Playdate pole, without the bickering!

[cheseri]

Okay, I'm sure many of you have been following the discussion on several of the regional discussion lists including the main NAMHSA one regarding playdates. Without going into any of the personal crap that's involved, I thought I'd start a simple pole about the NAN-qualifying part of the issue.
For those of you who have not been following this discussion: a playdate show is one where all of the entrants just every class (or at least most of them) and each judge gives out a set of NAN cards to their 1st and 2nd place winners, thus meaning that as many as 15-20 sets of NAN cards could be handed out in each class.
The debate raging right now is how that will affect the "value" of the NAN card with so many given out at just one show, and whether or not these shows should be NAN qualifying at all or if the number of NAN cards given out should be limited in some way. Please vote for the option you feel best about, and feel free to explain YOUR reasoning on YOUR decision.
:grouphug

[sassymiss]

I think the playdate idea is great (lots of opinions and reasons about and opportunities to shine!) but there shouldn't be 20 sets of cards (for example) for each class. There should be a limit - like 2-3 judges per class or something more reasonable like that. Or have the judges' results tallied and do a top 10 for the class and give the 1 & 2 NAN cards... I feel that giving multiple NAN cards for the same class that is supposed to have the same standards (vs. 2 judges where 1 is collectibility and 1 is breed) kind of degrades the value of the card in the manner they are going about it now. The point of showing is to be the best one in that class, that day or top 10 for that class that day not the best under 20 random judges. Perhaps NAN could have a system such as what we do at the real horse shows and have different categories of shows. For Paints we have 1 judge or 2 judge regular shows; 4 judge "paint-o-rama" shows; and 6 judge "zone-o-rama" shows. Anything over that (8 judges, for example) is considered 2 separate shows and therefore have to pay the fees like 2 shows. The show fees could escalate based on the number or judges you have. Say 1-2 would be the regular NAN fee and then it would double for 4, etc. Just a thought.

[tabletopstudios]

Oh! That concept explains a mini resin I just bought that came with 14 NAN cards from 3 shows! I couldn't figure out how the heck he got multiple NAN cards for the same class at the same show...this explains it! I can't remember the show names but they were called Playdates.

Without having read the Yahoo group debate you are talking about, shouldn't NAMHSA's charter or guidelines already define this and eliminate any debate?

I like the idea of getting lots of opinions, etc but it seems like maybe the NAN cards just turn into a popular vote kinda thing and aren't based on any set of criteria. I haven't been to one of these, so may be way off!

Kim

[seventhdream]

I think the idea has merit... but I would think it would be better to have one or two "official" judges who pass out the NAN cards.. and maybe have it be more like a judging seminar, shadow the experienced judges or something... or just have the show be a fun day with no NAN cards at all.

I really hate reading the N-D list, so I've barely been following the whole debate.. but I can see a number of problems with the idea that would be hard to control.

For one, there's always the chance that a couple of people would make sure to more or less exchange NAN cards with their friends - in which case, why even take the models to the show, why not just stand around and talk with each other while exchanging cards?

And ok.. say everyone is going to be honest and not do their friends any favors. There's always going to be someone who's going to feel sorry for someone who's stuff is repeatedly not placing - maybe their customs have 5 legs or something. After a while, is someone with good intentions going to feel bad and give the 5 legged CMs a NAN card so that shower doesn't feel left out?

On the same thought, but from another perspective.. what if there are some new hobbyists, or kids just starting out or something. And say there is a well known excellent artist at the show. How many times would a newbie have to see a certain resin or CM get 20+ NAN cards each class only to look at their own stuff and think they never will have a chance and give it up before they really begin?

As for the "value" of a NAN card... well, it's a ticket to get a model into NAN. More models entered into NAN = more money in entry fees. If a model gets a NAN card under a more normal judging system, and really is a superior model, it shouldn't have any trouble placing over inferior horses at NAN, no matter how the inferior horse got the NAN card.

[Kelly M]

I have shied away from entering any playdate shows simply because I don't feel qualified to judge at this point. I could certainly pick out the horse that I like best on the table based on breed, but my actual knowledge to back up my placings certainly wouldn't be of the caliber that I would want to be showing under... if that makes sense. I am really undecided on whether they should be NAN qualifying or not. While I don't mind that there are lots of NAN cards and lots of judges all judging the same class (let's face it judging is just opinion anyway), I do feel that the judge's opinion should be backed by some sort of knowledge.

[Kelly M]

As for the "value" of a NAN card... well, it's a ticket to get a model into NAN. More models entered into NAN = more money in entry fees. If a model gets a NAN card under a more normal judging system, and really is a superior model, it shouldn't have any trouble placing over inferior horses at NAN, no matter how the inferior horse got the NAN card.

:yeahthat I think this is an important point too. How much does it really matter if there is a "dead wood" model on the table? Chances are it will simply be overlooked. How would this be different than the case when there were only two horses in the class, so by default they both NAN? Unless there becomes an overwhelming amount of low quality models.

[cheseri]

Without having read the Yahoo group debate you are talking about, shouldn't NAMHSA's charter or guidelines already define this and eliminate any debate?



This is why there is such a strong debate going on: the way the rules are written leaves them open to a lot of interpretation, AKA: loopholes. The rules clearly state that each class give out 2 NAN cards, 1 to 1st, and 1 to 2nd. This leaves open the question: is each judge considered to be judging a seperate class but concurrently, or should they all be considered as judging the same class? :dunno

[triplebdesigns]

I have been getting filled in on this who "Playday" thing - and quite frankly - it really devalues the NAN card concept. The NAN ticket is to get your horse qualified for the Nationals, meaning your horse is something, your horse competed and earned it's right to be there. Having 12 judges at one show judging small classes is just basicly in a nutshell paying for NAN cards (your entry fee).

Granted, these horses, should they be in a real model horse show against competition may not qualify, they will get weeded out at the Nationals and beat by horses that were more worthy. But why? Why put the shower through the thought process that their horse is actually good enough to be there? Why waste the judge's time to judge the horse that clearly is outclassed? Why have the shower waste their money on entry fees? Why force NAMHSA waste funds to pay for a hall that didn't need to be that big if there were less entries (the needless ones weren't there).

I don't agree with these Playday things. If they are meant to help people learn to judge - then leave it at that. A LEARNING experience to learn to judge. Use each other to gain knowledge. NAMHSA encourages education. These sound to me to be more of educational opportunity, not a show.

If NAN is going to support these types of shows, then they need to limit it like any other show - 2 cards per class. In some shows, classes are double judged, but one judge does breed and the other collectibility or workmanship or something - something completely different than the breed judge. That I can see - it saves a ton of time.

If NAN continues to support these shows where showers are basicly just paying for cards to get horses NAN'd and in some cases advertise the horses as "multiple NAN qualifier" just to get more $$ (because we all know that there are people who will pay more for a horse if it is a proven winner), then I have to say, I won't support NAN. I think it is a foolish business decision to support these.

Keep them as education - that's what they are alledgedly anyway.

[Morgen]

Hmmmmmm... I've mulled over some of the N-D digests while eating breakfast many mornings now (can't type so might as well read something :D)

Anyhow, I feel that it's not so much about the judging, as getting up to 20 (well 19 really in a 20 entrant show) potential cards against a limited # of competitors (other models on the table). I didn't see that as an option so I didn't vote.

I'd really like to see the card # weighted somehow off of # of entries in all qualifing situations. An ideal really.. but imagine if it required POINTS to go to NAN instead of just 1st or 2nd place (in a class potentially containing no to a handful of other entrants).

There's my 2 on the topic. :D

[DraytonWoods]

I tried to come off of "no mail" on N-D to read all this a couple days ago, but it was way too much for me :lol and I went right off mail again. Things get circular after a while on debates like this.

I like the idea of a teaching show, but no way in hell should this be NAN-qualified. It's interesting that at the beginning of the debate, the "teaching show" angle was what was presented, but after a couple days the selling point was "20 shows in one day, hey, more bang for the buck, more showing and less effort" (my quotes, not anyone's in particular)

It devalues NAN cards all around. I'm not a national shower, but I do like to get my NAN cards in open, strong competition and not by such dubious means. Heck, I have trouble getting them in small classes when that happens!

[Kristi Hale]

Okay, I'm sure many of you have been following the discussion on several of the regional discussion lists including the main NAMHSA one regarding playdates.
Oh yeah. :shocked :thud :bolt

I voted for Option #2: NAN qualifying, but not zillions of cards per class. Two cards per class just like every other show. And with the caveat that they have to take steps to ensure that it is "open entry," i.e. you gotta advertise somehow.

Someone (Sue Stewart?) suggested a way to limit it to two cards per class; I can't recall the specifics but it had to do with a points system where only the top two point earners get a card.

[cheseri]

I'd really like to see the card # weighted somehow off of # of entries in all qualifing situations. An ideal really.. but imagine if it required POINTS to go to NAN instead of just 1st or 2nd place (in a class potentially containing no to a handful of other entrants).

The problem you would then face is not many showers can get to large shows with large numbers to earn their place at NAN. Just because there are only 3 entries in a class, does not mean that they DON'T deserve to go either (umm sorry... double negative, lol). Anyway, there is no real way to determine in such a small gathering (let's face it 90% of live shows would really be considered small when compared with NAN) what is truly NAN worthy. I had a horse who took 1st of 1 in her fine harness class and qualified for NAN. I decided to take her and low and behold, she earned a NAN top 10. By this system above, she would not necessarily have qualified at all :cry .

Now I could be off base here, but it doesn't seem like the biggest concern is that non NAN quality models will end up competing at NAN. No matter what ideal system we ever came up with, there will always be some models that just really don't live up to the rest of the class at NAN. As seventhdream pointed out, it does mean more entry fees which is also important to NAN. Another benefit of a few more lesser quality models qualified is that there are more entries which at NAN means more classes = :cheer ! In no way shape or form should I be taken as supporting unworthy entries just for larger classes, I just mean that more entries for NAN isn't such a bad thing in my opinion.
I think a more serious issue is the NAN card being used to up a models value. Currently a for sale ad that has "14 X NAN Q'd..." in it, just tends to draw your eye, and at least make you look twice (Whether it SHOULD or not is a whole 'nother can of worms!). The worry is that those models who have earned all their NAN cards in one class at one show, will in time negate that draw for sellers. The best solution for the time being is when buying/selling a model with a large number of NAN cards is to give the details of the classes/shows they were earned in.


And ok.. say everyone is going to be honest and not do their friends any favors. There's always going to be someone who's going to feel sorry for someone who's stuff is repeatedly not placing - maybe their customs have 5 legs or something. After a while, is someone with good intentions going to feel bad and give the 5 legged CMs a NAN card so that shower doesn't feel left out?

On the same thought, but from another perspective.. what if there are some new hobbyists, or kids just starting out or something. And say there is a well known excellent artist at the show. How many times would a newbie have to see a certain resin or CM get 20+ NAN cards each class only to look at their own stuff and think they never will have a chance and give it up before they really begin?

Aso both EXCELLENT points!!!

[kafar]

I voted yes, but limit the number of cards awarded.

Either have it 2 cards per class or 4 per class in the case of "double judging" in the spirit of Breed and Collectability or Breed and Workmanship. Somehow have one or two "main" judges who are the NAN card awarders. *OR* allow the group who is learning/placing to vote and/or use points and averages to figure out who gets the TWO cards PER class.

IMOHO the NAN cards should be TWO per class. Except for: Double/concurent judged classes, i.e. CM Arabian and judge A is judging Breed and judge B is judging Workmanship. Or OF Quarter Horse... judge A judges Breed and judge B judges Collectability. Double judging should be as if TWO divisions are on the table at one time - breed/workmanship or breed/collectability. 20 judges at one time is just.... skanky.

If playdates with 20 judges and 20 sets of cards per class is allowed, NAMHSA had better demand fees for TWENTY SEPERATE SHOWS. I can't see a division within the OF Arabian class other than Breed and Collectability... what the heck are the other 18 judges doing?

Vikki .02¢ :D

[Morgen]

Good point Lauren, absolutely. Again, "weighting" is only another take on a concept that's so very subjective to begin with. Judging anything (dogs, cats, canvas paintings, cars, etc.) is how a lot of people "increase" value on objects and thus is subject to "inflation" of some sort (aside from the millions of examples of bias and that aspect). I don't think the little hobby we have here will succeed in resolving all that creates dissent in any subjective competition... lol!

It IS interesting to see what ideas will pan out of it all.

I really DO like the idea of multiple opinions verses one judges opinions... I heard a suggestion I also liked about one or two official judges AND a "people's" choice NAN card I think? (I may have invented that notion over my breakfast stupor tho :~)

[cheseri]

I really DO like the idea of multiple opinions verses one judges opinions... I heard a suggestion I also liked about one or two official judges AND a "people's" choice NAN card I think? (I may have invented that notion over my breakfast stupor tho http://www.modelhorseblab.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif)



This thought does have merit! I participated in a goup discussion on a class at a show once that went from the judge explaining what she was doing, to a full show discussion on the merits of each entry, which then culminated on group decisions for each placing. I do like the idea that if there are going to be 20 judges at once, why not discuss the merits out loud of each entry and have everyone's input on the single set of placings. This system could work better than the current sytem just for learning as well as being less controversial on the NAN card issue. With open debate and discussion we could learn as showers AND judges.....:shocked OMG!!! Learning and showing at once!! Losing.... ability .. to ..... argue...:thud


:roflmao :grouphug

[sassymiss]

If playdates with 20 judges and 20 sets of cards per class is allowed, NAMHSA had better demand fees for TWENTY SEPERATE SHOWS.


Exactly!! That's what you have to do at the real horse shows...you pay a judges fee for *each* judge. So if there are 20 judges, shouldn't a show have to pay 20 show fees? Or I suggested earlier that the first 2 judges (in the case of double judging the way it should be) be a flat fee then it goes up per judge from there to pay NAN for all those cards and all that 'opportunity' for the showers.

[Intothesunstudio]

I like the idea of several different people judging classes. But I do think that having every entrant from every class judge and award cards may be too much. I think maybe 2 or 3 judges for each class would be okay, but more than that seems like alot.

I know the subject of judging can off start quite a stir. The idea about who is doing the actual judging doesn't bother me and here's why...

When you think about who is judging shows, anyone can do it. If I wanted to I could hold a live show and be a judge. Who are our judges these days? Many of them are indeed very knowledgeable in the divisions they are judging because they are either experienced from showing/judging models or experienced from showing/judging real horses, but not all of them are very experienced. Some are newbies. I know there has been talk from different people about judging certification, (which I think has some good ideas) but currently that's not really available. Currently just about anyone can judge that wants to judge. All they have to do is hold a show or offer to judge for another show.

I do think that more than a few judges for each class is a bit much, but I certainly like the idea of a Playdate and if the ones in my region weren't so far away I'd certainly enter them to gain knowledge on judging!

[seventhdream]

I tried to come off of "no mail" on N-D to read all this a couple days ago, but it was way too much for me :lol and I went right off mail again.

Yay! It's not just me! That list gives me headaches and I wouldn't doubt if it raises my blood pressure some. :lol

[MGR]

I voted to limit the number of cards per class, but just because thousands of cards per show puts a pretty big strain on NAMHSA's resources, and on the person(s) responsible for dealing with all those cards and the mailing of the cards. Volunteers aren't paid - putting all that extra work on them just to get a bajillion NAN cards on a horse that probably can't even Top Ten at NAN anyway seems pretty lame to me.

[MGR]

I think the idea has merit... but I would think it would be better to have one or two "official" judges who pass out the NAN cards.. and maybe have it be more like a judging seminar, shadow the experienced judges or something... or just have the show be a fun day with no NAN cards at all.



I've tried to get this idea going in my region. I think it would be neat to have "learning" shows for new judges, where you can have one experienced judge on a class and two or three curious souls who would like to learn how it's done and what goes through a judge's mind while they judge. The judge could discuss the process and the placings as they actually judge, so people could learn something! And then the student judges could place the class however they like, too. It would be a lot of fun, I think!

[wobbler_kitty]

I'm still sorta torn. At first I was like, no, no way. There's no way that a handful of people should be handing out butt-loads of NAN cards in someone's living room. They should NOT be NAN qualifying.


But reading some of the responses here I can see that it could still work and not be so easy to NAN if there was a limit on the cards. If you had 1 or 2 core judges while everyone else shadowed them OR if the show itself was a points things. All the judges tallied up their points to see who places. Only 1st and 2nd in the class NAN. At least then you wouldn't have 10-20 different judges NANing 10-20 different horses. That's just ridiculous.

I'd like to think that the shows would be succesful even without the draw of NAN cards but it may not work that way. I thought the whole idea of this type of show was to get a group of showers together to learn about judging while showing at the same time. No pressure. But it seems that it's morphed into something where you practically come home with tons of NAN cards no matter what. Where's the learning in that? I'd like to see this format continue because we really need more judges out there but do we really need to flood the hobby with NAN cards to do so?

[mariannas]

I've tried to get this idea going in my region. I think it would be neat to have "learning" shows for new judges, where you can have one experienced judge on a class and two or three curious souls who would like to learn how it's done and what goes through a judge's mind while they judge. The judge could discuss the process and the placings as they actually judge, so people could learn something! And then the student judges could place the class however they like, too. It would be a lot of fun, I think!

I for one, would LOVE it if we could put on a "learning" show. I've been showing for almost a year now (albeit, after a long hiatus from the hobby, so I'm not a complete newbie ;) ) and I would love to begin to "give back" and judge, but I have not a clue where to begin. I think it would also be beneficial for newer artists as well...they could see IN PERSON what criteria makes up a truly LSQ piece.

[kafar]

I've changed my mind. YES - TWO CARDS PER JUDGE PER CLASS. With a stipulation: 10 judges = 10 seperate shows = 10 show fees to NAMHSA. 20 judges = 20 seperate shows = 20 show fees to NAMHSA.

Think about it. With all the extra fees that NAMHSA would gain if the playdate shows were to pay fairly, fees for NAN could actually go DOWN.

So go ahead with the NAMHSA Playdate shows - but be fair and be up front and call them what they are: 20 shows held on the same day. Beth's show and Amy's show and Shaniqua's show and Emily's show, etc, etc, etc. Pay the fees for the cards and go for it. The horses that show up may or may not be NAN quality but that can happen at "regular" NAN approved shows. A horse in a 2 horse class may not be "NAN quality" or BOTH horses in a 2 horse class may be totally "NAN quality". Same thing for a Playdate/i.e. multi-show date -- maybe 5 novice judges/showholders will pin two "bad" horses and give them NAN cards... but maybe 5 qualified judges/showholders will pin two "good" horses and give THEM NAN cards. It's all a crap shoot in the end, right?

Vikki :)

[bronzino]

Currently, NAMHSA charges like $35 for up to 500 cards, and $45 for 500+. In other words, there's a cap, and it may very well be a subsidized cap, in that the amounts charged don't even pay for the cardstock.

NAN entrants used to enjoy a cap. It was removed when the organization realized that the entry fees per class weren't even covering the cost of awards for each class. IOW, NAN was in the red even at the minutest level: a class. D'oh!

It makes sense to me to handle cards the same way: make people pay by the card and remove the caps. It's also a benefit administratively because you don't have to get into any sort of esoteric argument about what is a "show."