[eDebate] Computer randomization solves Matt's worries

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Sun Oct 14 19:29:16 CDT 2007


Matt's concern is that we will have corrupt tabrooms rigging the game.

Well, that can happen now and we would never know. I am innocent enough to not
believe the charge. However, Matt, you have a false sense of mpj security. My
eyebrows have certainly been raised a few times whne I saw some outround
panels. (If they were the result of MPJ, then our squad definately has to work
on our rankings of judges. LOL.) But, how would we know unless we got to see
some print out of the calculations of each judging assignment in our judges
packet. I don't think anyone wants to do that kind of work.

How do I know how the hell my teams' panels are put together. (I have a feeling
mpj breaks down in outrounds because schools are leaving left and right,
putting huge constraints on the tabroom).

But, to address your concerns about evil tabroom staffs, limited strikes  with a
computer program randomly assigning qualified judges solves your concern.

It also addresses my concern--that under the current system, Andy will never
judge my teams if I choose to use MPJ for my maximum benefit. (I am on record
as stating that I will, in reality, place Andy Ellis as an A+ because I think
he is QUALIFED, AND as a protest against MPJ gamesmanship. Even though I am
sure it will result in my teams taking a big K and/or performance debate in the
ass, and a loss).

Which is a better world:
 1. A MPJ system that creates perverse incentives for judges to pander to the
whims of students (points and philosophy adjustments); that can be
strategically fixed by competitors to maximize strategic advantages; and a
possible rigging of rounds and outrounds by tabroom staff (which I have
absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE OF).

2. A systems that gives limited strikes and "conflicts out" but then guarantees
that the remaining judging pool will be randomly assigned and a guarantee from
the tabroom that all other judging assignments, including out-rounds, are
randomly assigned via computer.

I will take my chances with a computerized roll of the dice over a system that,
by default, turns debate judges into sycophants to the most popular/elite
teams.

That's my "alternative," folks.

Scott






More information about the Mailman mailing list