Another two cents worth on judging procedures
and categories:

Keeping the system simple and keeping the number
of categories and options down to a reasonable
minimum is a worthy goal worth making a few
sacrifices for, but let's not go too far in that
direction and unduly constrain the judges' ability
to give constructive feedback.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to supply short
definitions for each category which are worded
specifically enough so as to eliminate

so specific as to impose an exterior set of
aesthetic priorities.  I offer the following as a


Category 1: TECHNICAL MERIT:
The degree to which the image shows mastery of
the image creation process.

Category 2: ARTISTIC MERIT
The degree to which the image evokes in you
thoughts or feelings you deem significant or
praiseworthy.

Category 3: INTERPRETATION OF TOPIC:
The degree to which you feel the image expresses
the topic idea in a particularly original or
profound way.

While it is true enough that there will be some
overlap between any such list of categories, there
are significant enough differences between each of
three categories above to merit their separate existences.

On the subject of the number of gradations for each
category, I would propose that rather than choosing an
arbitrary number, we provide a descriptive term for each
value in a given category as well as a number and see where


TECHNICAL MERIT:
[0] = Lacks both knowledge and effort
[1] = Shows BEGINNER level skills
[2] = Shows good BASIC skills
[3] = Shows ADVANCED level skills
[4] = Shows EXPERT level skills
[5] = Shows EXTRAORDINARY skills(WOW!)

ARTISTIC MERIT:
[0] = Offensively trite and/or cliche
[1] = VERY LITTLE aesthetic impact
[2] = MODERATE aesthetic impact
[3] = SIGNIFICANT aesthetic impact
[4] = HIGH aesthetic impact
[5] = PROFOUND aesthetic impact (WOW!)

INTERPRETATION OF TOPIC:
[0] = Off-topic / inappropriate
[1] = Rather OBVIOUS idea
[2] = NOT A BAD idea
[3] = VERY GOOD idea
[4] = EXCELLENT idea
[5] = BRILLIANT idea (WOW!)

Under a system like the one above, I would suggest
that the general instructions indicate that both
[0]s and [5]s indicate unusual circumstances and
should be used extremely sparingly.  Also, there
should be a very strong suggestion, if not an
absolute rule, that a [0] or a [5] should be
accompanied by an explanation in the comments.

One goal that I would suggest for the new contest
is that it actively promote the participation and
development of newcomers to the field.  I hope that it
won't be one of those contests that routinely offers
kudos to a hand full of established elite artists
and a thumbing of the nose to everyone else.  Toward
this end, I would like to offer two specific proposals:

First,the competition should employ a comment system that
emphasizes CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and feedback for ALL
participants.  Feedback, encouragement and help are
among the prime motivators that will bring new people
into ray tracing and help to develop the elite artists
of the future.

Second, the terminology for rating
should offer non-derogatory options to describe the
work of those who are still in the rather early stages
of learning.  In the system above, for example, a newbie
might actually be encouraged by a Technical Merit rating



Well, thanks for taking the time to read my rather
long winded comments. The gist of of what I have to
say can be condensed down to this: I hope that the
new IRTC will be a fun and enjoyable experience that
offers both challenge and a sense of community to new
and expert ray traces alike.

Thanks, again, to all who are making the effort to
bring the IRTC back.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message