Garth Thornton Resigns from Judging at the Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest 2009

While it may not be official yet, a  response by Garth Thornton to a thread at Fractalforums.com early today gives a fairly clear impression that he intends to step down from his new judging role at the Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Contest 2009.

I have come to the conclusion that there is likely to be sufficient perception of conflict of interest that I should resign as a judge. I have no regrets except for the resulting inconvenience, and apologize to anyone who may be disappointed with my decision.
(Garth Thornton on fractalforums.com)

Here's more of Garth's comment. He is responding to previous postings by Dave Makin and Terry Wright regarding conflicts of interest:
 (from fractalforums.com)

Dave,

having trust in a panel is an easy answer. However, I have to disagree with this position, as the whole point of conflict of interest issues is not to rely on integrity. For a contest, anyone of questionable integrity or clearly lacking in credibility should not be a judge anyway. More generally, whether the context is awarding financial contracts or judging contests, a series of questions may be asked. First, people are expected to declare any personal conflicts of interest. Then there may be consideration given to whether the interests have a material or other effect on the outcome, and whether the person should participate or be party to any discussions, and whether or not they should have a vote. The exact approach depends on the kind of organization. In many contexts it is standard for the person to step aside from the entire process. Both objective and perceived conflicts of interest have to be considered.

Terry,

While I'm not in a position to give an official statement, I was told that a maximum of 25 contest entries will be the only exhibits, so I would be surprised if that is not the case. I assume that Rick was speaking hypothetically or referring to past contests.

I'd like to clarify a few points on the way.

First, I think you've misstated the summary: my claim did not include that you should just trust me, it was that since I did not regard the financial outcome or the overall effect as significant, trust was not a factor. However, obviously if one does not accept my assertion, it would be a factor.

The second is where you say "could receive financial gain as a direct result of the competition." I think indirect is the correct term, as there is no sales presence or even advertising at the exhibition or contest website, and no deals being done. A closer analogy might be product placement, which is totally indirect. The implication of direct financial gain covers a range of possibilities, none of which apply here. Calling it indirect still makes your point, without misrepresentation.

The third is the subsequent statement "A reasonable person might further conclude that chances to procure personal gain for both of you are also substantial." This has some ambiguity, as syntactically it qualifies the chances as substantial, while conveying a suggestion that the gain is substantial. There is also the ambiguity between the two meanings of substantial, "having substance" and "huge". Thus, readers could take away an impression anywhere between "a tangible chance of making some gain" and "could make a fortune". I only mention this because on a first quick reading I got the latter sense and had to read it again for the presumably intended meaning. I just want to add that a reasonable person could only conclude that either of us could make a large amount of money from this contest if they are totally out of touch with market realities.

Although I've argued that the actual conflict of interest is not significant, I accept that perceived conflict is an issue. It is an honor to be selected as a judge, but that's not a big motivator for me so it mostly amounts to a service (ok, with some pleasure in assessing the merits and voting for the best.) However, if people perceive a conflict of interest, it devalues the service. There are always a few people who are "wrong, somewhere on the internet," so satisfying everyone can't be my goal. Nor can it be a popularity contest, or a vote of confidence in integrity, because that isn't the question.

I have come to the conclusion that there is likely to be sufficient perception of conflict of interest that I should resign as a judge. I have no regrets except for the resulting inconvenience, and apologize to anyone who may be disappointed with my decision.

It's possible that I may get around to producing a contest entry, but I had no prior plans to do so and this was not a factor.

Regards,
Garth