— In runacc@yahoogroups.com, David Doering <dave@t…> wrote:

> Ricky wrote: “So at what point do we hold judges, and MD’s

accountable for

> things being askew, and judges having their own agendas.”
>
> As I recall, various cons rejected the ICG model masquerade rules

_because_

> they seemed to dictate policy and procedure. For CCs, we’re okay to

ask for

> accountability. But I am not sure how we can hold regular con judges

and MDs accountable

Dave, I guess what maybe what I mean is answerable, perhaps more than
accountable.
I don’t suggest we tar and feather someone because they may have made
unpopular choices, or list them in the newspaper alongside child
abusers. But the frank discussions of what went good and what seemed
hinky about any one masquerade should be allowable.
And if the judges choose to say nothing, or refuse to answer a
costumers questions, is it so wrong to have people know that?
In case we really ever have a big problem judge, isn’t it better that
future MD’s know that before asking them?

There’s always off list or private chatter about what guest writer was
on a panel and too drunk to tell what color a costume was. we all
compare notes.
This discussion would not be a good thing for the ICG list at all, but
it IS why this list is here. Many people here will be put into a
position of choosing judges in the next 5 years or so.

While the ICG can’t force things down the throats of any con, things
that happen at a CC do have a way of positively influencing other
conventions over time.

So, you’re right, there’s no need, reason or probably intent to OUT
judges in public, but this is a private list, and we mostly all know
each other pretty well. We should be able to chat about anything here
at least.

Word gets around about who did what. There are many old timers from
the 70’s and 80’s who would not be asked to judge should they show up
again. Most of us know the stories and thankfully it’s because of all
these lists that things as bad as some old cons were, have not
happened again. ( back when who’s sleeping with who, and who beat who
the last time out and such actually decided a few masquerades)

But it’s a long way from perfect.

Ricky

>

grizzy1955 wrote:

[snip]

>
> So, you’re right, there’s no need, reason or probably intent to OUT
> judges in public, but this is a private list, and we mostly all know
> each other pretty well. We should be able to chat about anything here
> at least.

And this is precisely why this list should remain closely
moderated/managed. The D list contains not just individuals who’ve done
this stuff before, but also quite a number of non-ICG members who just
stumbled into it. Getting deeply into discussions about the politics and
procedures of managing a CC (or, for that matter, the ICG itself) would
just turn off some of those people who aren’t interested in the deep
inner workings of the committees or the organization.

On the other hand, if there are people who should be a part of this
ongoing discussion and who are not presently on this list, they should
be invited to participate. Is there anyone on this list from the CC28
New England bid, for example?

Now that the CC27/28 bids have gone public, and CC26! is real, the
members of this list should probably be adjusted as necessary.

Cheers,

Betsy
(Your friendly, neighborhood list moderator)

David Doering wrote:

> As I recall, various cons rejected the ICG model masquerade rules _because_
> they seemed to dictate policy and procedure. For CCs, we’re okay to ask for
> accountability. But I am not sure how we can hold regular con judges and
> MD’s accountable.

OK, official hat on.

The ICG doesn’t have “model masquerade rules.” I think there are model
rules in Janet & Cat’s Masquerade Handbook, but that’s not an ICG document.

The “ICG Masquerade Guidelnes” (as in the icky set that’s still in
effect) and the draft “ICG Guidelines for Fair Competition” (intended to
replace them) do specify policy, but are very thin on procedure. That’s
intentional. Procedure can vary a lot between venues.

Official hat off.

Remember the list we’re on: RunACC. We’re talking about how we can
improve CC both behind the scenes (as in efficiency and learning lessons
from each other) and as we face the membership to provide them a better
experience.

While everybody here should take what we learn back to their locals and
regionals to improve them too, we need to avoid getting too far beyond
our scope. in our basic discussions. We’re not the secret masters of
costuming here (well, we might be, but we’re not too secret and we’re
only masters of our own cons).

andy

Aw, c’mon! I’ve been SMOCing for years! Just ask Pierre! 9-)

I do agree, though, that we’re talking about Costume-Con competitons
here, and we should try to stick to that. After all, we’re working with
23 years of assorted history and information, and there’s a lot to be
learned from the ones that worked.

There’s also value in the anecdotal info from other venues, but unless
they work a whole lot like a CC does, the information might not be as
useful as it could otherwise be.

Sorry if I’m rambling. I’m logging off now, and it could be as late as
tomorrow evening before I’ll get a chance to log back in again. Tomorrow
is going to be pure HECK!

Cheers,

Betsy

Andrew T Trembley wrote:

> While everybody here should take what we learn back to their locals and
> regionals to improve them too, we need to avoid getting too far beyond
> our scope. in our basic discussions. We’re not the secret masters of
> costuming here (well, we might be, but we’re not too secret and we’re
> only masters of our own cons).
>
> andy

grizzy1955 wrote:

> And on a seperate topic, are judges decisions to be kept to
> themselves?
> I have always assumed that I would be held responsible for my
> decisions and have to speak about them when asked.

It is a judge’s responsibility to not volunteer critiques to contestants.

I think it’s within a judge’s discretion to decide whether or not to
offer a critique if asked by the contestant, but if given that critique
should be explained as the individual judge’s opinion, not that of the
whole panel.

Only if all judges are present and talking with the contestant should
the judges discuss things in terms of what the panel thought.

Now I basically agree with you that in most cases a judge should be
ready and willing to discuss an entry with the entrant. Any request,
though, should always (unless you know the person asking the question
and how they accept criticism) be prefixed with a “do you really,
really, really, really, really want my detailed opinion and critique?”
Some people don’t really want your honest opinion.

andy

As a relative new-comer to running CCs, I too am learning here, so I don’t
want to sideline the talk of what the judging standards should be and how
to teach them.

However, what I was struggling with when I made my earlier comment was to
see if our goal is to create a private or a public standard to measure
judging by.

For example, while Ricky writes: “Most of us know the stories…” in
regards to knowing bad judges. These stories we share here amongst
ourselves so we know whom we shouldn’t ask again. On the other hand, Andy
writes “We’re not the secret masters of costuming here…” meaning (to me
at least) that we shouldn’t have a private understanding about how to
measure judges but should have some public guidelines to remedy potentially
bad calls.

Either way, how will future CC chairs (such as myself in the recent past)
be able to know who to ask/not ask as MD, or how to set those standards?

Dave Doering

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 11:29 AM 5/10/2005 +0000, Charles Galway wrote:

>What needs to be the role of the lighting, for the masquerades? In a
>historical sense, that was not really an issue. (like pantomime), it has
>tended to be minimalist lighting conditions, with each contestant getting
>essentially the same lighting, but allowing for different announcing and
>timing.

Historically, anything costumers get beyond blackout and full stage
lighting is gravy.

Some of techno fandom have their own equipment and are happy to bring it,
set it up, and use it, but we cannot rely on a given sort of special
effects lighting (back lighting, gobos, gels, spotlights, etc.) being
present at any given con.

The 1984 WorldCon masquerade was in the Anaheim civic arena, with just
about any kind of lighting possible, but the costumers were not experienced
enough to know what to ask for (no, the blue costume shouldn’t get lit with
blue light), and the crew running the lighting wasn’t experienced enough to
deal with all the special effects.

I think the KISS principle applies here, especially at smaller cons like CC
that do not have a huge budget for specialty lighting.

–Karen

One hopes it’s not just the same ones. And I think actually if this panel
continues at CCs (an excellent way to train future judges), there should be
more than one video, or it should be updated every few with all new entries.
Or, perhaps, one of CCs, one of Worldcons, and maybe one of regional
entries. Each has different challenges.

Bruce

—– Original Message —–
From: “Ricky & Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>
To: <runacc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [runacc] Digest Number 224

> Bruce wrote,
>
> >I concur that an updated judging panel video is really needed. Something
> >for CC25, as a panel on masquerade evolution and the judging issues?
That’d
> >give folks plenty of time to put together the necessary clips. 🙂
>
>
> I think Carl is also trying to get first generation tapes onto dvd to do
> this, he certainley borrowed a bunch from us that some at least are the
> originals.
> also, we are working with him to get some sound editing so we can fix that
> which we can’t replace, even in some cases, finding the cd of the music,
> and just re-recording it fresh if there are no cuts.
>
> Ricky
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> View the Document: http://www.Costume-Con.org/procedure/runacc/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

That observation is born out here. Interestingly, there has been no decline
in numbers. In fact, it appears to be growing by about an entry or two each
year for the last 5 years, at least.

Bruce

—– Original Message —–
From: “Andrew T Trembley” <attrembl@bovil.com>

> Looking to regionals and west-coast locals, there’s quite a bit of
> serious work and even the funny presentations usually feature excellent
> costumes.

—– Original Message —–
From: “grizzy1955” <castleb@pulsenet.com>
To: <runacc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:36 PM
Subject: [runacc] Re: Presentation vs Workmanship

> — In runacc@yahoogroups.com, Pierre & Sandy Pettinger
> <costumrs@r…> wrote:
> > I can say, without naming specific conventions, that I have seen
> terrific
> > presentation that have received no or small awards because the
> costume was
> > poor or suffered from some major design flaws.
>
> There is no shame in giving the lesser or middle-of-the-road costume
> with the terrific presentation a “Best Presentation,” “Most Humorous,”
> or “Best Concept” award. But does it deserve a Best In Show, Judge’s
> Choice, or Best In Class? Only if the quality of the individual
> costume(s) is higher than the other entries in the masquerade.
> Ultimately, it still should be about the costumes.
>
> Over the last decade, we have seen more and more “joke” presentations
> in the East Coast masquerades, and declining numbers in the
> masquerades overall. If judges consistently give the highest awards to
> the best schtick vs. the best costumes, there is *no* incentive for
> anyone to put the effort into high-quality, serious costumes, and I
> think our artform loses something important thereby.
>
> –Karen

On May 12, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Ricky & Karen Dick wrote:

> The 1984 WorldCon masquerade was in the Anaheim civic arena, with just
> about any kind of lighting possible, but the costumers were not
> experienced
> enough to know what to ask for (no, the blue costume shouldn’t get lit
> with
> blue light), and the crew running the lighting wasn’t experienced
> enough to
> deal with all the special effects.

This is a programming department issue. Plan for a panel on “how to
speak ‘tech'” and how to take advantage of fancy tech. Get costumers
with technical theater background to do a half-hour on advanced
lighting and sound, and how to use them when they’re available.

> I think the KISS principle applies here, especially at smaller cons
> like CC
> that do not have a huge budget for specialty lighting.

From the back-end perspective, a discussion of which “special” lighting
options are worth looking into and which aren’t may be valuable.

Nobody works without any gels anymore. Even the most basic lighting is
going to have some way to tune the color, and this is something that
should be worked out with the crew during tech rehearsal. Good reason
to bring costumes and props to tech rehearsal.

Normally, follow-spots are cheap (how many of you know somebody with an
old spot in their garage?). They’re not usually beneficial to a
presentation (though Des Moines, with its “Epic Movies” theme may draw
entries where one would be appropriate). They’re also usually a
disaster unless run by a very experienced (ideally professional) spot
operator.

Basic gobos (stencils) can be cheap and when used to cover the stage in
dappled light offer a real interesting alternative to a blackout
entrance, because they can be used to obscure detail. I’ve taken
advantage of that in the past. Beyond that, they’re a crapshoot; who
knows if the tech crew is going to have a gobo that specifically
supports your costume or presentation?

Blacklight is a bear; it’s tricky making sure there’s enough. This is
also why “bring your own blacklight” is a risky proposition.

—
andy trembley, Bitchy Design Queen – http://www.bovil.com/
San Jose, CA – ’72 R75/5 ’86 R100 (mine) – ’92 K75sa ’03 R1150R
(Kevin’s)
…remaining .sig trimmed for better message/.sig ratio

The system seems to have eaten my lastest post. Sorry if this is a
duplicate.

— In runacc@yahoogroups.com, Andrew T Trembley <attrembl@b…> wrote:
> Plan for a panel on “how to
> speak ‘tech'” and how to take advantage of fancy tech. Get costumers
> with technical theater background to do a half-hour on advanced
> lighting and sound, and how to use them when they’re available.

Some conventions have handled this by having a tech person sit at the
Masquerade registration table, so the costumer can explain their
presentation, and the tech person can then translate it into the
appropriate tech language.

Also, many of the East-coast cons have tech rehearsals now, and the
techs may make lighting suggestions (that the costumer may not have
thought of) to enhance the presentation.

–Karen

— In runacc@yahoogroups.com, Andrew T Trembley <attrembl@b…> wrote:

> Normally, follow-spots are cheap (how many of you know somebody with an
> old spot in their garage?). They’re not usually beneficial to a
> presentation (though Des Moines, with its “Epic Movies” theme may draw
> entries where one would be appropriate). They’re also usually a
> disaster unless run by a very experienced (ideally professional) spot
> operator.

Follow spots were really common at cons in the 70’s and early 80’s,
when there were a lot of solo entries, and said entries typically did
“model turns” and behaved in a predictable manner onstage.

I think as presentations acquired more people and got more complex, a
lot of conventions just gave up and turned the stage lights on full.
So most of us plan for general lighting and are grateful if we can get
anything else.

–Karen

This is an excellent tip, and should be posted here as well, because it
related to the current conversation about masquerades.

Cheers,

Betsy

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: [ICG-D] Ribbons
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 12:03:47 -0400
From: martingear
Organization: Martin Gear Consulting Ltd.
To: ICG-D@yahoogroups.com

Regarding Ribbons –

A few tips to Masquerade Directors, particularly of Costume Cons.
Buy half again as many rosette ribbons as you think that you are going
to need.
Have the center streamer printed “Masquerade Winner”. (The certificates
can tell what the award was.)
For each Masquerade competition buy an additional dozen to 15 (or more)
center streamers imprinted with “Best-in-Class Masquerade Winner”, and
since large groups are popular another 10 to 20 center streamers
imprinted with “Best-in-Show Masquerade Winner”.
Buy one great big fancy “Best-in-Show” Rosette (if B-i-S is a group they
can fight over who gets to keep this one.)

In this way you don’t have to be omniscient and you can be pretty sure
that everyone who deserves a ribbon leaves the con with one. If you
have totally mis estimated the number of award ribbons then you either
tell your judges that they can only give X number of awards, or you
don’t give ribbons, only certificates, to the honorable mentions or
equivalent.

Center streamers are cheap ($0.45 each from Hodges Badge Company and the
charge for changing the printing is only $0.75). It is is very easy to
replace the center streamers on the spot particularly if the MD is in
with the judges (as he or she should be) and can do this when they
decide on B-i-C and B-i-S.

If you are MD for a regional, you can pick one color scheme to be used
from year to year, so that the extras won’t go to waste, and change the
center streamers for the left overs.

Charles wrote:

>We had a similar problem with getting all the ribbons to the (Phoenix) Journeyman presentation award — since one of the costumers (Cheryl Johnson) was not able to attend, but given that it was a presentation award, we felt like I (who had taken Cheryl’s place) should also be able to get a ribbon also. Perhaps I could have just recieved a certificate, since those are easy to print more of.
>
>This did present a bit of a challenge for Dora, in writing up the records, which I thought she wrote up very well, including me, and Cheryl.
>
>Charles
>—– Original Message —–
> From: Julie Zetterberg Sardo
>
> I think we were next-to-last announced, and got three ribbons. Greg
> and I can share ours, but one of the ‘makers’ wasn’t able to make the
> trip and if another ribbon could be found for her, that would be nice.
> We did manage to get a certificate for her, which is probably more
> important.
>
> –Julie ZS
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yahoo! Groups Links

If anyone didn’t get a ribbon at CC22 who should have, please let me know.
We have lots left.
(still working on certificates, *^%#, it)

Trudy

>From: Betsy Delaney <bdelaney@hawkeswood.com>
>Reply-To: runacc@yahoogroups.com
>To: Run a Costume-Con Mailing List <runacc@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [runacc] [Fwd: Re: Ribbons]
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 14:46:43 -0700
>
>This is an excellent tip, and should be posted here as well, because it
>related to the current conversation about masquerades.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Betsy
>
>——– Original Message ——–
>Subject: Re: [ICG-D] Ribbons
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 12:03:47 -0400
>From: martingear
>Organization: Martin Gear Consulting Ltd.
>To: ICG-D@yahoogroups.com
>
>Regarding Ribbons –
>
>A few tips to Masquerade Directors, particularly of Costume Cons.
>Buy half again as many rosette ribbons as you think that you are going
>to need.
>Have the center streamer printed “Masquerade Winner”. (The certificates
>can tell what the award was.)
>For each Masquerade competition buy an additional dozen to 15 (or more)
>center streamers imprinted with “Best-in-Class Masquerade Winner”, and
>since large groups are popular another 10 to 20 center streamers
>imprinted with “Best-in-Show Masquerade Winner”.
>Buy one great big fancy “Best-in-Show” Rosette (if B-i-S is a group they
>can fight over who gets to keep this one.)
>
>In this way you don’t have to be omniscient and you can be pretty sure
>that everyone who deserves a ribbon leaves the con with one. If you
>have totally mis estimated the number of award ribbons then you either
>tell your judges that they can only give X number of awards, or you
>don’t give ribbons, only certificates, to the honorable mentions or
>equivalent.
>
>Center streamers are cheap ($0.45 each from Hodges Badge Company and the
>charge for changing the printing is only $0.75). It is is very easy to
>replace the center streamers on the spot particularly if the MD is in
>with the judges (as he or she should be) and can do this when they
>decide on B-i-C and B-i-S.
>
>If you are MD for a regional, you can pick one color scheme to be used
>from year to year, so that the extras won’t go to waste, and change the
>center streamers for the left overs.
>
>Charles wrote:
>
> >We had a similar problem with getting all the ribbons to the (Phoenix)
>Journeyman presentation award — since one of the costumers (Cheryl
>Johnson) was not able to attend, but given that it was a presentation
>award, we felt like I (who had taken Cheryl’s place) should also be able to
>get a ribbon also. Perhaps I could have just recieved a certificate, since
>those are easy to print more of.
> >
> >This did present a bit of a challenge for Dora, in writing up the
>records, which I thought she wrote up very well, including me, and Cheryl.
> >
> >Charles
> >—– Original Message —–
> > From: Julie Zetterberg Sardo
> >
> > I think we were next-to-last announced, and got three ribbons. Greg
> > and I can share ours, but one of the ‘makers’ wasn’t able to make the
> > trip and if another ribbon could be found for her, that would be nice.
> > We did manage to get a certificate for her, which is probably more
> > important.
> >
> > –Julie ZS
> >
> >
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

— In runacc@yahoogroups.com, Karen Heim <axejudge@a…> wrote:

> As Andy and Pierre said in their judging workshop, all judges have
> biases. What the MD has to do is pick judges whose biases balance each
> other, so there isn’t one agenda working, but rather a variety of
> viewpoints available.

Better yet, an MD needs to pick a panel of judges that have the most
minimal biases possible.

Let’s be clear on definitions here. A “bias” is “I like robots,” ” I hate
purple,” “I just don’t get furries,” or whatever. Good MD’s balance the
panel, as has been said by all, and a good judge needs to be aware of their
own biases and try to look past them.

However, the real problem here is the Agenda. An “agenda” is someone using
their position as a judge to change masquerades by the awards they give
out. When a judge says, “oh, him/her/them again” and purposely LOOKS for
something different to award, that is wrong, and proves that the judge is
basing their choices on the long history of the hobby and NOT on what is on
stage that particular night. And that judge should be outted and not asked
to judge again.

For Dave and those of you who may not be up on the “old stories,” we refer
you to WorldCon (ConStellation) in 1983, where, during deliberations, one
of the judges flat-out refused to give a major award to one entry (because
they had been winning “too much” lately), and also insured that another
deserving entry did not receive an award at all by giving it a “zero” as a
score. That person has never been permitted to judge again.

There was lots of discussion in the 80’s about not allowing active
costumers to judge because of this type of prejudicial judging.

A good judge should be willing to give Best In Show to their worst
competitive rival, or someone they dislike personally.

> Fresh blood is good…

As an untested commodity, fresh blood is a mixed blessing at best.
Sometimes, the fresh blood can be a competent judge; sometimes the fresh
blood can be a loose cannon.
One new judge on a panel can be a great way to train new judges, but we’re
back to the point of needing a strong and even-tempered MD to be back there
with them. That way we can increase the judging pool and make life easier
on everybody.

> If a number of judges are in a similar rut, then the masquerade results all
> seem to look the same, which can be discouraging to people who are
> trying to push the envelope – often that isn’t rewarded, so a certain
> sameness creeps in – and quite frankly, that makes for a boring masquerade.

And just what authority defines what is a rut and what is not? Change is a
natural process and should not be forced.

Pushing the envelope is always risky, and costumers who choose to do so
should understand there is the possibility of failure as well as success.
Judges should not be awarding something simply because it is “different”–a
costume has to meet other criteria as well. (We’re back to “scope of work
attempted,” quality of execution, etc. which we all agreed upon many posts
back.)

If a judge is bored by a masquerade, then maybe it’s time to step down and
leave the judging to others. We also must question why that judge is bored,
as judges are supposed to approach each masquerade as if they had never
seen any other masquerades, or prior work of any of the competitors.

> > I’ve seen judges asked in a public/dead dog forum to answer, and have
> > them say, no, but I would speak to the one costumer privately, and
> > thats a great way to handle it.

As frequent regional and national judges, we have answered questions both
in public forums (masquerade debriefing panels) and when asked privately.
However, we strive to point out all the good things about a costume first,
and will never trash someone who isn’t present.

A good judge is willing to explain their decisions. Having to deal with
upset contestants is part of the territory. “I don’t want to talk about it”
is not an adequate response. “I will be happy to discuss this with you
privately later,” is a polite way to demur if the location is too public.

> I was confronted by one person at the con suite, who was in a
> presentation, but I don’t believe was one of the costume-makers …

Couldn’t have been anyone from our group then, as everyone worked on the
costumes and therefore was entitled to discuss the group/presentation with
the judges.
We never spoke to you ( Karen Heim) ourselves, because after speaking at
length to the other two judges, we had all the information we needed.

–Karen and Ricky

Betsy,

I’m stuck with major computer problems, so I need to ask you to put me on
the “no e-mail” list until I can get it all fixed. Carl’s working on it,
and I’ll let you know when I’m up and running again.

Thanks,

Elaine

Nil significat nisi oscillat!

Bruce here:

Very interesting discussion. What I find fascinating (for lack of a better
word) is that 2 years ago almost to the day, I raised some pointed questions
about judging issues on the D list. There were some people that got all
bent out of shape for my even asking them, to the point that they were
e-mailing Carl to question my motives for even bringing them up. Thaaaat’s
real open-minded. Still not sure whether it was because I was the one
asking the questions or if it was just the subject matter.

In any case, as inevitably happens on the D list, things quickly got
off-track either because people got bored or didn’t have any interest in the
subject matter. So I’m already a bit reticent about what I’d like to ask
here. But I’m hoping that, since this is a much smaller member list, we
can stay focused more easily on the issues.

While I agree that the purpose of this list is to discuss CC issues, I
believe the judging criteria are relevant on a global level. As Ricky has
said, these discussions tend to filter down into the rest of the community
and have positive effects, just like the CostumAPA did 2 decades ago.

Anyway, as it happened, the SLCG had one of our regular meetings last
night. It was brought up that maybe something we ought to do as a Guild
chapter is have a series of roundtable discussions about the kinds of issues
that get brought up by who are loosely considered the leaders of our
costuming community. So I made some notes. We pretty much agreed on a lot
of points, so while I’m presenting my thoughts below, they also represent
some of the “group think” as well. So, I have a series of questions.

— In runacc@yahoogroups.com, Karen Heim <axejudge@a…> wrote:
> As Andy and Pierre said in their judging workshop, all judges have
> biases. What the MD has to do is pick judges whose biases balance each
> other, so there isn’t one agenda working, but rather a variety of
> viewpoints available.

From: “Ricky & Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>

“Better yet, an MD needs to pick a panel of judges that have the most
minimal biases possible.

Let’s be clear on definitions here. A “bias” is “I like robots,” ” I
hate
purple,” “I just don’t get furries,” or whatever. Good MD’s balance the
panel, as has been said by all, and a good judge needs to be aware of
their
own biases and try to look past them.”

However, the real problem here is the Agenda. An “agenda” is someone
using
their position as a judge to change masquerades by the awards they give
out. When a judge says, “oh, him/her/them again” and purposely LOOKS for
something different to award, that is wrong, and proves that the judge
is
basing their choices on the long history of the hobby and NOT on what is
on
stage that particular night. And that judge should be outted and not
asked
to judge again.”

How is a particular bias determined to be so detrimental that a judge
deserves to be “outed”, as you say? Wouldn’t this have to be based on a
pattern of choices by a particular judge, or can that determination be made
on one incident? Who would you say gets to make this call? And if a well
known judge has a well-known bias, then, should that judge even be asked to
serve? (More on this later)

It would seem that if there’s a judging problem, then based on what you’ve
said above, does this mean there needs to be guidelines for the MDs? That
would open a whole can of worms. Should MDs who make consistantly bad
choices for judges then be dunned? And then who administers the dunning?
Sound like a job for…..SMOC!!!(?)

From: “Karen Heim” <axejudge@accessus.net>
>> Fresh blood is good.

“Ricky & Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>
>As an untested commodity, fresh blood is a mixed blessing at best.
>Sometimes, the fresh blood can be a competent judge; sometimes the fresh
>blood can be a loose cannon.
>One new judge on a panel can be a great way to train new judges, but we’re
>back to the point of needing a strong and even-tempered MD to be back
>there with them. That way we can increase the judging pool and make life
easier >on everybody.

So, if an MD chooses only someone who is “acceptable” or “safe”, how has
that really helped expand the judging pool? I would think a good MD would
be willing to take a chance on a >somewhat< unknown quantity.

>> From: “Karen Heim” <axejudge@accessus.net>
>>If a number of judges are in a similar rut, then the masquerade results
all
>>seem to look the same, which can be discouraging to people who are
>>trying to push the envelope – often that isn’t rewarded, so a certain
>>sameness creeps in – and quite frankly, that makes for a boring
masquerade.

>From: “Ricky & Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>
>And just what authority defines what is a rut and what is not? Change is a
>natural process and should not be forced. Pushing the envelope is always
risky,
>and costumers who choose to do so should understand there is the
possibility of failure as well as >success.

Okay, let me ask a similar question. I’ve seen any number of costumers at
regional and International level who have a particular style or work with
one particular media (say, armor, for instance) and are very good at what
they do. Because of that level of excellence, they consistantly get
rewarded. Human nautre being what it is, they pretty much stick to their
particular craft because they not only are comfortable with it, but they
consistantly get rewarded for it. Why should they change? Now, let’s say
Costumer “S” decides to do something completely different in style or media,
does it well, but the major award still goes to another costumer who has not
changed – Costumer “M”. What message does this send to Costume “S”? Change
is not rewarded. Why should he experiment again?

I’m not saying reward something only because it’s different – it should
still be good. But, deep down, whether we admit it or not, we all want to
be acknowledged for our efforts, no matter how much we protest that we’re
“creating for ourselves”. And if someone sees that the same kinds of
costuming are rewarded and orginality is not, they’re going to follow the
model of what succeeds.

>From: “Ricky & Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>
>If a judge is bored by a masquerade, then maybe it’s time to step down and
>leave the judging to others. We also must question why that judge is bored,
>as judges are supposed to approach each masquerade as if they had never
>seen any other masquerades, or prior work of any of the competitors.

Why?
I agree, a judge should not base their decision on an individual costumer’s
past presentations, but are you saying that a judge should have no knowledge
of masquerade history at all? Should they not use that knowledge in their
decision making? I can’t see how that’s possible.

So if I understand correctly, it’s up to the costumers to foment change.
But there doesn’t appear to be much motivation to do so. If the judges
don’t have the responsibiltity, then it would seem to be the MDs.
Masquerade Directors are just as fallible as anyone else. Who would they
look to?

Bruce

Karen and Ricky have posed a number of questions/ issues. I’m trying to
break these up in the hopes that folks will observe the convention to stick
to one topic per e-mail so that we don’t get muddled.

I was tempted to weigh in on this subject in prior e-mail, but I wanted to
take more space with this to relate a story about supposed judge bias in
regards to answering questions. If I had, though, that e-mail would have
been even longer.

Without being too specific, a while back, I had a costume entry that
received no award. I accepted that this happens, given that the competition
was pretty stiff. Y’know how sometimes it doesn’t bother you if you don’t
get something, but then there are other times, you think you did something
cool and you don’t get squat – you’d like to know why. So I approached one
of the judges, who was a well-established and respected costumer, and asked
very specifcally and as non-confrontationally as I could, if there was
anything I could have done differently that might have affected their/the
panel’s decision. The answer was, no – they felt my entry really didn’t
belong in that masquerade.

Interestingly, I heard later on that this costumer had a long-standing bias
in regard to the type of presentation I’d done. Yet, they were on the
panel, because they supposedly represented the “mainstream” of costuming
experience. They were not new to this by any means.

Now, had I known about this clear and publicly stated bias ahead of time, I
would have had to make a choice – go into the masquerade knowing that the
odds were good that the presentation would get no award, or just not compete
that presentation.

So, the merits of my originality were never considered – it did not fit the
“acceptable” norm. So much for the costumer being to affect change.

Bruce

—– Original Message —–
From: “Ricky & Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>

As frequent regional and national judges, we have answered questions both
in public forums (masquerade debriefing panels) and when asked privately.
However, we strive to point out all the good things about a costume first,
and will never trash someone who isn’t present.

A good judge is willing to explain their decisions. Having to deal with
upset contestants is part of the territory. “I don’t want to talk about it”
is not an adequate response. “I will be happy to discuss this with you
privately later,” is a polite way to demur if the location is too public.

–Karen and Ricky

Bruce,
as always thought provoking questions.
so maybe I can answer for myself, or at least better explain my own position.

>How is a particular bias determined to be so detrimental that a judge
>deserves to be “outed”, as you say? Wouldn’t this have to be based on a
>pattern of choices by a particular judge, or can that determination be made
>on one incident? Who would you say gets to make this call? And if a well
>known judge has a well-known bias, then, should that judge even be asked to
>serve?

There are some folks who actually SAY in print, what they are looking for.
That would surely be one way to decide if that is an open or closed minded
person.Otherwise you are correct that a pattern needs to be established to
decide if a judge handles things unfairly.

And the stickier question is when is it okay for a judge to tell tales on
another one?

And BOTH these questions are moot if we have a good strong MD IN with the
judges as the leader of the descisions. not makeing them of course, but
there to supervise so folks may be less inclined to try to ram something
through, as the person in charge of the masq is right there.

In Many ways our concerns can all be addressed by a strong and thorough MD
which was not the case this year.

> (More on this later)
>
>It would seem that if there’s a judging problem, then based on what you’ve
>said above, does this mean there needs to be guidelines for the MDs? That
>would open a whole can of worms. Should MDs who make consistantly bad
>choices for judges then be dunned? And then who administers the dunning?

We listed 10 days or so ago a list of instructions to be read as a reminder
ofto the judges. no one on this list said they had a theoretical problem
with any individual topic on the list.

We all realize that there’s no 100% fix for this, just some safeguards that
might help.

Sound like a job for…..SMOC!!!(?)

this list is a kinder gentler way of trying just that. Most costumers
don’t even know it exists.

>So, if an MD chooses only someone who is “acceptable” or “safe”, how has
>that really helped expand the judging pool? I would think a good MD would
>be willing to take a chance on a >somewhat< unknown quantity.

Not at all Let the MD pick a new person everytime for all I care, just make
sure there’s supervision so that things run FAIRLY.
A new judge with new ideas and experiences to bring to the table is great,
but that can still be done while upholding the traditions that the
attendees expect from CC judges.

>Okay, let me ask a similar question. I’ve seen any number of costumers at
>regional and International level who have a particular style or work with
>one particular media (say, armor, for instance) and are very good at what
>they do. Because of that level of excellence, they consistantly get
>rewarded. Human nautre being what it is, they pretty much stick to their
>particular craft because they not only are comfortable with it, but they
>consistantly get rewarded for it. Why should they change? Now, let’s say
>Costumer “S” decides to do something completely different in style or media,
>does it well, but the major award still goes to another costumer who has not
>changed – Costumer “M”. What message does this send to Costume “S”? Change
>is not rewarded. Why should he experiment again?

Art is art, it is the wacky nature of our hobby that a mechanoid is judged
in the same class as a furry or a fairey.
The judge needs to be fair as far as ‘is it a WELL made fairey” or
whatever. I try to look at the amount of work involved and the perfection
of the finished product.
I value 100 hours of work the same whether it is beading or fiberglass.
whether I know the techinique itself or like it or not is irrelevant.

>I’m not saying reward something only because it’s different – it should
>still be good. But, deep down, whether we admit it or not, we all want to
>be acknowledged for our efforts, no matter how much we protest that we’re
>”creating for ourselves”. And if someone sees that the same kinds of
>costuming are rewarded and orginality is not, they’re going to follow the
>model of what succeeds.

If they are in it just for the win and want to sacrifice their artform,
then you may well be right.
But these things tend to flow back and forth as to what wins or not.
just like the discussion 2 years ago about big groups being unfair.
when it’s about 50/50 as far as BIS for costume con vs single/couple. in
the longer run it evens out.

> >From: “Ricky & Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>
> >If a judge is bored by a masquerade, then maybe it’s time to step down and
> >leave the judging to others. We also must question why that judge is bored,
> >as judges are supposed to approach each masquerade as if they had never
> >seen any other masquerades, or prior work of any of the competitors.
>
>Why?
>I agree, a judge should not base their decision on an individual costumer’s
>past presentations, but are you saying that a judge should have no knowledge
>of masquerade history at all? Should they not use that knowledge in their
>decision making? I can’t see how that’s possible.

Perhaps poorly stated originally.
we need judges to look at things thru the eyes of experience or they may as
well pull all the judges from the audience at the last minute

but that knowledge is to know what’s good or not in a general sense and
maybe so there’s some knowledge about copying someone’s original works and
claiming it as thier own.

But the masq that night still needs to be competed against only what is on
stage that night.

If I only do blue costumes for the rest of my carreer, it is not up to the
judge to base my winning or not on the fact that they are tired of seeing
me in blue.

>So if I understand correctly, it’s up to the costumers to foment change.
>But there doesn’t appear to be much motivation to do so. If the judges
>don’t have the responsibiltity, then it would seem to be the MDs.
>Masquerade Directors are just as fallible as anyone else. Who would they
>look to?

everyone is fallible!, that’s why there needs to be open discussion of
these topics so that we can all learn from each other and as a communitee
get a grip on some basic parameters.

In closing, I think that this hobby is SO creative and SO out there
stylewise, that THAT is the very reason we need to be trying to give as
level a playing field as we can whenever possible

I look back on how it was 30 years ago, and marvel that we have actually
come this far.

Ricky

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bruce, you wrote:

>Without being too specific, a while back, I had a costume entry that
>received no award. I accepted that this happens, given that the competition
>was pretty stiff. Y’know how sometimes it doesn’t bother you if you don’t
>get something, but then there are other times, you think you did something
>cool and you don’t get squat – you’d like to know why. So I approached one
>of the judges, who was a well-established and respected costumer, and asked
>very specifcally and as non-confrontationally as I could, if there was
>anything I could have done differently that might have affected their/the
>panel’s decision. The answer was, no – they felt my entry really didn’t
>belong in that masquerade.

Well that statement alone is pretty damn harsh. I like some or your work
better than other things you’ve done, but I have a hard time believeing
that you showed up wearing crap.
I mean we all fall on our faces once in a while, but this comment is pretty
out there.

I supposed it’s just one judges opinion and that there were at least 2
others to counteract that one, but as we’ve always seen one judge giving a
zero, pretty much takes you out of the awards.

damn russian judges

>Interestingly, I heard later on that this costumer had a long-standing bias
>in regard to the type of presentation I’d done. Yet, they were on the
>panel, because they supposedly represented the “mainstream” of costuming
>experience. They were not new to this by any means.
>
>Now, had I known about this clear and publicly stated bias ahead of time, I
>would have had to make a choice – go into the masquerade knowing that the
>odds were good that the presentation would get no award, or just not compete
>that presentation.
>
>So, the merits of my originality were never considered – it did not fit the
>”acceptable” norm. So much for the costumer being to affect change.

First off, change comes slowly.
and there are so many cases of major awards being given to things that push
the envelope, we all need to realize that at some point each of us has had
a costume go bad for the greater good.

I think of Holocaust, Beneath Alien Waves, The 2001 ballet, and the list
goes on for originality if not awarded best in show, at the very least
maling an impact in the hobby later if not right at the moment.

You’re right about making the choices tho.

There was a costume I competed against once that had a lot of techy stuff
on it. 2 of the three judges were known to love that kind of thing. My
costume was pretty close to the other one in quality I thought, but when in
the green room I saw stuff stick out and start to glow and spin, I knew I
was in for a long night.

BUT, As we’ve tried to teach Caitlin when she decided she wanted to be a
costumer and got us excited about being active again.
You can only strive to be one of the top 5-6 things that will live on in
memory after the convention is long over. Anything past that can only be a
crap shoot.

What did I think of that panel?
well if I was the MD, the two folks who were techy ( and are fine
upstanding people) might not have been BOTH asked to judge at the same time.
however, I have no way of knowing who else was availible and if the MD had
this knowledge that seemed to me to be obvious.

And sadley, what little I know about you Bruce, I would think you would
have been pleased with at least getting an most original award if that was
what you were trying to do even if they didn’t give you a best of. So
overall, you got hosed. and I say that assuming that the judge was probably
someone we all know and probably most of us call friend.

Ricky

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 12:42 PM 5/15/2005 -0500, you wrote:

>What I find fascinating (for lack of a better
>word) is that 2 years ago almost to the day, I raised some pointed questions
>about judging issues on the D list…

The D list is not the place to discuss political or technical issues, or
anything that requires deep thought. The D list is about “Ooooh, pretty!”
or “I need help with information about…” and the attention span there is
very short. The D list is also open to virtually everyone, including people
who don’t belong to the ICG, don’t go to Costume-Con, and don’t give a flip
about judging or contests or whatever, so it’s just not the right forum.

>How is a particular bias determined to be so detrimental that a judge
>deserves to be “outed”, as you say?

We didn’t say a judge should be outed on the basis of a bias. We said a
judge should be outed on the basis of an agenda. Please re-read the
definitions and the examples given in our previous email.

Also, if a judge has a bias, it should be applied uniformly, not
selectively, to the field being judged
(e.g., if the bias is “I hate group costumes,” then ALL group costumes must
be equally dinged, not just groups A, D, and F but not B, C, and E).

>Wouldn’t this have to be based on a pattern of choices by a particular
>judge, or can that determination be made on one incident?

If the judge says things during deliberation that makes it obvious there is
an agenda, it only takes ONE incident. (Again, I refer you to ConStellation
1983.)

>Who would you say gets to make this call?

A conscientious Masquerade Director.

>And if a well known judge has a well-known bias, then, should that judge
>even be asked to serve?

Yes, if

(1) It is a bias and not an agenda;

(2) There are no other judges on the same panel with the same bias.

>It would seem that if there’s a judging problem, then based on what you’ve
>said above, does this mean there needs to be guidelines for the MDs?

Yes, and we have already discussed them and reached a consensus here.

>Should MDs who make consistantly bad choices for judges then be dunned?

Yes. Hopefully, because we are discussing this here with future con chairs
and masquerade directors reading it, potential future problems will be
nipped in the bud.

>So, if an MD chooses only someone who is “acceptable” or “safe”, how has
>that really helped expand the judging pool? I would think a good MD would
>be willing to take a chance on a >somewhat< unknown quantity.

Only if there is only one new or “unknown commodity” on a given judging panel.

>Okay, let me ask a similar question. I’ve seen any number of costumers at
>regional and International level who have a particular style or work with
>one particular media (say, armor, for instance) and are very good at what
>they do. Because of that level of excellence, they consistantly get
>rewarded. Human nautre being what it is, they pretty much stick to their
>particular craft because they not only are comfortable with it, but they
>consistantly get rewarded for it. Why should they change?

Why should they have to change? Why should they be penalized for developing
and refining a distinctive style?

Costume designers for stage, movies, and TV, and real-world fashion
designers are known for having signature styles, so why should fandom be
any different?

If Bob Mackie decides to enter the Costume-Con masquerade, and his entry is
a beads, feathers, and glitz extravaganza like he’s made for Cher, and it’s
the best thing in that particular masquerade, should the judges penalize
him for having made similar items for Cher, Carol Burnett, Las Vegas shows,
etc. and give Best In Show to something else?

Costuming is not the Boy Scouts. Nobody gives out merit badges for doing 15
different styles of costume. Some costumers do one thing well. Some
costumers do a bunch of things well. Some costumers are “Jack of all trades
and master of none.” It is not the job of the judges or the costuming
community to force its members to try a bunch of different styles if that’s
not their area of interest. Neither are they obligated to give “extra
credit” points to the costumers who do.

>Now, let’s say Costumer “S” decides to do something completely different
>in style or media, does it well, but the major award still goes to another
>costumer who has not changed – Costumer “M”. What message does this send
>to Costume “S”? Change is not rewarded. Why should he experiment again?

In all probability, the judges decided the way they did because costumer
“M”‘s costume was still better in some way than costumer “S”‘s. Maybe
costumer “M”‘s costume was better made than costumer “S”‘s (aka “quality of
execution”), especially since costumer “S” is trying something new and may
or may not have mastered all the fine points of it. Maybe costumer “M”‘s
costume had more different techniques on it (aka “scope of work
attempted”), all done well, while costumer “S”‘s costume had fewer or only
one technique on it, albeit done well. There are a bunch of different
factors at work here.

Should the judges give costumer “S” a higher award than costumer “M” merely
because costumer “S” tried something different, irregardless of any other
factors? Absolutely not.

Further, are the judges even aware that costumer “S” is trying something
different? It is virtually impossible for every judge to be “up” on every
costumer’s work at every masquerade at every convention.

Now, conversely, if costumer “S” tries something different, and “scope of
work attempted” and “quality of execution” are higher than those of
costumer “M,” then, yes, costumer “S” should get the higher award.

>But, deep down, whether we admit it or not, we all want to
>be acknowledged for our efforts, no matter how much we protest that we’re
>”creating for ourselves”. And if someone sees that the same kinds of
>costuming are rewarded and orginality is not, they’re going to follow the
>model of what succeeds.

There are trends over time as to what kind of costuming is popular. Thing
are very different now than in the photographs of fannish costumes that I
see from the 40’s-60’s, and from when I first started in the 70’s. The
artform continues to develop, trends come and go, and the “lifers” in the
hobby adapt, or evolve, or decide they’d rather plant a garden than go to
Costume-Con that year. Many trends develop across years, or even decades.
Change is gradual. The judges are there to analyze what is there at any
given masquerade, but not to force change in any given direction.

Until we have omniscient judges that know every costume from every
convention from 1939 on, it is impossible to truly determine originality.
What seems to be “original” at one convention may have been done at another
convention in another geographic area the same year…or at the very same
convention 15 years ago.

>I agree, a judge should not base their decision on an individual
>costumer’s past presentations, but are you saying that a judge should have
>no knowledge of masquerade history at all? Should they not use that
>knowledge in their decision making? I can’t see how that’s possible.

Ricky addressed the masquerade history question in terms of using that
knowledge to know what overall comprises a good costume. However, the
moment the judges start basing decisions on “I liked their costume in 1998
better,” or “I liked the robots done at WorldCon in 1985 and DragonCon in
2001 better,” that judge is no longer judging the masquerade at hand, and
that is wrong. The judges should be judging what they are seeing on the
stage that night.

>So if I understand correctly, it’s up to the costumers to foment change.
>But there doesn’t appear to be much motivation to do so.

Some costumers will try new things just because they like to learn new
things, or had a vision in their head about a particular costume. That
doesn’t mean the audience will like it or understand it. That doesn’t mean
the judges should automatically reward it.

Motivation to make a costume is not always based purely on getting awards.
Some costumers are motivated to make a certain costume because they want to
have and wear that certain costume, and if they make it for the
competition, then they will have it from that point forward. Some costumers
are motivated to try a new technique because they want to learn a new
technique. Some costumers are motivated because they want to be on the
stage and perform and make the audience laugh, or go “ewww!” or whatever.
Some costumers are motivated by some combination of these factors.

Ask some of the “lifers” in this hobby why they are doing it, and the
answer is not necessarily “in order to win.” You’d be surprised at the
number of “because I *have* to” answers you might hear. People make
costumes to escape into a different persona. People make costumes just to
wear them in the halls and “freak the mundanes.” People make costumes when
there is no immediate place to wear them or compete them. That’s part of
what makes this hobby such a fascinating one.

–Karen

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Karen Dick wrote:

> Motivation to make a costume is not always based purely on getting awards.

I like awards as much as the next guy, but awards are never my
motivation for making a costume (although that tends to get cloudy once
I hit the green room).

Usually my motivation for making the costume is kind of like the
motivation to climb Mount Everest. The idea is there. My motivation for
entering is to get an audience response (whether it’s screaming,
chanting or silence).

I’ll make substantial answers to Bruce’s questions later when I have
brain cells again.

andy

I’d be surprised? No. That’s the answer I’d expect. If you think otherwise,
well…

And does anyone have an idea about when one stops being a newbie and becomes
an accepted or established member of the Community? Cause apparently 13 +
years is not enough.

Nora

—– Original Message —–
From: “Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>
> Ask some of the “lifers” in this hobby why they are doing it, and the
> answer is not necessarily “in order to win.” You’d be surprised at the
> number of “because I *have* to” answers you might hear.

you wrote:

>And does anyone have an idea about when one stops being a newbie and becomes
>an accepted or established member of the Community? Cause apparently 13 +
>years is not enough.
>
>Nora

Nora, Are you meaning that as you guys? While I can’t speak for others I
surely think you arean established old fart.

You’ve run a very successful CC. Karen and I pulled our bid that we had
wanted to put in for CC-25 because of the respect we have for you and the
Sluts, and to be blunt, if you weren’t worth listening to, you wouldn’t be
on this list.

I know that Castle Blood and Casa Mai, seem to disagree on things at least
as often as we agree, but we would certainley put you in the movers and
shakers category, not just accepted category, and not a newbie for at least
since CC16.

Ricky

>—– Original Message —–
>From: “Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>
> > Ask some of the “lifers” in this hobby why they are doing it, and the
> > answer is not necessarily “in order to win.” You’d be surprised at the
> > number of “because I *have* to” answers you might hear.
>
>
>
>View the Document:
><http://www.Costume-Con.org/procedure/runacc/>http://www.Costume-Con.org/procedure/runacc/
>
>
>
>
>———-
>Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> *
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/runacc/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/runacc/
> *
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> *
> <mailto:runacc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>runacc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> *
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Oh, I didn’t say it was crap. I didn’t think it was. But I was
disappointed with that person’s reasoning.

—– Original Message —–
From: “Ricky & Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>

> Bruce, you wrote:
>>I approached one
> >of the judges, who was a well-established and respected costumer, and
asked
> >very specifcally and as non-confrontationally as I could, if there was
> >anything I could have done differently that might have affected their/the
> >panel’s decision. The answer was, no – they felt my entry really didn’t
> >belong in that masquerade.>
>
> Well that statement alone is pretty damn harsh. I like some or your work
> better than other things you’ve done, but I have a hard time believeing
> that you showed up wearing crap.

Oh, crap was not the issue. It was the subject matter itself.

> I mean we all fall on our faces once in a while, but this comment is
pretty
> out there.

Yeah. I was quite taken aback by it. But I just shrugged my shoulders and
filed it away as a lesson learned – albeit it a bizarro one.

> >So, the merits of my originality were never considered – it did not fit
the
> >”acceptable” norm. So much for the costumer being to affect change.
>
> First off, change comes slowly.
> and there are so many cases of major awards being given to things that
push
> the envelope, we all need to realize that at some point each of us has had
> a costume go bad for the greater good.

Well, I think my arguement is, the envelope isn’t necessarily being pushed
that hard. See my other comments in the other letter.

>
> I think of Holocaust, Beneath Alien Waves, The 2001 ballet, and the list
> goes on for originality if not awarded best in show, at the very least
> maling an impact in the hobby later if not right at the moment.

That raises a thought in my mind – when was the last time we had a truly
ground-breaking presentation like the ones you describe? I’m not
necessarily saying there haven’t been anyway, but nothing’s sure leaping to
mind.

Bruce

—– Original Message —–
From: “Ricky & Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>
>
> The D list is not the place to discuss political or technical issues, or
> anything that requires deep thought. The D list is about “Ooooh, pretty!”
> or “I need help with information about…” and the attention span there is
> very short. The D list is also open to virtually everyone, including
people
> who don’t belong to the ICG, don’t go to Costume-Con, and don’t give a
flip
> about judging or contests or whatever, so it’s just not the right forum.

Granted. My mistake. 🙂

>
> >How is a particular bias determined to be so detrimental that a judge
> >deserves to be “outed”, as you say?
>
> We didn’t say a judge should be outed on the basis of a bias. We said a
> judge should be outed on the basis of an agenda. Please re-read the
> definitions and the examples given in our previous email.

But are there biases that are >so< blatant that a judge might need to be
called on it? Is it only for agendas?

>
> Also, if a judge has a bias, it should be applied uniformly, not
> selectively, to the field being judged
> (e.g., if the bias is “I hate group costumes,” then ALL group costumes
must
> be equally dinged, not just groups A, D, and F but not B, C, and E).

Agreed.
>
> >Wouldn’t this have to be based on a pattern of choices by a particular
> >judge, or can that determination be made on one incident?
>
> If the judge says things during deliberation that makes it obvious there
is
> an agenda, it only takes ONE incident. (Again, I refer you to
ConStellation
> 1983.)

That’s a vendetta, not an agenda. Moving on….

> >So, if an MD chooses only someone who is “acceptable” or “safe”, how has
> >that really helped expand the judging pool? I would think a good MD
would
> >be willing to take a chance on a >somewhat< unknown quantity.
>
> Only if there is only one new or “unknown commodity” on a given judging
panel.

Only 1 new judge per panel? Then I wonder whether it should be strongly
encouraged that there should always be one new judge requred at each show,
otherwise the expansion of the judging pool will proceed at a snail’s pace.

>
> >Okay, let me ask a similar question. I’ve seen any number of costumers
at
> >regional and International level who have a particular style or work with
> >one particular media (say, armor, for instance) and are very good at what
> >they do. Because of that level of excellence, they consistantly get
> >rewarded. Human nautre being what it is, they pretty much stick to their
> >particular craft because they not only are comfortable with it, but they
> >consistantly get rewarded for it. Why should they change?
>
> Why should they have to change? Why should they be penalized for
developing
> and refining a distinctive style?

Shoudn’t they they have to? No, they should >want to? An artist should
stretch him/herself. I refer back to human nature, otherwise. An artist
takes risks and tries new things – an artisan may turn out new versions of
the thing they do best, but it’s still the same basic product.

>
> Costume designers for stage, movies, and TV, and real-world fashion
> designers are known for having signature styles, so why should fandom be
> any different?

Actually, I consider that their styies >do< change. They have to adapt to
whatever demands that their patron/employer demands. Otherwise, they won’t
continue to be able to demand the fees they ask.
>
>
> Costuming is not the Boy Scouts. Nobody gives out merit badges for doing
15
> different styles of costume. Some costumers do one thing well. Some
> costumers do a bunch of things well. Some costumers are “Jack of all
trades
> and master of none.” It is not the job of the judges or the costuming
> community to force its members to try a bunch of different styles if
that’s
> not their area of interest. Neither are they obligated to give “extra
> credit” points to the costumers who do.

I’ve never said that. The point is, if someone tries something new, they
ought to be acknowledged for it, even if it’s only an Honorable Mention (the
issue of HMs can be debated at another time).

In regards to whole Costumer M vs. Costumer S example: I’m not going to
requote all that. You disected my example far more than I intended for you
to – my bad. So let me see if I can clarify:

Both costumers bring to the stage something of equal value, workmanship,
etc. However, Costumer M does soemthing completely different – showing he
stretched his knowledge while costumer S produced another good example of
his usual work, is it wrong to give more weight to the person who took the
risk? Is it wrong for a judge to be more impressed by the person who did
something new?

> Now, conversely, if costumer “S” tries something different, and “scope of
> work attempted” and “quality of execution” are higher than those of
> costumer “M,” then, yes, costumer “S” should get the higher award.

…then it sounds like you may agree with me.

>
> There are trends over time as to what kind of costuming is popular. Thing
> are very different now than in the photographs of fannish costumes that I
> see from the 40’s-60’s, and from when I first started in the 70’s. The
> artform continues to develop, trends come and go, and the “lifers” in the
> hobby adapt, or evolve, or decide they’d rather plant a garden than go to
> Costume-Con that year. Many trends develop across years, or even decades.
> Change is gradual. The judges are there to analyze what is there at any
> given masquerade, but not to force change in any given direction.

I will admit that perhaps I and others in the the SLCG may be looking at
these trends with a perspective that is out of the norm. I am viewing what
has been happening with masquerades with the eye of an “amateur historian”.
We all have gotten together and watched just about any masq video we can get
our hands on. We analyze each presentation and ogle every photo from each
CC that we’ve attended plus that stuff on the CC website.

So maybe my point of view is skewed. But I believe (and I’m not just
speaking for us here in the Midwest, because we’ve had this discussion with
costumers from elsewhere), that stagnation has been setting in since about
the early 1990s.
>
> Until we have omniscient judges that know every costume from every
> convention from 1939 on, it is impossible to truly determine originality.
> What seems to be “original” at one convention may have been done at
another
> convention in another geographic area the same year…or at the very same
> convention 15 years ago.

I think that’s taking an extreme example, but I’m not going to argue about
it.
>
> >I agree, a judge should not base their decision on an individual
> >costumer’s past presentations, but are you saying that a judge should
have
> >no knowledge of masquerade history at all? Should they not use that
> >knowledge in their decision making? I can’t see how that’s possible.
>
> Ricky addressed the masquerade history question in terms of using that
> knowledge to know what overall comprises a good costume. However, the
> moment the judges start basing decisions on “I liked their costume in 1998
> better,” or “I liked the robots done at WorldCon in 1985 and DragonCon in
> 2001 better,” that judge is no longer judging the masquerade at hand, and
> that is wrong.

Please note: I did say “a judge should not base their decision on an
individual
costumer’s past presentations” (mispellings omitted). I said I thought a
judge should be aware of those trends.

>The judges should be judging what they are seeing on the
> stage that night.

Respectfully, I disagree. Referring to past discussion, if a judge hs
become bored by seeing the same kinds of costume presentations, then chances
are the audience (which at a CC is pretty darn knowledgeable and contain
many regulars) is probably going to be somewhat bored to. Polite applause,
but not wowed.

A relatively new, but knowledgable, judge can see that there is a sameness
to many an entry, then there’s no way they can judge what’s going on at that
masquerade that night, either.

> Motivation to make a costume is not always based purely on getting awards.
> Some costumers are motivated to make a certain costume because they want
to
> have and wear that certain costume, and if they make it for the
> competition, then they will have it from that point forward. Some
costumers
> are motivated to try a new technique because they want to learn a new
> technique. Some costumers are motivated because they want to be on the
> stage and perform and make the audience laugh, or go “ewww!” or whatever.
> Some costumers are motivated by some combination of these factors.
>
> Ask some of the “lifers” in this hobby why they are doing it, and the
> answer is not necessarily “in order to win.” You’d be surprised at the
> number of “because I *have* to” answers you might hear. People make
> costumes to escape into a different persona. People make costumes just to
> wear them in the halls and “freak the mundanes.” People make costumes when
> there is no immediate place to wear them or compete them. That’s part of
> what makes this hobby such a fascinating one.

Fine. If that costumer’s motivation is purely to get up on stage and
present their concept and “get it out of their head”. But then they can’t
turn around later and ask the judge why they were not acknowledged.

Bruce

Bruce & Nora Mai wrote:

> How is a particular bias determined to be so detrimental that a judge
> deserves to be “outed”, as you say? Wouldn’t this have to be based on a
> pattern of choices by a particular judge, or can that determination be made
> on one incident? Who would you say gets to make this call? And if a well
> known judge has a well-known bias, then, should that judge even be asked to
> serve? (More on this later)

Most judges I know and have worked with know and acknowledge their
biases. Bruce and Dana MacDermott, for example (Dana, particularly)
readily admit that their tastes and interests run towards strongly
SF-themed costumes. Bruce does some historical, but Dana doesn’t.

That’s the kind of bias that I think is reasonable and can even be
valuable if it’s in tune with the goals of the competition.

It’s also out in the open. The judges themselves can deal with it,
whether internally or during deliberation.

> It would seem that if there’s a judging problem, then based on what you’ve
> said above, does this mean there needs to be guidelines for the MDs? That
> would open a whole can of worms. Should MDs who make consistantly bad
> choices for judges then be dunned? And then who administers the dunning?
> Sound like a job for…..SMOC!!!(?)

There are some guidelines for MDs in the form of the ICG guidelines.
Yeah, they don’t cover everything.

> So, if an MD chooses only someone who is “acceptable” or “safe”, how has
> that really helped expand the judging pool? I would think a good MD would
> be willing to take a chance on a >somewhat< unknown quantity.

Ultimately, judges learn by doing the job with other more experienced
judges.

It’s a risk picking somebody new, but if you use good judgement and
match them with experienced judges you trust that risk can be minimized.

I think the risk is worth it.

> Okay, let me ask a similar question. I’ve seen any number of costumers at
> regional and International level who have a particular style or work with
> one particular media (say, armor, for instance) and are very good at what
> they do. Because of that level of excellence, they consistantly get
> rewarded. Human nautre being what it is, they pretty much stick to their
> particular craft because they not only are comfortable with it, but they
> consistantly get rewarded for it. Why should they change? Now, let’s say
> Costumer “S” decides to do something completely different in style or media,
> does it well, but the major award still goes to another costumer who has not
> changed – Costumer “M”. What message does this send to Costume “S”? Change
> is not rewarded. Why should he experiment again?

This kind of comes back to “are we (entrants) in it for the awards?”

If the answer is yes, then you’ll stick with the tried-and-true.

If the answer is somewhat, then you’ll experiment.

Look at Jacqui Ward. She’s made a name for herself because of her superb
applique and quilting techniques, but her designs vary greatly. She’s
choosing to explore and experiment in one direction while making the
most of a pallette of techniques and methods that she’s excellent at.
You can do both at the same time.

> I’m not saying reward something only because it’s different – it should
> still be good. But, deep down, whether we admit it or not, we all want to
> be acknowledged for our efforts, no matter how much we protest that we’re
> “creating for ourselves”. And if someone sees that the same kinds of
> costuming are rewarded and orginality is not, they’re going to follow the
> model of what succeeds.

I love getting ribbons and certificates, but when that neurotic desire
to compete comes on I’m in it for the audience reaction.

> I agree, a judge should not base their decision on an individual costumer’s
> past presentations, but are you saying that a judge should have no knowledge
> of masquerade history at all? Should they not use that knowledge in their
> decision making? I can’t see how that’s possible.

I think you’re mostly right here. Most judging (Best in ? awards
excluded) are judged against an ambiguous and very personal standard
where the judge says “Does this show great merit, and is it up to the
standards I’m looking for in the division?” Every judge has some ideals,
some fabulous entries of the past, that inform their judgement on what
to look for.

> So if I understand correctly, it’s up to the costumers to foment change.
> But there doesn’t appear to be much motivation to do so. If the judges
> don’t have the responsibiltity, then it would seem to be the MDs.
> Masquerade Directors are just as fallible as anyone else. Who would they
> look to?

You’re discounting the greatest motivation of all: having folks come up
to you in the hall or the green room and say “Oh my god! You bastard! I
would have never thought of trying that! I wanted to do that
character/painting/costume for years! I loved that novel/series/movie!”
or best of all “I made something like that 20 years ago… didn’t look
that good, though…”

The BiS for “Trumps of Amber” was great, but what really made the
weekend for me was “Wait. Those are SPOONS!”

andy

Bruce wrote:

>But are there biases that are >so< blatant that a judge might need to be
>called on it? Is it only for agendas?

Good question.
I can probably fill a list with all the styles and genres that I know of
and come up with a costumer/judge out there that would say they aren’t into
that style.

but most of them can seperate things out in their head and still look at
the quality of work involved so they can fairly judge it.
There are costumes I’ve seen and judged where I had to really put myself
into that persons logic to see what they were trying to do, because it just
didn’t strike me on it’s own.
I look at the work involved, I try hard to see what they were attempting
and see if I think they achieved it.
I try to look at what they are trying to show me, not some preconceived
notion of what I’d like to see. whether it’s that one costume or the whole
masquerade.

> > an agenda, it only takes ONE incident. (Again, I refer you to
>ConStellation
> > 1983.)
>
>That’s a vendetta, not an agenda. Moving on….

and they still are out there. we must all be vigilant

>Only 1 new judge per panel? Then I wonder whether it should be strongly
>encouraged that there should always be one new judge requred at each show,
>otherwise the expansion of the judging pool will proceed at a snail’s pace.

credentials at regionals should also be used to evaluate judges
experience, so with all the regionals and cc and wc, if only half have a
new judge, in a few years we’ll have dozens of new folks to choose from.

>Shoudn’t they they have to? No, they should >want to? An artist should
>stretch him/herself. I refer back to human nature, otherwise. An artist
>takes risks and tries new things – an artisan may turn out new versions of
>the thing they do best, but it’s still the same basic product.

This is YOUR definition of what an artist is. and it’s correct FOR YOU. You
cannot however impose that definition on anyone else. You cannot judge art
by what you’d LIKE to see. Or what you Hope to see.
Yes you can well be disappointed by the end result, that is certainley your
priviledge, and is understandable, but that can’t get in the way of seeing
the quality of the work being shown to you.

Again, look at what they are giving you, not what you wish they would give you.
(this is just for judging, and has nothing to do with what we all as folks
in the audience see or think)

>Actually, I consider that their styies >do< change. They have to adapt to
>whatever demands that their patron/employer demands. Otherwise, they won’t
>continue to be able to demand the fees they ask.

I find just the opposite to be true ( imagine that LOL) If I commission a
painting by Olivia I am expecting it to look like an Olivia painting when
it is delivered. Not a Don Maitz painting.

If I pay for a Mackie, it better not look like a Mizrahi

>I’ve never said that. The point is, if someone tries something new, they
>ought to be acknowledged for it, even if it’s only an Honorable Mention (the
>issue of HMs can be debated at another time).

Maybe and probably, , just not if it sucks loud and hard, and it’s only
saving grace is that no ones done it before. It’s just not a black and
white area.

>Both costumers bring to the stage something of equal value, workmanship,
>etc. However, Costumer M does soemthing completely different – showing he
>stretched his knowledge while costumer S produced another good example of
>his usual work, is it wrong to give more weight to the person who took the
>risk? Is it wrong for a judge to be more impressed by the person who did
>something new?

No, you are right, it is NOT wrong for them to be impressed and award it,
but you seem to be asking for absolutes here, that it will ALWAYS be
rewarded higher just for being different, and I don’t think thats possible,
or correct

It’s never wrong for a judge to be impressed with ANYTHING for ANY reason,
but to try to say that a judge MUST be impressed with pure originality and
reward it, well, that’s the part that’s wrong.

>So maybe my point of view is skewed. But I believe (and I’m not just
>speaking for us here in the Midwest, because we’ve had this discussion with
>costumers from elsewhere), that stagnation has been setting in since about
>the early 1990s.

And that may well be a valid opinion, but we’re back to setting agendas
again here if you want to engineer the natural trends and flow of an
artform at best, or even a hobby at the very least.
That’s an unnatural progression. The masquerade must grow and flow as it
will over time.

>I think that’s taking an extreme example, but I’m not going to argue about
>it.

It’s not really extreme, and it just happened. Do we start naming names and
posting pics?
or do we keep all this chat as theoretical and never spell out the costumes
we all assume we’re talking about?

>Please note: I did say “a judge should not base their decision on an
>individual
>costumer’s past presentations” (mispellings omitted). I said I thought a
>judge should be aware of those trends.

As part of a well educated judging base, it would be hard not to.

> >The judges should be judging what they are seeing on the
> > stage that night.
>
>Respectfully, I disagree. Referring to past discussion, if a judge hs
>become bored by seeing the same kinds of costume presentations, then chances
>are the audience (which at a CC is pretty darn knowledgeable and contain
>many regulars) is probably going to be somewhat bored to. Polite applause,
>but not wowed.

So are you willing to write up a statement to the contestants when you
judge that you will be looking for new and original things above all else,
and that they will infact be judged against history and not just the folks
in the green room that night?

Because now we’re back to having contestants decide to enter or not based
on the judges, and it would only seem fair that they have plenty of time to
decide what they would build let alone whether they will present it or not.
Seems like that should be listed early on, along with the stage size and
all. ( not that stage size being whats actually in the pr and at the con
matching seems important lately, but that’s another discussion)

If a judge is bored, they should not judge.

>A relatively new, but knowledgable, judge can see that there is a sameness
>to many an entry, then there’s no way they can judge what’s going on at that
>masquerade that night, either.

ya mean like lots of chicks in big dresses at the historical LOL!

>Fine. If that costumer’s motivation is purely to get up on stage and
>present their concept and “get it out of their head”. But then they can’t
>turn around later and ask the judge why they were not acknowledged.

Agreed.

Bruce, sometimes I wonder why you and I do this once a year. Do we really
change/fix anything?
Or do we both just love the debate so much we can’t resist, no matter what
the topic.
Whether I agree with you or not, I find it both challenging and
stimulating. I get the feeling that if we were both into cars we’d be on
that list debating over ford or chevy, just for the debate itself.

Ricky

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>Bruce wrote,
>
>Well, I think my arguement is, the envelope isn’t necessarily being pushed
>that hard. See my other comments in the other letter.

I won’t disagree or agree 100% but I can understand what you mean, I just
don’t think we can legislate it in that it needs to be pushed at all, a
lot, a little, whatever. each person does what they feel compelled to do.
and trying to push it one way or another is in conflict with the prime
directive
(not that that ever stopped anyone on TV)

>That raises a thought in my mind – when was the last time we had a truly
>ground-breaking presentation like the ones you describe? I’m not
>necessarily saying there haven’t been anyway, but nothing’s sure leaping to
>mind.

seemingly only in humour. I will admit honestly that the serious
presentations haven’t changed that much in the years we missed till when we
got active again.

but
A- it’s about the costume in the long run ,not presentation and
2- is it possible that whithin the laws and rules governing what we can and
can’t do legally, safely and within time constraints there’s not much more
we can do?

I have skills and techniques that I would kill to use in a masquerade, but
as they are set up now, there’s no way they will be used. And I’m not sure
they would actually enhance the costume, they would merely ‘be different’
and entertain the audience

Ricky

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> I have skills and techniques that I would kill to use in a masquerade, but
> as they are set up now, there’s no way they will be used. And I’m not sure
> they would actually enhance the costume, they would merely ‘be different’
> and entertain the audience
>
> Ricky
>

This was why, after discussion with Darla, “Le Jazz Hot” was staged as
part of the halftime entertainment rather than entered in the
masquerade. There was no way to really do that dress justice without the
performance, and the performance was well outside the boundaries of the
masquerade rules.

For me, doing the production properly for the audience was more
important than entering the contest, so I opted to be entertainment
rather than an entry.

Kevin

I’m enjoying the discussion, but I think the basic question most of us have
is how to get some kind of feedback. It’s hardly polite to walk up to a
judge and say “why didn’t I receive an award”, but one is really tempted to
want to ask “what could I have done to improve or make this more
interesting”. Not everyone is going to approach it from that direction
though, and when there is a large masquerade, it would be very onerous for
the judges to have to comment to everyone who participate.

I guess, being in theater, I look on it as “notes” on improving a
performance. Pierre was kind enough once, several years after the fact, to
make a comment on a Worldcon costume that I had done which helped me see
something that I was doing that wasn’t working in a large venue. I really
appreciated it because I had decided to give up costuming outside the
theater. After our discussion, I changed my focus and am totally hooked
again.

I’m sure there are some biases in judging, and the year you pick to do the
Snow Queen may be the year that two out of three judges are going “if I ever
see another Snow Queen costume, I’m going to barf”. In which case, some
kind person should say “that was a lovely costume, but it’s something that
has been done a lot, so it would have to be amazingly incredible to win”, I
suppose. As they say, there’s no accounting for taste, but usually you can
look at a person’s body of work and see what their interests are. You could
then pick judges with a variety of outlooks and expertise, even if they
hadn’t judged before. Of course, this only applies if you get to select your
own judges and can pick other costumers. Of course, some authors, if they
tend to spend lots of words of loving description of what their characters
are wearing, would be good choices!

Anyway, it’s late and I’m babbling on, so “Goodnight” –

Trudy

>

Nora here:
While not polite I know it’s done regularly. Your version is more inline
with the type of information a judges should be willing to give.
I also feel that judges shouldn’t neccessarily comment unless they’re asked;
there are times when a costumer doesn’t want a critique and immediately
after a masquerade with adrenaline still coursing through their system may
be one of them. Typically an unsolicited opinion is un-wanted. So that would
save judges a lot of time.
I’ve had a judge tell me (without being asked) that certain elements didn’t
jive with what I was trying to convey and therefore he had to lower my score
because I didn’t achieve what I set out to do. Since the judge never asked
what my intention was (and I hadn’t submitted any sort of story, it was an
area masq that doesn’t encourage that sort of thing) I was stunned, appalled
& even a little offended that he made such a random appraisal. And he was
completely wrong about my intentions.
So he didn’t “get” or see what I was trying to do – it happens, I can live
with that and I certainly understood that since I’d received no award for my
efforts (which isn’t why I costume anyway). but I never asked for his
rational, so I think he shouldn’t have insisted on sharing his insight.
A friend’s helpful hints about what they think may have gone wrong (if
they’re aware of what the intended result is) is another thing entirely, and
can be very helpful in developing something.

Nora

—– Original Message —–
From: “Trudy Leonard” <georgialei@hotmail.com>
> I’m enjoying the discussion, but I think the basic question most of us
have
> is how to get some kind of feedback. It’s hardly polite to walk up to a
> judge and say “why didn’t I receive an award”, but one is really tempted
to
> want to ask “what could I have done to improve or make this more
> interesting”. Not everyone is going to approach it from that direction
> though, and when there is a large masquerade, it would be very onerous for
> the judges to have to comment to everyone who participate.
>
> I guess, being in theater, I look on it as “notes” on improving a
> performance. Pierre was kind enough once, several years after the fact, to
> make a comment on a Worldcon costume that I had done which helped me see
> something that I was doing that wasn’t working in a large venue. I really
> appreciated it because I had decided to give up costuming outside the
> theater. After our discussion, I changed my focus and am totally hooked
> again.

Hi, all!

As one of the CC23 SF/F judges, I’ve sat this conversation out, but I am
reading all the comments very carefully. (Just for information, since
there may come a time where I’m put in a position where I’ll be
responsible for dealing with the situations outlined. It could happen. I
suppose…someday…..)

I do have a general comment, though. A lot of questions can be answered
for contestants by providing a post-masquerade wrap panel the following
day. Waiting till the next day gives both the contestants and judges, as
well as the rest of the masquerade crew, a chance to recover. Sometimes
that won’t help (see Nolacon), but I do feel strongly that there’s a lot
to be gained by having these discussions at the con, while the event is
still fresh.

And I am noticing that both the masquerade critique (or whatever you
choose to call it) and the con critique panels have generally fallen by
the wayside. These panels aren’t necessarily intended as bitch sessions,
but can be very educational for the people who will be participating in
future events.

I advocate a return to including such panels after the main events and
at the conclusion of the con. IMHO (personally speaking), people in
charge of programming should be remembering to include them in the
blocks of programming by default.

I don’t want to get into details about the events we just witnessed. I
was (and am) willing to discuss with any entry that entry’s performance
and the reasoning behind what was awarded, but I do want to say in
general that I was not 100% happy with how things were awarded.

In a panel of three, there are times when compromises have to be made,
and when it comes down to a vote (which is how we did it because there
were no guidelines provided for rating and ranking), in some cases the
votes were two to one. No details will be provided on which cases these
were – that would be patently unfair to the contestants who are not part
of this conversation.

So far, this discussion has been polite and a lot of good information
has been exchanged. Please continue!

Betsy

Betsy, you wrote:

>Hi, all!
>
>
>
>And I am noticing that both the masquerade critique (or whatever you
>choose to call it) and the con critique panels have generally fallen by
>the wayside. These panels aren’t necessarily intended as bitch sessions,
>but can be very educational for the people who will be participating in
>future events.

LunaCon still does it, and this year watching the Pettingers and my Karen
handle some pretty sticky topics, and do so with a smile and a happy
outcome, surely has colored my views on how much of a positive this can
work out to.

The stickiest one was when a general fan was really upset that a costume
she thought was good didn’t place . Not a friend, not nothing, but this
person really didn’t let up for a while. But the judges didn’t crack. They
spoke of positive things throughout, and were happy to have private
conversations with any costumer that had questions.

> but I do want to say in
>general that I was not 100% happy with how things were awarded.
>
>In a panel of three, there are times when compromises have to be made,

And that’s okay. If we want a balanced panel with judges who DO have a clue
about all phases of the hobby, then as a judge I would think it rare that
all three could be 100% happy.

you give and take on some things and dig your feet in when you can.

I had a rare experience with the single pattern contest this year.
We ( Andrea Shewe and myself) were told we could give three awards

we sat seperatley in the theater, and did not previously discuss what we
should look for. and when we went to compare notes we had the exact same
three costumes on our list. Nice, Odd, Rare.

Ricky

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 5/15/2005 7:52:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
casamai@sbcglobal.net writes:

> And does anyone have an idea about when one stops being a newbie and
> becomes
> an accepted or established member of the Community? Cause apparently 13 +
> years is not enough.

I still feel new to the scene, myself, Nora. Even though I do feel accepted
in the crowd.

I do agree with Andy as to “Why I costume,” partly. I do love the audience
reaction, but I also just have ideas that I want to see acted out.

Henry

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello!

I have been reading all this discussion with interest. Partly as someone who
runs masquerades, partly as someone bidding on another CC, and as the guy
whose was the SF&F MD at CC23. I have a number of comments, which I will now
offer, in no particular order.

Re: Feedback from Judges: I love this idea! I received a hint from Sheila
Lenkman, the MD at Archon in St. Louis, that the MD should try to help the
entrant improve their entry during rehearsals. I also believe that hearing from the
judges good and bad is beneficial. The day after is a great time to do this.

Re: My selection of judges: After convincing Dave Doering that I wanted to
run the SF&F, I sought judges that people usually did not think of as judges. I
also followed Andy’s lead from CC21 to find judges from different parts of the
world. I ended up a bit thin in the West Coast choices, but I stand by my
choices. I’m sorry that it was so not fun for you, Betsy, that you don’t want to
judge again. I think that your point of view is great. Don’t say never again.
I did tell them in e-mail the “Brian of Nazareth” advice, in a sense. I asked
them not to be swayed by an entry from “Bob Mackie” or “Edith Head” and to
judge them each on their own. I did try to get Caitlin Dick and one of the
McDermott’s, but found out that Caitlin was entering and the McDermott’s were
already working the con.

Re: Guidance from the ConChair to the MD: Not a bad idea, but I also believe
in picking staff that know what they are doing. I tried to do that with 21,
but ended up making sure “the children put their pants on.”

Re: Any criticism of the job I did at CC23: Bring it on. I have learned long
ago that negative criticism, can be hurtful, but if you can get past that and
listen, you learn. Last year at CC22, I had a conversation about CC21 with my
programming person, and I agreed with what she had to say about what I did.

Re: Judges with biases: That’s no good. I do remember receiving a question
from a judge about judging their own child. I suggested openly stating during
the judging process that the entrant was their child and they could not judge
them fairly. I also told them that if the judging came to a tie involving that
entry, either myself or my wonderful (and I can’t say that enough!) #2, Dora
Buck would get involved.

Re: Judges Vendettas: Very bad! That is not why to judge! If, during judging,
a bias or vendetta became evident, my judge’s clerks would have let me know,
even though I forgot to say anything about that.

That’s all I can think of right now.

Henry
PS And for your reminder:
CC16: First CC attended
CC19: Second attended
CC21: Ran it
CC22: Worked back stage
CC23: SF&F MD
CC24: Site Selection Commissioner
CC25: FFS Director
CC26: Currently Unassigned Trouble Shooter

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Comments inserted.

—– Original Message —–
From: “Ricky & Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>
> and they still are out there. we must all be vigilant

Wait — I think I hear the sound of helicopter blades. Ah, there they are –
and they’re black!

Seriously, though, I’ve not heard of anything that egregious in a long
time. Sure pettiness abounds, but I think with today’s communications, that
is probably mostly kept in check….

> credentials at regionals should also be used to evaluate judges
> experience, so with all the regionals and cc and wc, if only half have a
> new judge, in a few years we’ll have dozens of new folks to choose from.

Okay, I can buy that.

> I find just the opposite to be true ( imagine that LOL) If I commission a
> painting by Olivia I am expecting it to look like an Olivia painting when
> it is delivered. Not a Don Maitz painting.
>
> If I pay for a Mackie, it better not look like a Mizrahi

Ah, but there, you’re buying a particular expected style on a particular
medium they use all the time. You’re not necessariy saying, “Paint me
something different than what you normally do”. The proper scenario would
be, “Mr. Canvas Painter, I need you to do a mural on my vintage “74 panel
van”. NOW we’re havin’ some fun when they have to learn new techniques.

> >I’ve never said that. The point is, if someone tries something new,
theyought to be acknowledged for it, even if it’s only an Honorable Mention
(the issue of HMs can be debated at another time).
>
> Maybe and probably, , just not if it sucks loud and hard, and it’s only
> saving grace is that no ones done it before. It’s just not a black and
> white area.

Well, DUH. 🙂 C’mon, I never advocated that. They have to have shown
effort and some modicum of panache.

>
> No, you are right, it is NOT wrong for them to be impressed and award it,
> but you seem to be asking for absolutes here, that it will ALWAYS be
> rewarded higher just for being different, and I don’t think thats
possible,
> or correct

> It’s never wrong for a judge to be impressed with ANYTHING for ANY reason,
> but to try to say that a judge MUST be impressed with pure originality and
> reward it, well, that’s the part that’s wrong.

And I think that’s where we’ve been talking at cross purposes. The
issue is not about absolutes- of course this is a subjective issue. But the
perception is, and I’m not just speaking for all our Guild members (not just
“some people”), is that excellent but same is often given preference over
excellence and different.

> >stagnation has been setting in since
about the early 1990s.
>
> And that may well be a valid opinion, but we’re back to setting agendas
> again here if you want to engineer the natural trends and flow of an
> artform at best, or even a hobby at the very least.
> That’s an unnatural progression. The masquerade must grow and flow as it
> will over time.

Respectfully, again, I disagree. I am not advocating engineering – what I’m
advocating is for new perspectives within judging, which seem to be lacking
at times among some experienced judges called to serve.

> >I think that’s taking an extreme example, but I’m not going to argue
about it.
>
> It’s not really extreme, and it just happened. Do we start naming namesand
posting pics?
> or do we keep all this chat as theoretical and never spell out the
costumes
> we all assume we’re talking about?

Only if you deem it necessary. And of course once names are named they
can’t be taken back. I think we’re still talking about a philosophy here.

> So are you willing to write up a statement to the contestants when you
> judge that you will be looking for new and original things above all else,
> and that they will infact be judged against history and not just the folks
> in the green room that night?
>
> Because now we’re back to having contestants decide to enter or not based
> on the judges, and it would only seem fair that they have plenty of time
to decide what they would build let alone whether they will present it or
not. Seems like that should be listed early on, along with the stage size
and
> all. ( not that stage size being whats actually in the pr and at the con
> matching seems important lately, but that’s another discussion)

No, and I’ve never said people should be judged ONLY for originality. If
you can show me a quote where I said that, I’ll address it. What I meant
was, originality should be a FACTOR.

> Bruce, sometimes I wonder why you and I do this once a year. Do we really
> change/fix anything?
> Or do we both just love the debate so much we can’t resist, no matter what
> the topic.

I wish it changed things, that’s the point isn’t it? Yes, we love the debate
but hope that there will finally be positive results from “an open exchange
of ideas”.

> Whether I agree with you or not, I find it both challenging and
> stimulating. I get the feeling that if we were both into cars we’d be on
> that list debating over ford or chevy, just for the debate itself.

Toyota, actually.
PCs, 98SE & briefs. We’ve got those 4 topics cleared away anyway.

Bruce

>Bruce wrote
>
>Ah, but there, you’re buying a particular expected style on a particular
>medium they use all the time. You’re not necessariy saying, “Paint me
>something different than what you normally do”. The proper scenario would
>be, “Mr. Canvas Painter, I need you to do a mural on my vintage “74 panel
>van”. NOW we’re havin’ some fun when they have to learn new techniques.

But if that works for you, and you think it ‘s fun, great. Stop trying to
impose it on everyone else.

>And I think that’s where we’ve been talking at cross purposes. The
>issue is not about absolutes- of course this is a subjective issue. But the
>perception is, and I’m not just speaking for all our Guild members (not just
>”some people”), is that excellent but same is often given preference over
>excellence and different.

cool, then it’s just perception.
Then how about some ideas to change people’s perception rather than trying
to get the artists to change what they find interesting and enjoyable to do.

>Respectfully, again, I disagree. I am not advocating engineering – what I’m
>advocating is for new perspectives within judging, which seem to be lacking
>at times among some experienced judges called to serve.

Got it, you don’t want to engineer the costumers, you just want to engineer
the judges so things like what you do will have a better chance?

>Only if you deem it necessary. And of course once names are named they
>can’t be taken back. I think we’re still talking about a philosophy here.
>
>
>No, and I’ve never said people should be judged ONLY for originality. If
>you can show me a quote where I said that, I’ll address it. What I meant
>was, originality should be a FACTOR.

Got it.
Will you say that it is just one of MANY factors judges should be considering?
or do you think it deserves more weight than other factors?

Cause I’m totally fine with the basic common knowledge that you and Nora
like to do experimental things and like to see experimental things as your
bias on that list I spoke of ( not that it actually exists) ( yet)
I don’t think you should both be on the same judging panel, but other than
that, I’d have no problem with you as a judge as part of a balanced panel
being supervised by an MD, just like any other long standing well respected
member of our communittee

> > Whether I agree with you or not, I find it both challenging and
> > stimulating. I get the feeling that if we were both into cars we’d be on
> > that list debating over ford or chevy, just for the debate itself.
>
>Toyota, actually.
>PCs, 98SE & briefs. We’ve got those 4 topics cleared away anyway.

Yeah that figures !! ( only kidding)

Well, look at it this way, the posts between us keep getting shorter as we
find ways to make the language work so we don’t need to go back and forth
on every single thing.

I do feel originality is important. but it’s just one more thing on my
mental check list I go thru when I’m looking at a costume.

Ricky

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Henry, you wrote:

>Re: My selection of judges: After convincing Dave Doering that I wanted to
>run the SF&F, I sought judges that people usually did not think of as
>judges. I
>also followed Andy’s lead from CC21 to find judges from different parts of
>the
>world. I ended up a bit thin in the West Coast choices, but I stand by my
>choices. I’m sorry that it was so not fun for you, Betsy, that you don’t
>want to
>judge again. I think that your point of view is great. Don’t say never again.
>I did tell them in e-mail the “Brian of Nazareth” advice, in a sense. I asked
>them not to be swayed by an entry from “Bob Mackie” or “Edith Head” and to
>judge them each on their own. I did try to get Caitlin Dick and one of the
>McDermott’s, but found out that Caitlin was entering and the McDermott’s were
>already working the con.

Caitlin was an interesting choice I guess just from a fresh view, but she
does not yet have all the sewing skills and experience to recognize
problems of construction, design, etc..
I did actually forward your request to her last year and she said she
didn’t know enough about enough different things to be sure everyone got a
fair deal from her. yet

The MacDermott’s fair and honest people, they’ve awarded me high, they’ve
awarded me low.
Open and honest in their reasons.
But it would have been three years in a row for them, and I’m with Bruce on
this one, we need to mix it up if possible

>Re: Any criticism of the job I did at CC23: Bring it on. I have learned long
>ago that negative criticism, can be hurtful, but if you can get past that and
>listen, you learn. Last year at CC22, I had a conversation about CC21 with my
>programming person, and I agreed with what she had to say about what I did.

well, my only first hand problem was that for the second time you were in
charge of the stage at a CC, you had right up until the day of the
masquerade, no real handle on what it would actually be.
The info in the prs was just wrong, for years.

To your credit, and it’s a big credit, when I found you in the lobby and
I’m sure I was breathing fire, you delegated me to people who could fix it.

otherwise I heard second hand grumbling from folks most of whom not on this
list, so it’s not right to be specific. But from what I’ve seen and heard
from CC21 and 23, you have a great knack for choosing your lieutenants and
they have made up for a sometimes lack of organization.

Like, you should have known what the deal was on the ribbons.
I realize it may have been out of your hands as to how many were ordered or
whatever, but you should have had a handle on it before it became an issue.

right now I would have trouble voting for you as a con chair until the next
time you run something smaller and we see how it goes. which of course you
will get the chance to do before the CC-28 voting is over I believe,
looking at your list below

This is all just because you asked. We like you as a person, we have won
major awards at masq’s you’ve been a part of, and we have had great times
in general at the cons you’ve worked on. If we’re all trying to learn, then
the above comments are about what still needs work

Ricky

>Henry
>PS And for your reminder:
>CC16: First CC attended
>CC19: Second attended
>CC21: Ran it
>CC22: Worked back stage
>CC23: SF&F MD
>CC24: Site Selection Commissioner
>CC25: FFS Director
>CC26: Currently Unassigned Trouble Shooter
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Nora speaking:

Common knowledge, huh? You and Nora, eh?
Is it also “common knowledge” that ‘we’, as a couple, costume together less
than the average couple in our community? And what else might be “common
knowledge” about either of us (and we are not a single unit, BTW) or others
on this list?

Ricky, I like you and respect your costuming & opinions. Please allow me
some of the same respect by not assuming that everything you “know” about
Bruce applies to me.

Thank you.

—– Original Message —–
From: “Ricky & Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>
> Cause I’m totally fine with the basic common knowledge that you and Nora
> like to do experimental things and like to see experimental things as your
> bias on that list I spoke of ( not that it actually exists) ( yet)
> I don’t think you should both be on the same judging panel, but other than
> that, I’d have no problem with you as a judge as part of a balanced panel
> being supervised by an MD, just like any other long standing well
respected
> member of our communittee

Nora, you’ve stated this many times.

Just because you don’t always costume WITH Bruce, doesn’t mean you also
don’t strive to do out of the ordinary things.Like he does

I didn’t say as a couple or anything else. I could have been just as easily
saying that Daren and Lance both like furries.

SO I’m sorry if it’s so horrible to be lumped in with your husband, but
separate, together, with other folks, whatever, you both seem to really
like doing something different.
and I’m also sorry if it seems you’re lumped together in that you have both
written about doing
‘ different’ things and both of you have been less than thrilled with the
judging results.

so even though they were separate entries, maybe years apart for all we
know, we’re still getting the same message from your household.You didn’t
feel your work was properly rewarded when you tried something out of the
ordinary.

So sorry of I offended.

Ricky

At 07:28 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, you wrote:

>Nora speaking:
>
>Common knowledge, huh? You and Nora, eh?
>Is it also “common knowledge” that ‘we’, as a couple, costume together less
>than the average couple in our community? And what else might be “common
>knowledge” about either of us (and we are not a single unit, BTW) or others
>on this list?
>
>Ricky, I like you and respect your costuming & opinions. Please allow me
>some of the same respect by not assuming that everything you “know” about
>Bruce applies to me.
>
>Thank you.
>
>—– Original Message —–
>From: “Ricky & Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>
> > Cause I’m totally fine with the basic common knowledge that you and Nora
> > like to do experimental things and like to see experimental things as your
> > bias on that list I spoke of ( not that it actually exists) ( yet)
> > I don’t think you should both be on the same judging panel, but other than
> > that, I’d have no problem with you as a judge as part of a balanced panel
> > being supervised by an MD, just like any other long standing well
>respected
> > member of our communittee
>
>
>
>View the Document:
><http://www.Costume-Con.org/procedure/runacc/>http://www.Costume-Con.org/procedure/runacc/
>
>
>
>
>———-
>Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> *
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/runacc/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/runacc/
> *
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> *
> <mailto:runacc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>runacc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> *
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

—– Original Message —–
From: “Ricky & Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>

> But if that works for you, and you think it ‘s fun, great. Stop trying to
> impose it on everyone else.

You didn’t address my example. Fine. You don’t want to cede my point. I
respect that. But I am NOT — repeat – NOT trying to impose my opinion on
other people. I’m really getting tired of saying that.

> cool, then it’s just perception.

> Then how about some ideas to change people’s perception rather than trying
> to get the artists to change what they find interesting and enjoyable to
do.

Ah. Now we’re getting somewhere. Sounds like a panel, or at least a good
roundtable discussion.

That said, though, if the the artists are starting to bore the audience
(it’s not just all about the costumer – you know that), then maybe they need
to be aware of it.

> you don’t want to engineer the costumers, you just want to engineer
> the judges so things like what you do will have a better chance?

NO. And since e-mail can never communicate tone of voice and body language,
I’m going to hope that that remark was not meant as an insult. I like to
think what we do is original, yes – but we still have to be judged on the
costume part. We’ve never lost sight of that. If that was your impression,
well, you’re wrong.

I will never be half (okay, well, maybe 3/4) you guys are. I know my
limitations. Nor will I ever be as successful as you guys are (experience
has to count for something). But that’s okay. I don’t have the time or the
amount of creative drive you guys do. That’s why you can have a business
that incorporates your costuming skills.

> Will you say that it is just one of MANY factors judges should be
considering?
> or do you think it deserves more weight than other factors?

Yes! I want it to be >A< factor equal to others, but not the overriding
one.
>
> Cause I’m totally fine with the basic common knowledge that you and Nora
> like to do experimental things and like to see experimental things as your
> bias on that list I spoke of ( not that it actually exists) ( yet)
> I don’t think you should both be on the same judging panel, but other than
> that, I’d have no problem with you as a judge as part of a balanced panel
> being supervised by an MD, just like any other long standing well
respected
> member of our communittee

Whoa. Let’s back up the bus. “Experimental” is not the
point. Originality is. Mostly not doing the same thing twice is our
signature. As Nora said (and you acknowledged), we mostly pursue our own
individual concepts (Nora’s probably paired up with Karen H more than with
me), and have completely different styles from each other. You, yourself,
said roughly the same thing at CC22 — something about two “talented
costumers with two distinctive styles under one roof”, is what I believe you
stated. By which I felt highly honored that you thought so. I wish Nora
had been around to hear that too, but I passed on the compliment later.

> Well, look at it this way, the posts between us keep getting shorter as we
> find ways to make the language work so we don’t need to go back and forth
> on every single thing.
>
> I do feel originality is important. but it’s just one more thing on my
> mental check list I go thru when I’m looking at a costume.

That’s as close to what we’ve been trying to get across as I can expect.

More than once, we’ve tried to get those we respect to listen to what is
being said in parts of our community. But the impression we get is “This is
the way we’ve always done it” and we should just stop stirring up trouble.

I’ve pretty much said all I’m going to, at this point. I’ve made some
suggestions about how to address these perceptions. I hope that they will
be considered by people who could work the ideas into panel programming for
judges.

Oh, and by the way, I did think of a relatively recent presentation that
shows new stuff can be done. The costumes and staging for “Saturday Night
at 8:00″(?). Brilliant. I thought the staging was one of the best things
I’d seen for a while, but I wasn’t all that impressed with the costuming
until I examined it again. While there was certainly not dazzling technical
stuff done, the makeup and the attention to detail was what impressed me.
THAT, I consider original.

Bruce

Hey!

Amanda’s not on this list, but next time you see her, Sharon Landrum, or
some of the other GCFCG members, be sure to let them know that. I’m sure
they’d be flattered by that comment!

I think it was just Saturdays at 8, but I could be wrong… Wasn’t there
to see it in person.

Dang.

Betsy

Bruce & Nora Mai wrote:

> Oh, and by the way, I did think of a relatively recent presentation that
> shows new stuff can be done. The costumes and staging for “Saturday Night
> at 8:00″(?). Brilliant. I thought the staging was one of the best things
> I’d seen for a while, but I wasn’t all that impressed with the costuming
> until I examined it again. While there was certainly not dazzling technical
> stuff done, the makeup and the attention to detail was what impressed me.
> THAT, I consider original.
>
> Bruce

Bruce,

Okay,
so I make sure that this judges instructions list really addresses giving
originality its fair due,

not higher, not lower, but one of many equally important topics judges need
to concern themselves with , then we’re all cool?

because the three major east coast masquerades are ready to start using
them, well, now.

But I don’t want regional pissing matches and hard feelings happening, so I
want you to be happy as well.

>Ah. Now we’re getting somewhere. Sounds like a panel, or at least a good
>roundtable discussion.
>
>That said, though, if the the artists are starting to bore the audience
>(it’s not just all about the costumer – you know that), then maybe they need
>to be aware of it.

I’d do that panel with you. while I don’t think the costumes are
necessarily boring, I think many non funny presentations are.

> > you don’t want to engineer the costumers, you just want to engineer
> > the judges so things like what you do will have a better chance?
>- but we still have to be judged on the
>costume part. We’ve never lost sight of that. If that was your impression,
>well, you’re wrong.

yup, I need to be better on the little emoticons. sorry.

>I will never be half (okay, well, maybe 3/4) you guys are. I know my
>limitations. Nor will I ever be as successful as you guys are (experience
>has to count for something). But that’s okay. I don’t have the time or the
>amount of creative drive you guys do. That’s why you can have a business
>that incorporates your costuming skills.

No, I believe on any given day you and anyone you might be married to who
may well do a totally separate costume from you ( LOL) have all the skills
and abilities to beat us.

But your costuming self worth seems to be tied up in any one particular set
of, as Jaqui calls them, horse ribbons and wallpaper. And that you aren’t
getting the props from the national community you deserve. But it’s your
overall body of work that is the most interesting thing about you, and that
separately costuming spouse of yours.
While any one single con may or may not have gone the way you wanted,
anyone with a clue sees the scope of a career there and has to be impressed.

I mean, you’ve been around long enough to have best in shows, been con
chairs, be eligible for the ICG LAA, and while I have no clue if you’ve
ever been nominated, I know people speak of you in those terms.

> > Will you say that it is just one of MANY factors judges should be
>considering?
> > or do you think it deserves more weight than other factors?
>
>Yes! I want it to be >A< factor equal to others, but not the overriding
>one.

Done!

>Whoa. Let’s back up the bus. “Experimental” is not the
>point. Originality is. Mostly not doing the same thing twice is our
>signature. As Nora said (and you acknowledged), we mostly pursue our own
>individual concepts (Nora’s probably paired up with Karen H more than with
>me), and have completely different styles from each other.
> By which I felt highly honored that you thought so. I wish Nora
>had been around to hear that too, but I passed on the compliment later.

Okay, first, Nora already reamed me about lumping you, but it was
coincidental that you are married.

and experimental is a grey area on the side of original, and I value them
equally so no slight was intended. it was supposed to be a complement.

You, yourself,
said roughly the same thing at CC22 — something about two “talented
costumers with two distinctive styles under one roof”, is what I believe
you stated

and is the reason that BOTH OF YOU should be on the next interview type
tape. BECAUSE you’re married with almost separate costume careers.

>That’s as close to what we’ve been trying to get across as I can expect.
>
>More than once, we’ve tried to get those we respect to listen to what is
>being said in parts of our community. But the impression we get is “This is
>the way we’ve always done it” and we should just stop stirring up trouble.
>
>I’ve pretty much said all I’m going to, at this point. I’ve made some
>suggestions about how to address these perceptions. I hope that they will
>be considered by people who could work the ideas into panel programming for
>judges.

I feel strongly that they will be. I think after all this between the two
of us, everyone here has a grasp of the opinions.

>Oh, and by the way, I did think of a relatively recent presentation that
>shows new stuff can be done. The costumes and staging for “Saturday Night
>at 8:00″(?). Brilliant. I thought the staging was one of the best things
>I’d seen for a while, but I wasn’t all that impressed with the costuming
>until I examined it again. While there was certainly not dazzling technical
>stuff done, the makeup and the attention to detail was what impressed me.
>THAT, I consider original.

agreed, and proof that doing a costume RIGHT doesn’t have to mean
mortgaging the house to do it.and the whole was greater than the separate
parts.

Ricky

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think it was Fridays at 10.

Ricky

At 11:22 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, you wrote:

>Hey!
>
>Amanda’s not on this list, but next time you see her, Sharon Landrum, or
>some of the other GCFCG members, be sure to let them know that. I’m sure
>they’d be flattered by that comment!
>
>I think it was just Saturdays at 8, but I could be wrong… Wasn’t there
>to see it in person.
>
>Dang.
>
>Betsy
>
>Bruce & Nora Mai wrote:
>
> > Oh, and by the way, I did think of a relatively recent presentation that
> > shows new stuff can be done. The costumes and staging for “Saturday Night
> > at 8:00″(?). Brilliant. I thought the staging was one of the best things
> > I’d seen for a while, but I wasn’t all that impressed with the costuming
> > until I examined it again. While there was certainly not dazzling
> technical
> > stuff done, the makeup and the attention to detail was what impressed me.
> > THAT, I consider original.
> >
> > Bruce
>
>
>
>View the Document:
><http://www.Costume-Con.org/procedure/runacc/>http://www.Costume-Con.org/procedure/runacc/
>
>
>
>
>———-
>Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> *
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/runacc/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/runacc/
> *
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> *
> <mailto:runacc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>runacc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> *
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Shows what I know. Besides, I only ever remember seeing the show in
reruns, anyway, and then only when I couldn’t avoid it. (I’m familiar
with the material, but I happen to despise the subject. Wouldn’t stop me
from awarding high marks for the costumes, though!) 9-)

Cheers,

Betsy

Ricky & Karen Dick wrote:

> I think it was Fridays at 10.
>
> Ricky

—– Original Message —–
From: “Ricky & Karen Dick” <castleb@pulsenet.com>

> Bruce,
>
> Okay,
> so I make sure that this judges instructions list really addresses
giving
> originality its fair due,
>
> not higher, not lower, but one of many equally important topics judges
need
> to concern themselves with , then we’re all cool?

Fine.
>
> because the three major east coast masquerades are ready to start using
> them, well, now.
>
> But I don’t want regional pissing matches and hard feelings happening, so
I
> want you to be happy as well.

Not a matter of being happy, but — whatever.
>
>
>

> I’d do that panel with you. while I don’t think the costumes are
> necessarily boring, I think many non funny presentations are.

You get no arguement from me.

>
> yup, I need to be better on the little emoticons. sorry.
>
>
> >I will never be half (okay, well, maybe 3/4) you guys are. I know my
> >limitations. Nor will I ever be as successful as you guys are
(experience
> >has to count for something). But that’s okay. I don’t have the time or
the
> >amount of creative drive you guys do. That’s why you can have a business
> >that incorporates your costuming skills.
>
>
> No, I believe on any given day you and anyone you might be married to who
> may well do a totally separate costume from you ( LOL) have all the skills
> and abilities to beat us.

That may take awhile for me. Nora is the one with more of the talent.

>
> But your costuming self worth seems to be tied up in any one particular
set
> of, as Jaqui calls them, horse ribbons and wallpaper. And that you aren’t
> getting the props from the national community you deserve. But it’s your
> overall body of work that is the most interesting thing about you, and
that
> separately costuming spouse of yours.
> While any one single con may or may not have gone the way you wanted,
> anyone with a clue sees the scope of a career there and has to be
impressed.

I know you mean well, but no, we’re not tied up in the whole horse ribbon
thing. Let’s just drop that. We’re not getting anywhere with this
discussion anymore. We must agree on general stuff, but there are specifics
that we must agree to disagree. And our opinions, are seperate as well,
and not meant to be considered as one, necessarily. Maybe we need to set up
our own e-mail account/aliases.
>
> I mean, you’ve been around long enough to have best in shows, been con
> chairs, be eligible for the ICG LAA, and while I have no clue if you’ve
> ever been nominated, I know people speak of you in those terms.

Thank you for the kind words, but talk to me about that in another 15 years.
And I would hope that we would be considered on individual contributions,
not as a couple. Nora has done more than I for the community and the ICG,
especially since she has served as VP for the Guild. I don’t think I”ll
ever aspire to an officer in the ICG. Too much aggravation.

> You, yourself,
> said roughly the same thing at CC22 — something about two “talented
> costumers with two distinctive styles under one roof”, is what I believe
> you stated
>
> and is the reason that BOTH OF YOU should be on the next interview type
> tape. BECAUSE you’re married with almost separate costume careers.

Right. We’ll see if THAT ever comes to fruition (I’ve volunteered to help
produce it).
.

>
>
> agreed, and proof that doing a costume RIGHT doesn’t have to mean
> mortgaging the house to do it.and the whole was greater than the separate
> parts.

Definitely.

Bruce

In a message dated 5/16/2005 7:28:24 PM Central Daylight Time,
castleb@pulsenet.com writes:

>
> well, my only first hand problem was that for the second time you were in
> charge of the stage at a CC, you had right up until the day of the
> masquerade, no real handle on what it would actually be.
> The info in the prs was just wrong, for years.
>
> To your credit, and it’s a big credit, when I found you in the lobby and
> I’m sure I was breathing fire, you delegated me to people who could fix it.
>

Yea, you were pretty perturbed, but not at that unreasonable point. I’m glad
that we could get the stage the way you wanted. I’m also glad that Sallie, Les
and Crew were in their room!

> otherwise I heard second hand grumbling from folks most of whom not on this
>
> list, so it’s not right to be specific. But from what I’ve seen and heard
> from CC21 and 23, you have a great knack for choosing your lieutenants and
> they have made up for a sometimes lack of organization.
>
> Like, you should have known what the deal was on the ribbons.
> I realize it may have been out of your hands as to how many were ordered or
> whatever, but you should have had a handle on it before it became an issue.
>
>

Again, no arguments from me on that one.

> right now I would have trouble voting for you as a con chair until the next
>
> time you run something smaller and we see how it goes. which of course you
> will get the chance to do before the CC-28 voting is over I believe,
> looking at your list below
>

I’ll admit that I didn’t do the best job I could for 23. It wasn’t do to not
wanting to do my best, just too much happening coming into it at the last
minute. I was lucky to have been gifted with Dora Buck as my #2. After finding out
about the theater, I realized that I wanted the best stage crew I knew. So, I
e-mailed Sallie and she got the rest of the bunch.

Re: 21: As I have described it to many people, it was my painful learning
experience. It was hard to be the bad guy at friends, especially coming out of a
job situation were I was in charge and had learned how to use an iron fist
when needed. I’m sure you are familiar with that situation. From 21, I have
learned and realized that everyone involved must realized that although the con is
a volunteer-run event, everyone must have a businesslike attitude about doing
their job. That includes me, if I win the bid. As chair, I’ll have to be just
and hard, but fair, as well as understanding at times. I’m going to have
deadlines, and a set plan/policy to deal with missed deadlines.

I’m not saying this to sway you, just let you know that I have thought about
running another CC alot in the last two years. I have been waiting to get 21
finally done before going after another. And I also figure that if I am going
to go after another CC, this is about the best chance I have. My name among the
CC crowd is just large enough and the vote is in my neighborhood.

> This is all just because you asked. We like you as a person, we have won
> major awards at masq’s you’ve been a part of, and we have had great times
> in general at the cons you’ve worked on. If we’re all trying to learn, then
> the above comments are about what still needs work
>

I like you, too! When I first really said Hello to all of you at 21, I didn’t
know who you were. I just dug your outfits! Now, I’d like to get to know you
better! When I took Daren to the collectable store in Ogden, he said that you
were into that kind of stuff. If only I had known!

And for the record, I’m not hurt by your comments. Without feedback, we don’t
learn. A former Significant Other like to say that I thought I knew
everything. I would correct her and say “No I don’t. I just know who to ask.” I am
still learning all the time, everyday. So thank you for the feedback.
Henry

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My we’ve had a lot of traffic. Only looking at the list in the evening it
seems there’s such a flurry of responses it seems almost redundant to
answer any particular post.

The balance of using masquerade history and ignoring any knowledge of past
events is a difficult one. As many of you might imagine, given my
propensity for collecting past masquerades, I find it is particularly
difficult to ignore past work. Generally, I strive to so ignore the past
and attempt to judge on what I see on stage. The only time I stray from
that if I see a particularly egregious example of an entry that is
sandbagging (wasn’t that BIS at Worldcon 1983? [picking a worldcon without
a BIS for safety]) or if the quality of workmanship is so poor compared to
what I know is an entry’s skill level.

Why do I consider the latter? Because I see it as a disrespectful slur to
that masquerade; this contest isn’t worth my best efforts. Note that I
don’t consider a simpler costume such a slur. Such a choice may be due to
the scale of that masquerade, a last minute idea or even an attempt to help
fill in a sparse field.

Agendas are a problem we should all be aware of. In the example Ricky gave
I do consider that judge’s actions an agenda; not just an animus. An
animus, not properly controlled, might lend a judge to underrate an entry.
While regrettable, that is a natural reaction to negative feelings toward
an individual.

However, scoring that entry at 0 crosses the line from animus to agenda. “I
won’t let that ‘so and so’ win an award at any masquerade I judge.” The
same thing applies to “no fuzzies on my award list”, “no fantasy costumes”,
“no Star Wars” etc. If a judge displays this sort of attitude, then they
need to be outed, if only to future MD’s. It is simply unfair to
contestants to knowingly allow such a judge on a panel.

As regards the originality discussion; I agree that originality should be a
factor; but only a factor. It should be the tipping point if and only if
all other factors are equal in the eyes of the panel. This is where history
can come into play. “Didn’t that person do a very similar costume 10 years
ago?” That would affect the originality factor. It doesn’t, though, affect
the other factors when appraising the costume. It is embarrassing, though,
if a judge tells a contestant “that entry beat you because it was so
original and all other factors were equal between you.” only to have the
contestant answer back “but they did that same type of costume at
Somethingorothercon ## variable number of years ago!”

I hope that helps clarify some of my views on this topic.

Pierre

“Those Who Fail To Learn History
Are Doomed to Repeat It;
Those Who Fail To Learn History Correctly —
Why They Are Simply Doomed.

Achemdro’hm
“The Illusion of Historical Fact”
— C.Y. 4971

Andromeda

I”ve noticed a lot of the responses here have tended toward judging against what is only presented in that one specific show. While I think the comments have been quite clear and informative, I do think I read a differing opinion a couple of years back, from a different point of view — I think it was a Canadian convention. It sounded like they were intending to judge, based on what the judges believed to represent excellence for that class-level, based on the judges experience. So if every entry seemed to met a certain high level, they would all be awarded recognition, and if they were all below expectation, none would.

I read a similar comment a year or so ago, about Best in Show — something like the judges may not feel compelled to award a BIS, if no single entry stood out strongly over the rest.

Certainly many masquerades do try to allow awarding a ribbon (but not a major award win), to elements meriting recognition.

I thought Pierre’s comments were useful in explaining some of the (many) different aspects that go into judging.

(We are finishing up the ordering for CONduit ribbons here, and this discussion has added to my trying to help plan correctly)

Charles

—– Original Message —–
From: Pierre & Sandy Pettinger
<snip>

The balance of using masquerade history and ignoring any knowledge of past
events is a difficult one.

<snip>
Pierre

“Those Who Fail To Learn History
Are Doomed to Repeat It;
Those Who Fail To Learn History Correctly —
Why They Are Simply Doomed.

Achemdro’hm
“The Illusion of Historical Fact”
— C.Y. 4971

Andromeda

View the Document: http://www.Costume-Con.org/procedure/runacc/

——————————————————————————

Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/runacc/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
runacc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]