[eDebate] discussion: judge commitments at tournaments

Jim Hanson hansonjb
Mon Nov 20 12:54:31 CST 2006

i'm writing to encourage a mindset shift in judge commitments at tournaments.

with the advent of mutual preferenced judging, the traditional 1 team = 1/2 judge commitment no longer works.

why? because if you really want mpj where teams get judges who they rated highly, then you need an excess of judging, to the tune of about 10% beyond the 1 team = 1/2 judge commitment.

i guess we can have another debate on the merits of mpj but i want mpj; i want teams to have the judges they rank the highest. i think there is broad based support for that sentiment. i thus encourage tournament directors to do the following:

1. hire highly pref'd judges at the tournament. specifically:
--at the beginning of a tournament, notify highly preferred judges that they are expected to judge an extra round at the tournament (obviously, this expectation will have exceptions; tournament directors and the judges involved can hopefully handle these reasonably)
--charge an extra $5 per team entry fee and use the money generated to pay these judges a nice amount of money for that extra round ($40?)

2. require schools to provide an extra round of commitment for the 3rd, 5th, etc. team (e.g. at an 8 round tournament; 3 teams would require 13 rounds commitment; 4 teams 17 rounds; 5 teams 22 rounds; etc.). tournaments should allow teams to buy out of this extra round of commitment ($40ish or some similar fee used to help pay the highly pref'd judges for extra judging)

i'm aware that this means slightly higher tournament costs but it is a small amount of money for the benefit and it would be going to some of the most income deprived, hardest working, and smartest minds in our community.

jim :)
hansonjb at whitman.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20061120/429bd1e7/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list