>the judging seemed to be fair, of the ferrets that I saw win, I think they
>deserved it.  Also Croydon awards ferrets with decent ribbons, and first
>place with trophies (which all should do!), and even fun matches with
>small trophies which is VERY nice.
 
That gives a far different impression about the judging than was originally
posted -- if the judging was fair, and the ferrets who won deserved the
win, then perhaps the judging wasn't so unprofessional after all.  Yes, it
is fair to voice your opinion that the judges weren't -- in your opinion --
dressed professionally enough, but one who is fair and even handed would
also have admitted that the judging itself was done on a fair and
professional basis in the first place.  In the end, which is the most
important -- fair and competent judging done by people dressed poorly, or
unfair and unprofessional judging done by people dressed to the nines?
 
>Were you at Croydon?  Have you been to past Croydon shows?  It is still
>a fact that they don't try to improve on their show year after year -
>perhaps with the exception of moving it to the Fort Washington location in
>the future.  I hope it works well there.  And actually now that I think
>of it, Croydon (last year) was the first show I ever noticed to offer a
>rabies vaccination clinic.  That was innovative and good thing to do.
 
If that was something worth remarking about, why was it omitted the first
time out?  The impression given in the original Show Sleuth post was that
the show was anything but organized and on track.  But, it can't be a
"fact" that they don't try to improve the show at all if they were the
first show, in your experience, to offer a rabies vaccination clinic last
year (which would count as a show improvement in anyone's book), and are
moving the show to a larger location next year (again, that does count as
an attempt at an improvement).  So, it isn't really a "fact" that the
organizers don't make improvements to the show at all.  Yes, improvements
could, and should, be made with each show.
 
>I have to report bad stuff.  How can they improve if they don't know what
>people don't like?
 
You also have to report on the good stuff, as well.  It is just as
important for the show organizers to know what was done well so they can
keep doing those things.  For a critique to be a valid and useful tool --
for show organizers and show attendees -- it must include both the good
and bad points in the same critique.  This is not the first time the Show
Sleuth had to make a second post and admit that yes, there were some good
things that were omitted the first time around.  Once is a mistake, more
than that is sloppiness on the "reporter's" part.  Fair critiquing is
balanced critiquing -- the good and the bad are reported in the same
report.  In the report on the Croydon show, there were significant
omissions of things on the positive side of the show.  Yes, the judges
could dress a little less casual; but at the same time they obviously did
an excellent job of judging, which means they behaved in a professional
manner.  Yes, the raffle could be improved; but on the plus side the show
was well organized and moved along smoothly.  And being the first show in
your experience to offer a rabies clinic at the show was certainly
something worth mentioning in the original show report, rather than as an
afterthought in a followup post.
 
>After consideration, I will admit that in the case of the Croydon show, I
>suppose that I did not offer anything positive about the show.  When Show
>Sleuth was created the intent was to report on a show fairly and without
>bias.  I still say that the things that I reported were true, fair, and
>correct.  But I did not point out any positives.
 
By reporting only the negative and omitting any positive points, the Show
Sleuth report was not a true, fair, and correct report at all.  It was
one-sided and gave an unfair impression that the show was a negative
experience.  A half truth is still a lie (whether intentional or
unintentional).  Fair and correct reporting demands that both the good and
the bad be reported equally.  It may be that the bad points outweigh the
good points, and that should be reported.  But, ignorning the good points
and reporting exclusively on the bad points is not fair and correct
reporting by any stretch of the imagination.
 
A critique is a potentially powerful report which must be written with care
and deliberation.  Notes of the good, bad, and even so-so points of the
show need to be taken, and then referred to when preparing the report.  The
good must be reported with the same zeal as the bad and at the same time,
not left for a response at a later date.  The Show Sleuth has the potential
to be a good tool for show organizers and attendees alike, but has yet to
fully live up to that potential.  A critic of events must be like Caesar's
wife -- above reproach, and so far, the Show Sleuth fars short of that goal.
 
Scott
[Posted in FML issue 2832]