[eDebate] A less risky experiment

Stefan Bauschard SBauschard
Mon Nov 5 20:19:36 CST 2007

How 'bout using the status quo point criteria.

Next to your 27-29.5 you put what you would give on a 100 point scale.

The tab room records both scores (only one would need to be recorded

Comparative results are generated.  Judges/coaches could vote online
(or a general discussion could ensue after the tournament) about what
is more intuitive.

Determining speakers in the status quo (particularly say speakers 3-9)
may be very arbitrary, but I doubt that in most instances most people
think those are not the 3rd-9th best speakers.

What team is seed 30 and what team is seed 34 is probably pretty
arbitrary.  However, I'd wager that just about everyone would think
that in most instances in the status quo seed 32 is better than seed

The status quo may not be the best, but it does not seem to be entirely broken.

As many others (recently David G and Scott H) have pointed out, there
will be radical differences in this first tournament.  I see no reason
why seed 40 could not become seed 32 at Wake under this system.   Does
anyone even seriously doubt that seed 50 could become seed 32?

So in the short-term there may be *radical* differences in seeding and
who clears due to a loss of stability in the scale.  Over the
long-term (David G suggests maybe 20 tournaments) this could work
itself out (assuming the scale recompresses).

This would only work, however, if other tournaments adopt the 100
point scale.  Has anyone committed to this?  If not, what's the value?
 It seems to me that the arg of short-term randomness/instability is
very hard to answer and that that is likely to discourage adoption by

My proposal here has the potential of conducting the experiment
without drammatically increasing randomness of the status quo.

I like David G's idea, too.  It works at identifying more subtle
differences without generating greater randomness in the interim.

More information about the Mailman mailing list