[eDebate] discussion: judge commitments at tournaments

Jim Hanson hansonjb
Mon Nov 20 20:30:43 CST 2006

perhaps a bit but not anywhere near to having 10% excess judging and it 
would only help in the sense that teams might get less pref'd judges that 
round who would not have normally been used (defeating the purpose of 
ensuring high prefs as well as likely creating some rounds where one team 
gets a highly pref'd critic that the other team views as a very low pref 

jim :)
hansonjb at whitman.edu
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "matt stannard" <stannardmatt at hotmail.com>
To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] discussion: judge commitments at tournaments


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?


>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
>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
>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
>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

>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces
friends module.

eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

More information about the Mailman mailing list