[eDebate] MPJ and specifically the new Larson system
Sun Nov 26 12:30:37 CST 2006
"d) My final counter-plan(s)
It seems that Gary?s newest system is a reaction to the following criticism:
?When I have to rank 17 people as category two, lots of meaningful
differentiation is lost?
This is assuredly true. However, I think there may be two better remedies:
1. Have a norm where more categories exist ? but there are at least fixed
If your tourney is big-enough to have 17 people in a damn category, then
don?t rigidly stick with 9 categories. Have 18 categories. ?No more than ten
people per category? seems a fine rule of thumb to me. It solves all the
?lack of uniformity? args and also solves ?lost differentiation?.
2. Ordinally rank 1-x with a system of limited (and uniform) absolute
This ignores the other important criticism to which the new system reacts:
"It is a huge hassle that takes fucking forever to fill out the strike
sheet." These two proposals radically amplify this problem. It took me less
than 15 minutes to fill out the strike sheet for wake, and every judge we
had was a 75 or higher (most were 90 or higher), and would have been no
worse than a 3 in the old 9 category system. I realize this is too small a
sample size from which to generalize, but my experience was especially
positive. I also appreciate the fact that future tournaments using this
system will require even less time to fill out the mpj business b/c ratings
from the shirley will more or less stay the same.
I'm not really sure will is correct that perceptions of gaming the system
lead to people reraising, but if thats true, people are only screwing
themselves. My guess is that teams that attempted to game the system were
more likely to be unhappy with the results than teams that did not. I heard
a rumor that one team ranked almost half the pool zero, for example, and
obviously got some zeros. I can't imagine people hearing about this will
react by deciding to do something similar.
If the data that Gary posted that suggests mutual preference was better
achieved with this system tha with the old system is unpersuasive, perhaps a
survey is in order. Anecdotes are not really going to be useful.
I absolutely agree that there should be a handful of true strikes, and I
think the good would outweigh the bad if tournaments were to require 5
rounds of judging per team, or perhaps do something like the NDT where all
people capable of judging present are required to judge at least half the
debates. It is sad when some of the best judges only put themselves in for
like two debates.
Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces
More information about the Mailman