When looking at the figures (as they stand currently) there are only 29% of 21 votes (total 6) whom are against a ceremony period. That means 71% (15) are for.

EDIT: in the minute it took me to write this, and then edit again, more votes were submitted reducing the ratios even further...

When I signed off last night, it was about 40% against which still leave 60% for.

Additionally, 21 votes is hardly a sample size. Let it grow to at least 100 before we start getting too concerned about the ratios.

Still, as a supporter of Awards Ceremonies, I thank your sentiment.

Absit invidia (and DFT )

Jeff Watkins
SN Profile
Photographer

reply

Not sure it's only grumps not wanting to have a good night out to say thanks to people who've worked hard in community theatre who are voting no to awards. Depends how you do it.

Thing is, when you have an awards night, you usually end up with a number of people who don't win, though they've likely worked just as hard as the 'winners'.

I tend to think an annual dinner without overly serious awards is the way to congratulate the people who do the work.

reply

That is very true and is no different to the Logie's concept anyway, which is in turn exactly the same as these Reality Talent Shows like Australian Idol.

I don't for a second think we could draw a completely valid and One-Vote-per-Person result, but the conept is still interesting.

Absit invidia (and DFT )

Jeff Watkins
SN Profile
Photographer

reply

Thanks, Daniel, for the simple answer. I think he trusted I would step in with the complex..!

Both the Blue Room Awards and the WA Equity Guild Awards introduced a members' choice award.

In theory, they are easy to moderate, because every member has a unique membership number, and so you can ascertain that each member gets one and only one vote.

However the system is still problematic.

Firstly, there would be very few members who have seen all, or even anywhere close to all, of the eligible productions. So each vote carries a huge amount of bias. The only shows that are going to have a chance of gaining popular support are the ones who had the biggest attendances of voting members. In a sense this is apt, if the shows with biggest houses could be considered the most popular...but we know from experience this doesn't always follow. The shows that ATTRACT the biggest crowds don't necessarily mean the most popularly LIKED shows, nor does that necessarily mean the BEST shows.

You could argue the same about the Logies...that most voters have not seen all the eligible shows. But when your sample of votes number in the millions, your percentages are more likely to generate a meaningful statistic, rather than the few hundred members of these two organisations. (And by 'meaningful statistic', the Logies vote is only a sample of the opinion of the type of people who buy TV Week and are then motivated to fill out the form...as many times as an individual cares to).
Also, at least every voter has the POTENTIAL to be aware of all the shows. The TV programmes are free to air and most enjoy long seasons. I only need to have seen one or two episodes of 'Packed To The Rafters' to decide that it's worth my vote or not. And I may have even recorded that and watched it in my own time. (Now, if community theatres would just record the experience of watching their shows and send them to my Topfield player, I might just get around to watching them more ...)

The Equity Members Choice was for an individual, so (as far as I know) you can't vote for yourself. The Blue Room award is for a production, which is much harder to police whether members vote for their own show or not. In either case, there is no real way of filtering out any conflict of interest. You just have to assume that if everyone is allowed to vote for themselves or their friends, yet some people still don't, then that results in a fair vote of who was considered worthy overall.

And much like this poll of yours above, apathy is the surprising factor. In fact, the first year the Equity member's choice was introduced, I personally uncovered this apathy. Rather than being considered part of the judges duties, a separate person was nominated to receive the votes. However, although the Equity newsletter told me I could send in my vote for my favorite performer that year, it didn't outline what the eligible productions were...how was I to remember whether a performance at the start of the voting year was in June or July? (for some reason, they use a financial calendar). So I wrote to the person who had been nominated to collect and tally the votes. They didn't know either. But eventually the notice of eligible productions was circulated. I'd seen very few of them. But I sent in my vote for someone I deemed worthy. It was almost the deadline for getting your votes in. And the person nominated to collect votes sent an email back to me, thanking me for being the FIRST vote she'd received!
Now, the person I voted for didn't win, so I assume that more votes came in...but it seems clear that the sample of votes must have been very small, which could be seen to make the result a bit meaningless. (Or meaningful, if you consider that only the votes that bothered to come in carried any meaning.) Either way, a huge apathy was exposed, so that it's clear that only the small percentage of members who really cared less participated in the voting. So I guess they got their result.

This year, the Equity member's choice award for individuals has been discontinued. In two years it didn't generate enough interest to be meaningful.

How do you propose a Finlay member's choice would work?

All the other systems involve 'buying' a ticket to vote. In the case of paid membership: one member, one vote. For TV week: at least the cost of buying the mag limits slightly the ability to stack the vote.
If it's free to vote, how do you stop multiple voting, under assumed or real names?

How do you account for voters not having seen all the eligible productions? Is this fair?

How do you police conflict of interest? Or do you just factor it in and assume that every production will have its own legion of supporters, so the most popular still deserves an award? What does this mean for shows with huge casts compared to solo shows? Or for clubs with huge memberships versus smaller regional clubs? Will having 'the most votes' really mean anything?

How do you let even the most honest and unbiased members know which shows are eligible to be voted on? In my example above, I had one or two recent performances in my mind that I might have voted for, but beyond that I wanted to be reminded of all the possible shows in the running that year. When I saw that list, it jogged my memory and I changed my mind.
To be fair to the shows that happen earlier in the voting period (almost a year ago in the voter's mind) some sort of admin needs to be set up to inform people of the candidates, then to inform people how to vote, to monitor the timeframe and format for submitting votes, to collate and screen out ineligible votes, then tally the votes and determine the winner... good luck to the dedicated volunteer who takes this on! Wasn't so hard in organisations with less than 200 members, most of which abstained. How many potential voters would there be for the Finlays..?

In light of all the possible objections, I can't really see how including such a category in the Finlays could be considered very valid.

But then, if only the people who really care about such things are likely to be bothered voting, then the results may possibly have meaning, just for them. So why not?

But I'd abstain.

Cheers,
Craig

~<8>-/====\---------

reply

Not only him (Jeffrey), Craig.

I too trusted you would step in with the complex. I think there's many people here that hold that trust in you.

It's not a terribly light responsibility, mind you, but one you seem to carry effortlessly. One that clearly suits you, in any case.

Told you we're two different peas from a similar housing structure.

Thanks for giving it (and the "aside" to come),
Daniel M.

reply

Yes, Craig, I am aware of the technical flaw in the polling system on this site, but that is a part of the Open-Door Policy and therefore, these polls are more indiciative than an accurate reflection.

Thanks for pointing it out though as I am sure others may have not been aware of this.

Absit invidia (and DFT )

Jeff Watkins
SN Profile
Photographer

reply

Craig would be aware this is one of the er many benefits of registering as a member.

Cheers
Grant

--
Director, actor and administrator of this website

reply

Just pull this string, Jeffrey. EDIT: (I mean, Grant.)

Clearly, Craig has let the proverbial out of the bag, and it needs to be put back in, and the string tied around it tightly to, contain this way of manipulating the voting process.

I've never tried it, myself. I won't. Others may do, though.

Pull the string. Do it. Pull it! ...because of all the computer hoarders out there.

Daniel M.

reply

May I suggest Craig, that if your proverbial's have escaped the bag...I too reiterate the need to quickly pop them back in! However, I wouldn't follow Danny's advice of pulling string tightly around the bag, I seem to remember (from Geography classes) that this is how they castrate sheep.

Therefore, leave the string alone!

reply

You needed Geography to find them? That's some bloody big sheep's proverbials!

Cheers,
Craig

~<8>-/====\---------

reply

I think this very odd comment by Greg (noway) stems perhaps, from an encounter he had in Goulburn, Country NSW, (before the Highway was put in) when a young Greg mistook the 'proverbial' for plural, and the then 'proverbials' for a staircase to reach the top 'viewing' deck. (Must've caused a nasty bump on the head.)

Geography classes were never the same again, I think. Nor, his position on the local orienteering team.

RoCG,
Daniel M.

reply

Tony,

For what it's worth, and clearly it's worth something to me; this most recent icon display of you suits you the most, in my view.

I mean, there's a little of the grumpy old man of the sea mixed with the paunch of a pirate-ship chef; the friendly and calm storyteller face and eyes for the kids, and the addition of the bird-puppet extension for effect and punctuation to capture their interest and spark some imagination.

All-in-all, just a good, decent old man who hasn't gotten out of his comfortable recliner in years, let alone danced.

Ha-ha!

Daniel Moszkowicz. (Troll-King of Chatsitea.)

reply

Does he have a history?

...Appears South American in name and plumage.

In any case it's nice to meet, Pedro. I love birds of all kinds.

Don't get him too drunk at the Festival, Tony. Looking at his ruffled head, he appears as if he doesn't mind the occasional tipple.

Cheers,
Daniel M.

reply

No matter what you do, someone will want to Bitch. If they have a legitimate reason or not, someone will "complain" about something. We should never base our decisions to do anything purely because some 1 in every 10 may not like it. If it were 4, 5 or more out of 10 then that is cause for concern...

Absit invidia (and DFT )

Jeff Watkins
SN Profile
Photographer

reply

You suggest a good one, I'll put it up on your behalf...

Absit invidia (and DFT )

Jeff Watkins
SN Profile
Photographer

reply