[eDebate] MPJ and specifically the new Larson system

Paul Strait paulstrait
Sun Nov 26 12:30:37 CST 2006

will says:

"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 
friends module. 

More information about the Mailman mailing list