[eDebate] Participant Consensus

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Mon Dec 24 09:02:29 CST 2007


why the points for consensus. coercion for consensus seems to not
really be much of consensus at all.

On 12/23/07, Michael Kloster <kloster at mynamesmike.com> wrote:
> In the spirit of Participant Consensus, friendly amendments are welcome.
>
> In a backchannel I had suggested a new category of "consensus points"
> which could be used as the first category in seeding after win / loss
> (ahead of speaker points).
>
> Bonus speaker points have also been suggested.
>
> Michael Kloster
>
> Shawn Whalen wrote:
> > A better system - 3 points for a win given by judge, 0 points for loss
> given
> > by judge, 2 points for a win that is negotiated, 1 point for a loss that
> is
> > negotiated.
> >
> > sw
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On
> > Behalf Of Michael Kloster
> > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 6:12 PM
> > To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> > Subject: [eDebate] Participant Consensus
> >
> > What would you think if after each debate round the participants had 15
> > minutes to discuss the round and come to a consensus on who won? If they
> > came to a consensus, the winner would be awarded a 1.5 round win and the
> > loser would get a .5 round loss. In other words each team would get a
> > half round bonus for coming to a consensus. If no consensus was reached
> > the judge would render a decision.
> >
> > In the history of competitive debate has there already been
> > experimentation with such a concept?
> >
> > Michael Kloster
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>



More information about the Mailman mailing list