[eDebate] 100 point scale, not 50

Jean-Paul Lacy lacyjp
Mon Nov 5 00:45:24 CST 2007


I don't know what the functional difference between 100 & 50 (with half 
points) is: Both make the old scale obsolete. Both have the same number of 
gradations. I'd be happy with either.

I'm not judging, but if I was judging, I'd still like some fairly concrete 
guidelines printed on the ballot. Like Charles said "we all basically know 
what a 28 means." None of us like to unfairly grade performances.

[Well not really...not when the top 5 speakers are broken by meaningless 
tiebreakers.]

But, I'd rather not be assigning 75 points for "average" when others are 
assigning 90. (Which is what the current scale amounts to: a 27-well below 
average-equates to a 90 on a 100 point scale.)

So, a basic rubric for translation from the old scale that make use of the 
extra range (without starting at 90 for "average," ) printed on the ballot 
would be incredibly helpful!


At 05:17 PM 11/4/2007, Ross Smith wrote:
>So, we originally had in mind a 50 point scale where you could still use
>half points.
>
>My message analogizing to grades required people to divide 100 by 2 to
>get the idea.
>
>Several people have pointed out that we might as well use a 100 point
>scale (without half points). Maybe it would be more "natural" to
>educators and students who are used to giving and getting grades on such
>a scale.
>
>Since there is no mathematical difference, I have no objection (nor does
>Gary Larson, tab engineer).
>
>What do people think? Does the 100 point scale help with the gestalt?
>
>--
>Ross K. Smith
>Director of Debate
>Wake Forest University
>
>336-251-2076 (c)
>336-758-5268 (o)
>
>http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/
>http://www.DebateScoop.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




More information about the Mailman mailing list