[eDebate] Mutual preference at CEDA Nats

Gary Larson Gary.N.Larson
Wed Apr 5 21:55:51 CDT 2006

As we have done each year I want to provide full disclosure concerning
the results of mutual preference judge assignment at CEDA Nats.   If you
have questions, feel free to ask.

As has been the case each year since the adoption of the 9-category
system, aggregate pref for the entire tournament improved compared to
last year, due primarily to recent improvements in the judge placement

All rounds:  1.78   (1.85 last year)
All rounds for teams prior to elimination from the tournament:  1.62
All rounds for teams with four or more wins through seven rounds: 
All rounds for teams after elimination from the tournament:  2.69

Broken down by ranks, just over 50% of all assignments were 1's (top
11% of judging pool).  Since many tournaments use 40-45% A's, the data
demonstrates that roughly 95-97% of all assignments would have been

1  728	0.506
2  448	0.817
3  169	0.934
4   58	0.974
5   25	0.992 (only 2 5's prior to elimination - both in round 1)
6    8	0.997
7    4	1.00

The other significant improvement this year was in the equalization of
prefs between teams with similar records.  Among the 91 teams who were
still in a position to clear in round 8, only 6 had an average pref
higher than 2.00 and none higher than 2.25 (last year 6 such teams had
higher than 2.25 with the highest average at 3.00).  39 teams had prefs
between 1.00 to 1.50.  Among the 89 teams that were eliminated prior to
round 8 (resulting in lower preferences), 57 still had average prefs
2.00 or less and only one had an average greater than 3.00 (3.13).
Finally a note of thanks.  In order to provide optimum mutual
preference while not adding to entry costs with hired judging, we ask
the community to volunteer rounds and then use no more rounds than have
been volunteered.  This year, 47 rounds were offered by 34 different
individuals.  Of these, 37 rounds were used to improve preference with
two additional rounds used to cover judge changes during the tournament.
 Of course, this raises one of the principal questions relative to
mutual preference, namely the "exclusion" of critics who get preffed out
of rounds.  This year, four critics heard less than half of their
obligation.  Clearly the community needs to continue to discuss this
side-effect of permitting teams to express their preferences.  During
the course of the year, it seems clear that there should be occasions
where pref is balanced with increased judge participation by running a
"tight" pool, but at the nationals the use of volunteer rounds provided
by the community in order to increase the preferences received by the
students seems to be an excellent solution.  Thanks to everyone who made
it possible.

More information about the Mailman mailing list