Thread: The Bards' Bistro

Originally Posted by Selorian

You're welcome, Cran. It was my pleasure getting this set up.

As far as running it, things went pretty smoothly. It isn't any harder than running one of the LM Challenges, which is that the set up and the final tallying takes some time. Other than that, it isn't bad. I imagine that could change, though, depending on the number of entries.

Thanks Selorian ... we can keep a weather eye on that aspect as things settle into shape and the challenge picks up momentum again ...

I asked each of the judges to give me their thoughts on the judging system after they used it. They are more than welcome to post those thoughts here for discussion. I think that their insight will be helpful in making any necessary adjustments to the system to insure it works the best it can in providing a thorough, honest, and fair method of judging.

Absolutely ...

The only thing I ask is that it remains a real discussion and that it doesn't degrade into arguments, as some of the earlier discussions did.

Agreed ...

Ladies and gentleman

When I first saw the judging guidelines I nearly put a fist through my head. They were quite intimidating and detailed at first glance. I’ve been writing for thirty years or so but never formally studied poetry or literature in a university setting. My first reaction was one needed a graduate degree in Literature or serious formal study in poetry to follow those guidelines to a tee. My grad degree was in philosophy so that left me out. I learned poetry through self study, trail and error, poetry readings, writing groups and just plain writing. Stuff like meter, flow, assonance, alliteration,
Rhyme schemes, tone, mood, word count, form, style, syllable count and a myriad other technical aspects of poetry I learned by writing the poetry by my inner ear and my sense of rhythm. Later on I learned the technical words for what I was doing.
Till this day when I do poetry or read it I go by my inner ear on whether it flows and feels right. So that’s how I judged it. I used the 10 areas as guidelines only and mainly went with my inner ear.

I think the guidelines are quite good and that the judges should have leeway in how they interpret them. Shawn did the most intensive scoring or followed the guidelines to the letter (I was quite impressed but to do something like that would have took me a hell of a long time)Ilasir also was technically proficient in the judging. Pete –C I feel was more like me in the judging. Now I don’t know any of the judges personally but I would guess that Shawn and Ilasir have a formal Lit background while Pete and I are in the self inner ear category. I may be wrong but my point is that we should keep it as it is and that the judges should interpret the guidelines according to there strong points and background.

my warmest
bob

I really wanted to pull a Shawn, as that was my method when Baron ran the judged Challenge; but my time was too limited. My comments were mostly left in generalities, and there was much more going on inside my head. I think that Shawn's format was the best, simply because it adressed everything in some detail. On the other hand, it can take some time to go that far. I think each judge should go as far as they feel it is important.


When bob talks about his inner ear, I think that for the purpose of the challenge, that may be the best way to go. Poetry is, of course, very subjective, and the guidelines(scoring formats) are accordingly open to the judge's own interpretation. I went more by the general guidelines than I could have wished, simply to get the scores in on time. That's not to say that I didn't put in a fair amount of effort, but I certainly didn't go so far as to scan meter, or do syllable counts. The many formats were far too varied to judge on such a level for each poem. I think that the open categories in the scoring format like "Impact" and "power, beauty, etc." are very important because they allow for the judge to exercise the necessary discretion to fairly judge the slew of styles.

On the technical side, I think a little too much emphasis was placed on alliteration and rhyme scheme. There are so many other poetic devices and structural components. Perhaps those categories might be renamed to include the less common aspects. Maybe they could be replaced with something like "rhetorical device"(ie, anaphora, rhyme, repetition, hendiadys, litotes and others) and maybe "sound device"(as general as I could get. Includes the original three and also more in-depth things such as phonological patterns*a more elem,ental version of assonance and consonance for those die-hards out there*).

I think such categories would fit with the original spirit of allowing alternatives to the stereotypical conventions of poetry, and might especially benefit those contestants who write free-verse. Free-verse can be hard to judge, but often uses the aforementioned rhetorical devices, and other less common figures of speech.

Originally Posted by wheelz1138

And why would Baron, only 44 points shy of a perfect competition score need additional critiquing from us? It's the lowly entries who only got into the 200's and below who need you!

Seriously, it's good to get reader feedback.

by Shawn...
Assonance and Alliteration - 10
I give a 10 for this score, and all the rest of the scores, because I’m not quite sure why only these two schemes of repetition are singled out.

Although I understand what Shawn is saying here I think that this particular area is potentially the most important when it comes to fairly judging free verse alongside formally structured verse. I think that serious attention should be paid to Ilasir's comments on this.

by Ilasir Maroa...
On the technical side, I think a little too much emphasis was placed on alliteration and rhyme scheme. There are so many other poetic devices and structural components. Perhaps those categories might be renamed to include the less common aspects. Maybe they could be replaced with something like "rhetorical device"(ie, anaphora, rhyme, repetition, hendiadys, litotes and others) and maybe "sound device"(as general as I could get. Includes the original three and also more in-depth things such as phonological patterns*a more elem,ental version of assonance and consonance for those die-hards out there*).

I tended to use the headings of the ratings, but used my own interpretations of what was good or bad. I agreed with some of the notes for each, and disagreed with his opinion on other elements. It's important that people don't just follow the opinion of the original draftor of the structure, despite the structure working well. We could almost do with an edited version of the structure that explains what marks are for, but removes his opinion of what is good and what is bad. I don't mind knocking up a copy for debate if anyone wants!

The only issue I had was with some of the scores. Two poems got 100/100, whilst another poem got 0/100. That's one big variance right there. To me, any poem achieving 100/100 is perfection. There's nothing to add, nothing to take away, it's up there with the greats. No disrespect to the writers who got 100/100, but I dare say even they wouldn't pin their efforts up there with the classics. Equally, with 0/100, how can any attempt have absolutely no redeemable features? To me, it's as silly as a poem rating 100/100.

It must be decided sooner rather than later what we are rating against. Are we rating against all poetry, thereby reserving 100/100 for the classics, or are we rating against and only against other entries, thereby making 100/100 almost mandatory for the best poem?

Originally Posted by wheelz1138

I think the judging system works, but some tweaking could help. We should focus slightly more on a judge's opinion of entries, and a bit less on the technical aspects. I feel that could help some future scores. A poem needs to feel like a poem, but I don't think it needs to necessarily be technically impressive.

Thanks for the input, wheelz1138 ... I would have to wonder, though, how many poems have been lifted above the ordinary without being technically impressive in some fashion?

Originally Posted by rcallaci

Ladies and gentleman

the gentleman has to be Baron, I guess ...

When I first saw the judging guidelines I nearly put a fist through my head. They were quite intimidating and detailed at first glance... My first reaction was one needed a graduate degree in Literature or serious formal study in poetry to follow those guidelines to a tee...

I had much the same impression, rcallaci ... it was part of the reason for the earlier questions ...

Till this day when I do poetry or read it I go by my inner ear on whether it flows and feels right. So that’s how I judged it. I used the 10 areas as guidelines only and mainly went with my inner ear.

I think the guidelines are quite good and that the judges should have leeway in how they interpret them... I may be wrong but my point is that we should keep it as it is and that the judges should interpret the guidelines according to there strong points and background.

Thanks again, rcallaci ...

Originally Posted by Ilasir Maroa

I really wanted to pull a Shawn, as that was my method when Baron ran the judged Challenge; but my time was too limited... I think each judge should go as far as they feel it is important...

... Poetry is, of course, very subjective, and the guidelines(scoring formats) are accordingly open to the judge's own interpretation. I went more by the general guidelines than I could have wished, simply to get the scores in on time... The many formats were far too varied to judge on such a level for each poem. I think that the open categories in the scoring format like "Impact" and "power, beauty, etc." are very important because they allow for the judge to exercise the necessary discretion to fairly judge the slew of styles.

On the technical side, I think a little too much emphasis was placed on alliteration and rhyme scheme... Maybe they could be replaced with something like "rhetorical device"(ie, anaphora, rhyme, repetition, hendiadys, litotes and others) and maybe "sound device"(as general as I could get. Includes the original three and also more in-depth things such as phonological patterns*a more elem,ental version of assonance and consonance for those die-hards out there*).

I think such categories would fit with the original spirit of allowing alternatives to the stereotypical conventions of poetry, and might especially benefit those contestants who write free-verse. Free-verse can be hard to judge, but often uses the aforementioned rhetorical devices, and other less common figures of speech.

Thanks Ilasir ... now I have some new words to look up ...

Originally Posted by Pete_C

I tended to use the headings of the ratings, but used my own interpretations of what was good or bad. I agreed with some of the notes for each, and disagreed with his opinion on other elements. It's important that people don't just follow the opinion of the original draftor of the structure, despite the structure working well. We could almost do with an edited version of the structure that explains what marks are for, but removes his opinion of what is good and what is bad. I don't mind knocking up a copy for debate if anyone wants!

Thanks Pete_C ... it may yet come to that; would it be difficult to address the aspects emphasised by the others?

The only issue I had was with some of the scores. Two poems got 100/100, whilst another poem got 0/100. That's one big variance right there. To me, any poem achieving 100/100 is perfection. There's nothing to add, nothing to take away, it's up there with the greats. No disrespect to the writers who got 100/100, but I dare say even they wouldn't pin their efforts up there with the classics. Equally, with 0/100, how can any attempt have absolutely no redeemable features? To me, it's as silly as a poem rating 100/100.

That might depend on the set benchmarks of the scoring system, as much as on interpretation - I recall many school and university assignments and tests where I scored full marks; does that of itself make my work perfect? No, it just means I achieved the benchmarks required to get that score, without messing up enough to lose marks.

That said, I agree that 100% did seem rather generous, and 0% rather harsh - but again, that's where interpretation and judge's prerogative can affect an outcome ...

It must be decided sooner rather than later what we are rating against. Are we rating against all poetry, thereby reserving 100/100 for the classics, or are we rating against and only against other entries, thereby making 100/100 almost mandatory for the best poem?

Or, against arbitrary benchmarks, thereby allowing for multiple entries achieving the maximum score?


Thanks again, guys - I think we're starting to see what is good, and where some things could use a change in emphasis, in the assessment criteria ...

I think that if I were judging, I'd end up using the format I worked out before ... and multiplying the result by five ...

added: One thing I do like about this time around, is that the scores for individual aspects were included, as well as the totals ...
I did the same when I judged that earlier challenge, but those component scores had to be removed before submitting for posting ...

Pete, I'd really love to see what you come up with. I did notice a bit of opinionizing.

Cran, now may be the time to remind us all of your old idea. Perhaps we can raid all suggested formats, and come up with a compromise that fits the most possible criteria without getting too complicated.

Mine was based on the earlier LM guide which was the recommended form when I judged moon or moonlight ...

One point I did not clarify earlier - where the phrase (if any) appears, it is simply an acknowlegdment that a given device or approach might not be used - the lack of a given device or approach was not of itself a reason to deduct points; rather, it was intended to assess correctness or at least self consistency if any such device or approach was included.

Whilst it's theoretically possible to score a 0/20, or a 20/20, instances of either should be rare in the extreme; as 60% of the score is subjective, the judge's prerogative will determine the outcome.

A proposed guideline for panel reviews is included below. Scoring is out of twenty.
The guideline includes components for objective and subjective assessment.
As artistic judgements are considered paramount, the scoring components are therefore weighted towards the subjective assessment (12/20). The highest cumulative score in the final tally shall be considered the winner(s) of the panel of review.

Elements of English expression:
Spelling and appropriate word use/vocabulary;
Self consistent and appropriate punctuation (if any);
Apt title;
phrase/clause comprehension -
/4 points.

0/4 – Illegible or unreadable .
1/4 – Multiple classes of errors.
2/4 - Consistent minor error/s.
3/4 – No obvious flaws, competent and effective composition.
4/4 - Masterful use of language and phrasing.

Elements of Poetry:
Self consistent and conforming poem type (if any);
Apt use of poetic, Middle English, foreign or otherwise exotic word forms (if any);
Known or accepted literary devices (if any)
?? (anything specific to the craft of poetry that is not included above)
/4 points.

0/4- None.
1/4 – Erratic or uninteresting structure.
2/4 - Effective yet inconsistent.
3/4 – Consistently suitable structure.
4/4 – Appropriately fitting and flawlessly framed.


Effectiveness:
The remaining 12 points are allocated at the reviewer’s discretion.
Elements to consider might include -

Addressing the theme:
Concept, connectedness, centrality;
Approach, form, originality;
Image, flow, emotional tone

Addressing the reading:
Aesthetic elements (visual, vocal, aural appeal);
Empathetic, evocative, or their antitheses (emotional, sensual appeal);
Interest, enjoyment (thematic, intellectual appeal)
/12 points.

Every scored entry should be accompanied by a brief review; consider highlighting strengths and weaknesses, suggestions (if any), and overall appeal.

I can see where the Assonance and Alliteration category needs to be expanded. As far as the 100 point scores, that was actually addressed in the judging system.

With an honest rating, an average poem should score somewhere close to 50 - with five points from each category. A good to very good poem should rate in the sixties to the lower eighties. It should take an exceptional poem to rate in the upper eighties. Scores of ninety and above should be reserved for the truly great poems.

It may need some clarification of what truly great poems are being referred to, though...published poems or poems within the competetion.

From the phrasing, and the comparatives, Selorian, I'd interpret that as judged against all poetry, not simply within the set of entries ...

I would also interpret that the author expects a fairly even spread of points across the board - ie, that if one aspect is particularly poor (or average, exceptional, etc), then it will be more or less true of the other aspects ...

Cran, I personally find your judging system better. I'd think it would be easier to tally scores when less factors are involved and given better guidelines, and also would help to even out scores better than we had in this previous competition. With only 90 points separating first and tenth place, yet 122 between tenth and 12th, there was a definite disparity.

Cran's system is much more subjective, leaving the scores in the judges hands with little objective benchmarking. That is not bad, but it does leave open the possibility that some poems may not get the score they deserve. I think the ease of tallying scores is a pro, but I don't see how the system involves the "better guidelines" mentioned by wheelz. I think we should wait and see if pete comes up with a good modification of the current system before making any decisions.

I'm not trying to be the bad guy here, but shouldn't there be some approval from staff for rewrites of the system before it is just assumed that is what's going to happen?

Oh.. of course. Which is why I advocated waiting. I only asked for Cran's ideas as a basis for discussion. I look back now and realize that it does seem like we had alreadt decided on a change. I can't speak for the others, but I personally agree that the staff should be the instigator of any actual changes. Sorry for getting so carried away...