[eDebate] judging needs at Clay

Gary Larson Gary.N.Larson
Sat Oct 7 21:36:57 CDT 2006

After pairing rounds 5-6, we have a significant need for additional
judging for rounds 7-8.
JW is willing to pay for the equivalent of one judge (for which we've
only used one round so far, so additional folks can still help us in
this way.  I'm of course also willing to accept volunteer rounds.
One question that arises is whether the experiment resulted in
additional difficulties in assigning difficult to place judges.  On one
level, I don't think that it has made a significant impact.  I typically
count of needing 24-30 rounds of additional judging for a tournament of
this size.  The principal issue we have is that we only have 14 total
rounds of extra judging available and used a couple to accommodate
pairing changes.
That said, it also might be the case that since there were no
constraints on judge distribution, several teams decided that they would
be best served by having a much larger number of zeroes.  It will take
some time to determine whether such a strategy invalidates the premise
of the experiment which places no external constraints on how teams rate
judges.  It appears that it may result in slightly more judges becoming
very difficult to place.
I will do a great deal of post-tournament testing on the data and
solicit the reactions of the participants.  In the meantime, it would
help greatly if I could get some availability for rounds 7-8.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20061007/c2c669a9/attachment.html 

More information about the Mailman mailing list