[eDebate] discussion: judge commitments at tournaments

matt stannard stannardmatt
Mon Nov 20 20:19:31 CST 2006


Jim:

Would it help solve the judge-crunch problem if the first round of every 
tournament was random judging, and every round after that was MPJ?

stannard


>From: "Jim Hanson" <hansonjb at whitman.edu>
>To: "Jim Hanson" <hansonjb at whitman.edu>,"EDebate Listserv" 
><edebate at ndtceda.com>
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] discussion: judge commitments at tournaments
>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:13:58 -0800
>
>i've received several backchannels.
>
>i'll add two additional comments/ideas to what i've proposed:
>
>1. expect an extra round of judging from highly pref'd judges ONLY if they 
>have half or less commitments OR they specifically request to be able to 
>judge more rounds (i definitely favor this idea and hereby amend my below 
>proposal).
>
>2. consider refunding the $5 extra fee per team to schools whose judges 
>contribute their full commitment of judging (not so strong on this but it 
>seems pretty fair to me in the abstract; in practice, maybe a little 
>difficult for tournament directors to get this money back).
>
>jim :)
>hansonjb at whitman.edu
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Jim Hanson
>To: EDebate Listserv
>Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 10:54 AM
>Subject: [eDebate] discussion: judge commitments at tournaments
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

_________________________________________________________________
Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces 
friends module. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk




More information about the Mailman mailing list