant shows their understanding
of the processes and materials to create an original item. It also shows how
well the entrant can adapt and interpret what they have learned. Is this an
original work? Did they do anything innovative or creative in the
production? Did they employ a degree of experimentation in the creation of
this item?
For example, the entry is a sword. Is it “Old Tech” or “New Tech”?
Did they use foam other than the typical noodle? Is the grip wrapped in a
new technique? Does the cover match their heraldry or their company
colors? Any deviation from the standard Rules of Play sword would be an
example of their creativity.
Judge's Observations / Aesthetics
This section is designed to cover how all the other sections fit
together; what is the overall effect of the piece? Aesthetics is the degree in
which the entry is pleasing to the eye.
This is the judges’ one spot to let their personal feelings through. If
the entry has documentation, matches its scope of work, is well crafted and
original but the judge just does not like it, this is where that opinion goes.
On the contrary, if you like the piece you're judging, score high!
The corollary, however, is that for all the other criteria, the judges
must remain impartial and objective.
The Critique
The most difficult task for a judge is offering a meaningful critique on
the entry. The critique should tell the entrant how well they did in regards to
the judging criteria. It should also tell the entrant areas in which need
improvement and offer comments about the entry. The critique is also the
appropriate place for the judge to ask questions about the artist's work.
The Points Awarded
One of the most important duties for a judge is to rate the item upon
the criteria by assigning to it a point value. A judge should develop a set of
standards for each criterion that they compare the item to for assessment.
For the two 5 point values, use these criteria and divide by 2. The following
is a suggestion on establishing such a standard:
9-10 Points: The item meets the criteria perfectly or near perfectly. There is
little to no room for improvement for the item in regards to the specific
criteria and it is exceptionally done.
7-8 Points: The item exceeds expectations for the criteria. There may be
room for improvement but it is well done.
5-6 Points: The item meets all expectations determined. There is room for
improvement but it is properly done.
3-4 Points: The item is lacking in meeting the expectations you have
determined for the criteria. A definite effort has been shown and it is
adequately done.
1-2 Points: The item shows a rudimentary effort in meeting the expectations
A basic effort has been shown and it is marginally done.
0 Points: No effort at all made to meet the criteria.
At the end of the scoring, the result will be a number from 1-50. Once
this number has been obtained, moving the decimal one space to the left
gives us the 5 point score that we traditionally use. The method of
determining the winner based off the score may vary with the Autocrat.
Dos and Don'ts for Judges
Do
• Read the entrant's documentation thoroughly - The answers to any
questions you may have may well be present in the documentation, but may
not be obvious at first glance. Entrants will complain about being marked
down for items that were explained in their documentation.
• Ask for help if you are not sure how to interpret a specific line or
wording in the criteria.
• Let the tournament-crat know if you have any food allergies or aversion
to alcohol when signing up to judge cooking or Brewing/Vintner entries
• Keep an open mind to new and different techniques and approaches.
• Make comments frequently; it is especially good to make a comment
whenever you give a less than perfect score to answer the inevitable entrant's
question "Why?"
Don't
• Don't judge an entry you are uncomfortable judging; it's okay to say no!
• Don't judge a project based on your own research. Personal research
and/or experience with a project certainly aides in interpreting skill and
scope and helps you give useful comments. However, entering into judging
with predetermined ideas of how a project should have been done and/or
how the final result should appear can result in you unfairly penalizing the
entrant.
With the application of the methods and concepts within this proposal,
the standardization of the judging process should help restore the confidence
in the Arts & Sciences tournaments. Once implemented, I believe there will
be a noticeable growth in both quantity and quality of entries and informed
judges.
A & S Competition Entry Sheet & Source