[eDebate] discussion: judge commitments at tournaments

Darren Elliott delliott
Mon Nov 20 23:23:03 CST 2006

I've been wrestling with MPJ a lot lately (and you can see more of it in
my soon to be posted 2nd VP report).  Years of data points to an
under-representation of females and persons of color especially in elims
at National Circuit Tournaments.  How about this.  In addition to Jim's
proposal, I am interested in what the community thinks about the idea of
every judge that self-identifies as qualifying for the affirmative
action pool be automatically made an A+ or a 100 by the tournament
without the ability to be ranked anything else by tournament

It seems to be a preferable alt. to the status quo and for those who
like MPJ is a preferable alt. to elimination of MPJ.



Darren Elliott
Director of Debate--KCKCC
CEDA 2nd VP 

>>> "Jim Hanson" <hansonjb at whitman.edu> 11/20/06 8:30 PM >>>
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
round who would not have normally been used (defeating the purpose of 
ensuring high prefs as well as likely creating some rounds where one
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
>have half or less commitments OR they specifically request to be able
>judge more rounds (i definitely favor this idea and hereby amend my
>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
>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 =
>judge commitment no longer works.
>why? because if you really want mpj where teams get judges who they
>highly, then you need an excess of judging, to the tune of about 10%
>the 1 team = 1/2 judge commitment.
>i guess we can have another debate on the merits of mpj but i want mpj;
>want teams to have the judges they rank the highest. i think there is
>based support for that sentiment. i thus encourage tournament directors
>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
>involved can hopefully handle these reasonably)
>--charge an extra $5 per team entry fee and use the money generated to
>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.).
>should allow teams to buy out of this extra round of commitment ($40ish
>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
>most income deprived, hardest working, and smartest minds in our
>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

eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by KCKCC's MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the Mailman mailing list