Re: AIS Awards (Clarence's suggestions)
- To: i*@rt66.com
- Subject: Re: AIS Awards (Clarence's suggestions)
- From: W*@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 21:58:20 -0500 (EST)
> >:There is a strong sentiment for "fixing" the situation where at present there
> >:is only one tall bearded iris, i.e. the latest Wister Medal winner, on the
> >:Dykes candidate list.
**
I don't like the idea of adding AM winners to this ballot. A DM iris
should at least have been judged to be a top winner in its class. This
award is the highest one we have, and the only one many casual folks may
consider, and it should be a result of long and careful trials and all
we can do to keep from recommending less than the best.
The best thing for this problem that I know of is the suggestion not
to let the class of one year's winner be eligible for the following
year's award. No eligible class would then have just one candidate. In
practice, we would likely end up with with half of the Wister medal
winners going on to win the Dykes and some outstanding irises from
other classes receiving due recognition. It isn't a totally appealing
solution, but to me it beats the status quo and any other ideas I've
heard.
> >:I have two issues I think should also be considered. One is to put bearded
> >:irises on the same "time" rules as beardless irises, i.e. at present
> >:beardless irises cannot be considered for an HM until the 3d year after
> >:introduction...but bearded irises can be considered for an HM the 2d year
> >:after introduction. I think 2 years does not give enough time to properly
> >:evaluate in different geographic areas and climates.
**
Absolutely. We talked about lots of ways to try to get more regional
input. Increasing the time, either here or between HM and AM, seems one
of the most easily implemented compared to benefits obtained. I'm not
sure that we need to do it on the basis of equality with beardless, though.
I could actually use another year getting my beardless kids to where I'm
happy voting on them too.
> >:A second issue is the number of votes judges may cast in various categories.
> >: In areas where there are lots of introductions, e.g. tall bearded, standard
> >:dwarf beard, it has come to be next to ridiculous. We judges should not have
> >:85 votes to cast for TBs for an Honorable Mention award in my opinion! I
> >:think this situation acts to demean the award system.
**
I second (third? fourth?) the plan Tom wrote up here. Let's rate the ones
we know.
> >:Another issue, but one I do not feel quite as strong about, is the name of
> >:the HM award. Honorable Mention sounds like something came in 2d or 3d or
> >:10th, etc. To me it has always had a connotation of something that didn't
> >:quite make it. I would like to propose the name be changed but I don't know
> >:to what. I have thought something like the GI Award (Good Iris Award) or JC
> >:Award (a revival of the Judges' Choice Award title), or SF Award (Step
> >:Forward Award...maybe this title would make more judges think twice before
> >:casting votes!).
**
I agree. I still remember being confused by this when I first read of it.
I think if we change it, we should pick something that would help a casual
reader know whether an AM or an XX was higher, and so these Good Iris Award
or JC or Highly Recommended things don't work for me. I would pick something
like an NM (Nominated for Merit). I also tried to think of something where
we didn't have to change the letters at all so as not to be even more
confusing to folks who have to try to decipher catalogs, and the best
I could come up with there was Hopefully Meritorious, but all of them
start out that way. I nominate NM.
--Jim
--
Jim Wilson, Miami Valley Iris Society, SW Ohio, USA, Zone 6a, AIS garden judge
growing TBs, medians, SIBs, JIs, & a few SPU & species. wilsonjh@muohio.edu