[eDebate] discussion: judge commitments at tournaments

Doug Dennis blackdebateguy
Tue Nov 21 10:27:33 CST 2006


Word Zomp.

Doug Dennis


On 11/21/06 8:12 AM, "zompetti at aol.com" <zompetti at aol.com> wrote:

> not only is there the underrepresentation of women and people of color in our
> judging pools/panels, but requiring an extra 10% of judging negatively impacts
> schools with small budgets or who may be struggling to develop their programs.
>  
> if this 10% issue is a serious problem with mpj, i strongly encourage the
> community to reconsider mpj in its entirety.  yes - throw the baby out with
> the bathwater.  was it really so bad 5-10 years ago when we all debated when
> we had to debate in front of a variety of different judges?  When we had to
> learn to adapt?  When we didn't create argument niches based upon preferred
> judging?
>  
> In all fairness, mpj may seriously be making our debates WORSE, not better.
>  
> zomp 
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: delliott at kckcc.edu
> To: stannardmatt at hotmail.com; edebate at ndtceda.com; hansonjb at whitman.edu
> Sent: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] discussion: judge commitments at tournaments
> 
> 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
> participants.  
> 
> 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.
> 
> thoughts?
> 
> chief
> 
> Darren Elliott
> Director of Debate--KCKCC
> CEDA 2nd VP 
> 
> 
>>>> >>> "Jim Hanson" <hansonjb at whitman.edu <mailto:hansonjb%40whitman.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
> 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
> 
> critic).
> 
> jim :)
> hansonjb at whitman.edu <mailto:hansonjb%40whitman.edu>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "matt stannard" <stannardmatt at hotmail.com
> <mailto:stannardmatt%40hotmail.com> >
> To: <edebate at ndtceda.com <mailto:edebate%40ndtceda.com> >
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 6:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] discussion: judge commitments at tournaments
> 
> 
> 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 <mailto:hansonjb%40whitman.edu> >
>> >To: "Jim Hanson" <hansonjb at whitman.edu <mailto:hansonjb%40whitman.edu>
>> >,"EDebate Listserv"
>> ><edebate at ndtceda.com <mailto:edebate%40ndtceda.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 <mailto:hansonjb%40whitman.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 <mailto:hansonjb%40whitman.edu>
>> >
>> >
>> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >eDebate mailing list
>> >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com <mailto:eDebate%40www.ndtceda.com>
>> >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> 
> 
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >eDebate mailing list
>> >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com <mailto:eDebate%40www.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://space
> s.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk
> <http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spac
> es.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com <mailto:eDebate%40www.ndtceda.com>
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com <mailto:eDebate%40www.ndtceda.com>
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20061121/a092b3d5/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list