[eDebate] An economic argument for MPJ

Art Kyriazis akbiotech
Tue Oct 16 19:37:47 CDT 2007


Monday October 15, 2007

Re:  Mutual Preference Judging ("MPJ")

Professor Snider has in the past articulated eloquently for MPJ, and I 
would tend to defer to his far greater expertise and knowledge in this 
matter, and state my whole hearted support of MPJ here and now.  I would 
advance two more arguments for MPJ, one derived from trial law and the 
other from conventional portfolio theory in economics.

_*MPJ IS JUSTIFIED BY TRIAL LAW VOIR DIRE*_

Certainly i can comment that in the real world of trial law, trial 
lawyers do exactly the same thing during voir dire with juries, 
basically kicking off any juror whose preferences they cannot reasonably 
predict.  And prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers in criminal cases 
get peremptory challenges to use in addition to challenges for cause, 
making voir dire and jury selection a virtual art form in real life 
"mpj".  To repeat, no lawyer can win a case who does not know how to 
empanel a favorable jury.

If you're not sure how this works, watch a movie like "12 angry men" or 
"runaway jury" so you understand why the jury matters.

_*MPJ IS JUSTIFIED BY ECONOMIC PORTFOLIO THEORY*_

Turning to the second point, in debate, obtaining a judge pool that 
weighs towards the middle of what the debaters (litigators) want and 
away from the edges (uncertainty, unpredictability) makes lots and lots 
of sense from a common sense standpoint and from a game theory 
standpoint.  It's what economists would hypothesize rational agents 
would do under conditions of uncertainty in order to minimize the 
expectations of catastrophic risk in favor of manageable risk.  In 
essence, it's a form of portfolio theory.  By mutually agreeing to 
narrow the risk of the judging pool over the length of the tournament, 
the risk of "squirrel results" from unpredictable judges, which might 
have catastrophic effects for an other wise predictably successful team, 
are minimized.

This is harmonious with all decision, portfolio and economic theory and 
makes perfect sense. 

C.f. the post on MPJ at http://debate.uvm.edu/stannard300.html by Prof. 
Stannard at the UVM site. 

On decision theory and uncertainty, c.f. Malkiel, a random walk down 
wall street, and any elementary text on probability and risk analysis.  
Luce & Raiffa's remains an excellent text on game theory, nash 
equilibria, etc.  Also Bogle's texts on index funds from the 90s and 
more recently explain portfolio and risk and beta as well as anyone 
else's. 

To analogize, if I have a basket of 15-25 stocks in my portfolio, I'm 
going to want to eliminate the outliers so that my portfolio performs as 
close to beta--the market--as possible--in order to create an index fund 
that will mirror the market itself, like the Vanguard Index 500.  
Likewise, i want a portfolio of judges that perform like a predictable 
market as well, without individual "companies" or "judges" also adding 
individual risks. 

A debate decision has two elements of risk--the risk of the debate 
itself, and the risk of the goofiness or weirdness of the judge itself.  
Likewise, a stock has two elements of risk--the risk of the market and 
the risk of the stock itself.  Eliminating outlier stocks, like 
eliminating outlier judges, eliminates these risks and leaves you with 
one kind of risk--market risk, or analogously, the risk of the debate 
arguments only.

Eliminating outlier judges eliminates the risk that debate decisions 
will turn on factors other than the debaters' skills.  It in effect 
mirrors portfolio and index fund theory by creating a sort of "beta" 
judging pool that mirrors a "market" of debate ideas that hew to an 
accepted middle. 

Does this eliminate newer companies and startup companies and exclude 
less well-known judges?  Well, in a word, yes.  The vanguard index 500 
is going to have established NYSE and established NASDAQ performers like 
Microsoft in it; and likewise, MPJ is going to take warhorse judges over 
new judges every time.

_*MPJ GIVES NEWBIE AND LESS PREFERRED JUDGES A CHANCE TO EAT AND DRINK 
AND CATCH UP ON WORK IN LATER ROUNDS*_

But the good news is this;  after the first few rounds, you get to catch 
a drink of coffee, some food, and catch up with friends and do some 
networking if you're not on anyone's list.  If you bring your 
blackberry, you can get some serious work done. 

_*MPJ WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD USE IT IN APPELLATE WORK*_

I only wish we could voir dire and MPJ appellate courts.  If we could 
throw off the most extreme left wing and right wing judge on every case, 
the decisions would turn out about 80% better, especially with the 
Supreme Court.   Imagine being able to throw  _____ and _____ off of the 
case every time!!!  (fill in your imaginary picks....)

--art kyriazis, harvard debate alum
adjunct coach, friends select school
former adjunct coach, american university



Consequently, MPJ

edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com wrote:
> Send eDebate mailing list submissions to
> 	edebate at www.ndtceda.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	edebate-owner at www.ndtceda.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of eDebate digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Solution to the Policy v. K Gordian Knot (Gary Larson)
>    2. just in case you hadnt read it (Andy Ellis)
>    3. ans Larson (Michael Korcok)
>    4. Zomp and the value of MPJ (Jason Russell)
>    5. Re: Zomp and the value of MPJ (Josh)
>    6. Re: Zomp and the value of MPJ (Jason Russell)
>    7. Re: Zomp and the value of MPJ (Josh)
>    8. Texas Swing- what's up? (Sarah Snider)
>    9. Re: ans Stannard (matt stannard)
>   10.  ans Larson (Gary Larson)
>   11. 4 Rounds for Sale at Hardvard (matthew farmer)
>   12. UTSA Needs Judging for UCO (Roy Eno)
>   13. Re: ans Larson (Michael Kloster)
>   14. ans to Korkock (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
>   15. Results-UL-Lafayette High School Tournament
>       (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
>   16. Get rid of MPJ? (Alfred Snider)
>   17. Teams Clearing at KCKCC (Darren Elliott)
>   18. JUDGES for 8:30AM RD KCKCC (Darren Elliott)
>   19. interesting tidbit about "speed" debating (Zompetti, Joseph Perry)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:59:42 -0500
> From: "Gary Larson" <Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Solution to the Policy v. K Gordian Knot
> To: "Joseph Perry Zompetti" <jpzompe at ilstu.edu>, <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID: <4710C13E.3F5C.0033.0 at wheaton.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> I'm not sure that edebate is the forum but I'd like us to have a rigorous discussion of the Zomp's underlying premise regarding the "real problems of MPJ."  
>
> Can we get a concise "bill of particulars" to determine which are testable which aren't and which are correctable and which aren't?
>
> I also want those who would reject MPJ to be really clear on the alternative.  
>
>
>
>   
>>>> "Zompetti, Joseph Perry" <jpzompe at ilstu.edu> 10/13/2007 11:30 AM >>>
>>>>         
> Hmmm, don't think I agree with Gary here.  Argument diversity and creativity pre-dates MPJ.  There may be more in-depth arg diversity within a judging genre with MPJ, but my guess is that overarching arg diversity occurs with non-MPJ debate as well.
>  
> But this seems like a red herring to me (not that it is Gary's fault; he's just responding to Scott).  Argument diversity is probably a worthwhile goal, but shouldn't be our focus.  Many have expressed the real problems of MPJ long before me, namely that it pigeon-holes certain debate styles, discourages judge adaptation, and rewards selective persuasion techniques.  Proponents fall back-on thealue of competitive success.  ,
>  
> I guess it depends on what is most important to you - educating our students/debaters or securing as many wins as possible.  
>  
> I, for one, would like to strive for both, but that it is very difficult with MPJ.  
>  
> zomp
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Gary Larson
> Sent: Sat 10/13/2007 10:08 AM
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com 
> Subject: [eDebate] Solution to the Policy v. K Gordian Knot
>
>
>
> Scott offers an intriguing idea and since he's not the first to mention it, it deserves some discussion.  Scott suggests that the solution for policy-oriented teams would be to write the kind of arguments that Andy Ellis would find appealing if they didn't have the luxury of preffing him out.  Now I presume from this that Scott would equally oppose the use of strikes since they could just as effectively be used by the same team to not have to adapt to the judge.
>
>  
>
> During my career I've been blamed for being the architect of genuinely random judging (back in early CEDA days when the transition was being made from backroom arbitrarily-managed "tabroom preference").  I've also been blamed for ever more sophisticated MPJ algorithms that Scott and others argue permit teams (presumably elitist policy-oriented teams) from needing to embrace diverse perspectives by shielding them from judges they don't want.
>
>  
>
> But doesn't this argument cut both ways?  If the numerical majority of teams and critics at any given time are not embracing diverse argument types and styles, doesn't random judging rather stifle creativity and diversity of argument types by forcing teams that want to explore alternatives to adapt to their more numerous "traditionalist" judges.  Quite apart from the more basic questions of whose responsibility it is to adapt to whom and whether debaters should have any input into whether the judges in the round are sympathetic or antagonistic to their strategies, in practical terms MPJ probably protects diverse perspectives rather than stifles them.
>
>  
>
> For every traditionalist team that would have to confront the prospect of writing arguments that Andy would like, there would be many more rounds where the teams that would like to explore the boundaries or new approaches to argumentation would be faced with even more hostility than they face at present.
>
>  
>
> GARY
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:20:04 -0400
> From: "Andy Ellis" <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] just in case you hadnt read it
> To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID:
> 	<9368bc9b0710131220s458bd574o6170320723e23522 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> my judging philosophy is not one of the old interventionist ones, korcok
> says he fixed me, perhaps im fixed dont know if it was korcok but just for
> reference this my actual philsophy...not sure how i am the stand in for all
> interventionist judges at this point but whatever
>
> Andy Ellis
>
> Towson university
>
> Judge Philosophy: I have for the most part given up on trying to structure
> debates into some vision I have of how a debate should be. So my basic
> philosophy is that I will allow the 4 debaters to shape and determine the
> debate as they would like. *Note in this regard*-If both teams agree to
> allow a judge other than myself to judge the debate then I will comply,
> *Regardless of the silly and baseless impositions of the tab room, in fact
> stupid tab room administrators are more likely to convince me this is a good
> idea than if they would just stay quiet.*
>
> * *
>
> That all being said there are some things I like and some things I don't.
>
> 5 of each should suffice.
>
> 5. I like it when there is a purpose to your debating, I think the resources
> that we use are hugely valuable and I think there are some responsibilities
> that come along with getting access to those resources, your purpose doesn't
> have to agree with my political ideologies.
>
> 4. I like well explained and developed arguments that don't expect me to
> take "extend the Dillon" as a sufficient 2nr argument
>
> 3. I like impact and link analysis.
>
> 2. I like cards to be used in the debate not just read.
>
> 1. I like being able to flow the debate if you want me to (easier said then
> done im not that great on the minutia of some ans or the speed of others.)
>
> 5. I don't like exclusionary debate practices.
>
> 4. I don't like reading more than two or three cards per team after the
> debate.
>
> 3. I don't like theory debates that don't give me pen time yet expect me to
> vote on them when they are dropped.
>
> 2. I don't like the simplistic version of the fiat is illusory assumption,
> you need to compare the effects of the discourse you are criticizing vs the
> benefits it accrues.
>
> 1. I don't like it when people have questions about a judging philosophy and
> don't attempt to clarify. I wont bite or any thing. I'm nice.
>
> *Conclusion:* Many of you will doubt that I can shed my previous judging
> philosophies, and that may be an indication of what I do like, but I will
> make my best effort to evaluate the debates that I am presented with by the
> debaters?Thanks
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071013/aa2dd8f3/attachment.html 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:25:51 -0700
> From: Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] ans Larson
> To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID: <BAY111-W847DCA8D400D70C5B2A15E4A10 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> First, I am a fan of Gary Larson's.  Always have been.  What he does for debate is amazing.
>  
> Second, I am undecided about MPJ or its variants.  I do not have an alternative.  This is one of those things that everyone and their neighbor has an opinion about and very few people actually have good data.
>  
> Third, I suspect that it fragments the community.  Like many others, i suspect it functions to group debaters and judges into cliques and isolates those groups from each other.  It allows and encourages debaters to specialize in types of arguments and approaches by letting them choose judges who favor what they do and letting them isolate away judges who would be more critical.  That has the potential to isolate cliques and groups.  It also has the potential to widen the divide by not forcing either judges or debaters to confront opposing views.
>  
> That's what I suspect.  This view could be plain wrong or even incoherent.  So, yeah, is it testable and in comparison to what alternative?
>  
> 1) what alternative.  i dunno.  Perhaps mutuality without preference with 10% strikes?  that's "fair" in the sense that both teams value the judge the same but it doesn't give teams the judges they like except that it brackets out the few judges they really dislike.
>  
> 2) testable?  i vaguely remember statistical tests of clustering/grouping that don't require additional correlative data, but that's about all i remember.  If not, then perhaps allowing teams to self-identify themselves as highly policy, mostly policy, mix, alternative, highly alternative then analyzing if there are judging preference clusters correlated with those?
>  
> Michael Korcok
> _________________________________________________________________
> Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf?. Stop by today.
> http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071013/a84f013c/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:30:50 -0500
> From: "Jason Russell" <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] Zomp and the value of MPJ
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<f1a75e510710131330h266636aahc652423cf556d084 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I havent heard anyone defend MPJ as being valuable only due to competitive
> success. It is valuable because some judges are, to be fair, better than
> others. By better, I mean more educational. I know this will be an unpopular
> position, but I firmly believe it and will staunchly defend it. Most of the
> judges that I want our teams debating in front of are not ideological hacks,
> but are instead those individuals who I think will give both sides of the
> aisle a fair shake and will inform our debaters about how to better make
> their arguments presentable to middle of the road judges. MPJ allows what I
> believe to be a fair isolation of both lazy (bad) judges and ideological
> hacks.
>
> The K versus policy divide as it relates to MPJ is almost irrelevant. I will
> say this: the far right in debate gets a way more than fair shake versus the
> far left. The appeal against MPJ, and Josh's gripe about the policy versus K
> divide, seems to be that it means that they get more moderate judges. I
> would hope that this is what we are all aiming for.
>
> Everytime I hear people make a series of arguments against MPJ and in favor
> of extreme judge philosophies I am reminded of the last generation of CEDA,
> an era I participated in, and the awful and often corrupt judging it
> featured. Im certain that the NDT was also not immune. MPJ is good because
> some judges are bad and others are stubborn and debaters shouldnt have to
> debate in front of either if they find this style uneducational.
>
> K and policy teams alike will have to debate in front of moderate judges to
> succeed, and this does force adaptation to the middle, a skill that I, as a
> communication professional, view as considerably more valuable than
> attempting to persuade openly hostile audiences. It is both more likely
> overall and more likely to be successful.
>
> Judges spend too much time bashing debaters. They are often bad, whiny, and
> annoying. But, coaches and judges are not above the fray. They dont always
> know whats best and, even if they do, there is educational value in letting
> debaters make their own mistakes and learn from those lessons. Preffing the
> party line for a K team is dangerous; they're bound to get out-flanked by
> someone crazier over time. Preffing the party line for a policy team is
> dangerous; eventually, they're going to debate a K team, get a moderate
> judge, and have no idea why "realism is real" doesn't answer "meaning to
> life". Debaters should learn the lessons about taking their arguments to the
> middle and making their arguments for a more all-purpose audience. MPJ *does
> * necessitate that.
>
> There is a dangerous paternalism involved in us coaches asserting that we
> know best. I've heard this argument made about topic selection, argument
> restrictions, judging philosophies, and a variety of other debate practices.
> These are short-cuts for thinking. I know that this sounds an awful lot like
> letting the inmates run the asylum, but I happen to hold debaters in quite a
> bit of esteem. If I didn't, I think it would be awfully hard to respect the
> coaches, also, given that their reputations are often built and their
> experience is always based on prior debate practice. The end result of this
> type of thinking about debate and debaters sounds a lot like NEDA or Ted
> Turner. It also smacks of sophistry of the worst type.
>
> It's unfortunate but true that all judges are not in fact created equally.
> Some of them are more talented educators and as a result more desirable
> adjudicators. They add value to their decisions in giving advice and
> providing insight into the thinking of other judges that makes debaters
> better. It's not to say that there are intrinsic traits that make one good
> at judging; it is largely a learned activity and a lot of successful
> debaters are terrible judges and many mediocre or below debaters show true
> brilliance as judges. Judges have to work at it. The group of great judges
> is not static. It changes as people improve (and stagnate) over time.
>
> Judging takes effort and getting into grad school or graduating from comm
> school doesn't make someone an automatically qualified debate judge. Mostly,
> modern debate is not a spectator activity. Judges need to work at it to stay
> good at it. Judges need to be actively involved to be great at it. And to be
> excellent, an almost inimitable set of skills is required. Judging is hard.
> I can't imagine why we would expect that everyone would be equally good at
> it. And, if we know that not everyone is that good at it, then allowing for
> coaches and debaters to make discriminations amongst judges is probably not
> only justified but pedagogically required.
>
> One end result of the type of educational judging I'm describing is that
> these debaters become more successful, but the other is that these debaters
> become smarter. I can't for sure tell you that the education proceeds the
> success, but I can tell you that in large part the debaters who have been
> successful since MPJ are just as educationally equipped as their
> predecessors in the activity who had random or, worse yet, "old boys club"
> assigned judging. I agree with Gary that these are primarily empirical
> questions. I can only cite my observational and anecdotal data on these
> questions. But, I think I would support the hypothesis that, in the
> aggregate, MPJ is a more educational system of judge assignment than any
> alternative.
>
> J
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071013/1f47eeb5/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:38:18 -0400
> From: Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Zomp and the value of MPJ
> To: "Jason Russell" <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com>
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<f6ec14bb0710131338k6c72c8aayf2fbe9708a9c420d at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Two clarifications:
>
> 1) I did not gripe - I actually said, if you actually read, that it was "for
> the best" - kind of the opposite of a gripe....But why read when you can
> assume because its me I have to be reactionary.
>
> 2) Your first paragraph is clearly self-serving - you say "some judges are,
> to be fair, better than others. By better, I mean more educational. I know
> this will be an unpopular position, but I firmly believe it and will
> staunchly defend it. Most of the judges that I want our teams debating in
> front of are not ideological hacks, but are instead those individuals who I
> think will give both sides of the aisle a fair shake."  No kidding - fair
> judges are better?  Either you are literally making a subjective statement
> or you are defining good judges as "thouse your teams would do well in front
> of."
>
> Aside from that, dont disagree,
>
> Josh
>
>
> On 10/13/07, Jason Russell <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> I havent heard anyone defend MPJ as being valuable only due to competitive
>> success. It is valuable because some judges are, to be fair, better than
>> others. By better, I mean more educational. I know this will be an unpopular
>> position, but I firmly believe it and will staunchly defend it. Most of the
>> judges that I want our teams debating in front of are not ideological hacks,
>> but are instead those individuals who I think will give both sides of the
>> aisle a fair shake and will inform our debaters about how to better make
>> their arguments presentable to middle of the road judges. MPJ allows what I
>> believe to be a fair isolation of both lazy (bad) judges and ideological
>> hacks.
>>
>> The K versus policy divide as it relates to MPJ is almost irrelevant. I
>> will say this: the far right in debate gets a way more than fair shake
>> versus the far left. The appeal against MPJ, and Josh's gripe about the
>> policy versus K divide, seems to be that it means that they get more
>> moderate judges. I would hope that this is what we are all aiming for.
>>
>> Everytime I hear people make a series of arguments against MPJ and in
>> favor of extreme judge philosophies I am reminded of the last generation of
>> CEDA, an era I participated in, and the awful and often corrupt judging it
>> featured. Im certain that the NDT was also not immune. MPJ is good because
>> some judges are bad and others are stubborn and debaters shouldnt have to
>> debate in front of either if they find this style uneducational.
>>
>> K and policy teams alike will have to debate in front of moderate judges
>> to succeed, and this does force adaptation to the middle, a skill that I, as
>> a communication professional, view as considerably more valuable than
>> attempting to persuade openly hostile audiences. It is both more likely
>> overall and more likely to be successful.
>>
>> Judges spend too much time bashing debaters. They are often bad,
>> whiny, and annoying. But, coaches and judges are not above the fray. They
>> dont always know whats best and, even if they do, there is educational value
>> in letting debaters make their own mistakes and learn from those lessons.
>> Preffing the party line for a K team is dangerous; they're bound to get
>> out-flanked by someone crazier over time. Preffing the party line for a
>> policy team is dangerous; eventually, they're going to debate a K team, get
>> a moderate judge, and have no idea why "realism is real" doesn't answer
>> "meaning to life". Debaters should learn the lessons about taking their
>> arguments to the middle and making their arguments for a more all-purpose
>> audience. MPJ *does* necessitate that.
>>
>> There is a dangerous paternalism involved in us coaches asserting that we
>> know best. I've heard this argument made about topic selection, argument
>> restrictions, judging philosophies, and a variety of other debate practices.
>> These are short-cuts for thinking. I know that this sounds an awful lot like
>> letting the inmates run the asylum, but I happen to hold debaters in quite a
>> bit of esteem. If I didn't, I think it would be awfully hard to respect the
>> coaches, also, given that their reputations are often built and their
>> experience is always based on prior debate practice. The end result of this
>> type of thinking about debate and debaters sounds a lot like NEDA or Ted
>> Turner. It also smacks of sophistry of the worst type.
>>
>> It's unfortunate but true that all judges are not in fact created equally.
>> Some of them are more talented educators and as a result more desirable
>> adjudicators. They add value to their decisions in giving advice and
>> providing insight into the thinking of other judges that makes debaters
>> better. It's not to say that there are intrinsic traits that make one good
>> at judging; it is largely a learned activity and a lot of successful
>> debaters are terrible judges and many mediocre or below debaters show true
>> brilliance as judges. Judges have to work at it. The group of great judges
>> is not static. It changes as people improve (and stagnate) over time.
>>
>> Judging takes effort and getting into grad school or graduating from comm
>> school doesn't make someone an automatically qualified debate judge. Mostly,
>> modern debate is not a spectator activity. Judges need to work at it to stay
>> good at it. Judges need to be actively involved to be great at it. And to be
>> excellent, an almost inimitable set of skills is required. Judging is hard.
>> I can't imagine why we would expect that everyone would be equally good at
>> it. And, if we know that not everyone is that good at it, then allowing for
>> coaches and debaters to make discriminations amongst judges is probably not
>> only justified but pedagogically required.
>>
>> One end result of the type of educational judging I'm describing is that
>> these debaters become more successful, but the other is that these debaters
>> become smarter. I can't for sure tell you that the education proceeds the
>> success, but I can tell you that in large part the debaters who have been
>> successful since MPJ are just as educationally equipped as their
>> predecessors in the activity who had random or, worse yet, "old boys club"
>> assigned judging. I agree with Gary that these are primarily empirical
>> questions. I can only cite my observational and anecdotal data on these
>> questions. But, I think I would support the hypothesis that, in the
>> aggregate, MPJ is a more educational system of judge assignment than any
>> alternative.
>>
>> J
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>
>>     
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071013/ba50c8ef/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:43:53 -0500
> From: "Jason Russell" <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Zomp and the value of MPJ
> To: Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>, edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<f1a75e510710131343h7b40eb97h311909f2728d5f71 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Pot:
>
> After "fair shake" add "and will inform our debaters about how to better
> make
> their arguments....". I think this probably also addresses your first
> complaint (can I call this a complaint now?). The rest of the statement goes
> on to explain a variety of what I believe to be educational. Fairness is
> what you'd call a necessary condition; the rest of what I wrote clarifies
> the additional, sufficient conditions.
>
> Kettle
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071013/7e3f88ad/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:44:40 -0400
> From: Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Zomp and the value of MPJ
> To: "Jason Russell" <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com>
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<f6ec14bb0710131344n633ce97ax1e50f43819db3517 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Well as long as you admit to being the Kettle,
>
> Josh
>
>
> On 10/13/07, Jason Russell <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Pot:
>>
>> After "fair shake" add "and will inform our debaters about how to better
>> make
>> their arguments....". I think this probably also addresses your first
>> complaint (can I call this a complaint now?). The rest of the statement goes
>> on to explain a variety of what I believe to be educational. Fairness is
>> what you'd call a necessary condition; the rest of what I wrote clarifies
>> the additional, sufficient conditions.
>>
>> Kettle
>>
>>     
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071013/fab7eca7/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:30:20 -0500
> From: "Sarah Snider" <sjsnider at ksu.edu>
> Subject: [eDebate] Texas Swing- what's up?
> To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID:
> 	<c575a7b30710131430s74e42bfbmfb84f8179795c7bb at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Several people have indicated to me that the Texas Swing is no longer a
> swing.
>
> I'm trying hard not to believe the rumors, but I know that I am not the
> first person who has publicly asked this question.
>
> The death of a midwest/texas swing would be a devastating loss if it were
> true.
>
> If someone from UNT could confirm or deny this so the rest of us could make
> whatever alternative arrangements it would be awesome.
>
> Sarah
>
> Kansas State
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071013/5bd20148/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:05:49 -0600
> From: matt stannard <stannardmatt at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] ans Stannard
> To: Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com>, "edebate at ndtceda.com"
> 	<edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID: <BAY101-W32176563CF203DDD098D5BD2A10 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
> Oh, so you're trying to imitate white people trying to imitate black people?  That certainly gets you off the hook.
>  
> mjs
>  
>
>
> From: mmk_savant at hotmail.comTo: edebate at ndtceda.comDate: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 08:33:48 -0700Subject: [eDebate] ans Stannard
>
>
>   i canna type un say laughin at stupids whut try be all kool unlessun i iz a Kulur?white money boyzez from da suburbz whut try be all kool talkin like theyz knowin and i don't getz to mocks 'em? what "race" do you think i am emulating?  why are you under the impression that an entire "race" speaks these ways rather than a (fictional) multiracial subculture?are the "overtones of racism" in the text or are they in your head? you see the hip-hop and think "race".  you don't see the "leet" at all.  you flippantly accuse "racism".   Another instance of making a complex world stupid and simple enough to deal with.  or, as Jean Paul Lacy would say... 4nO+h3R 1N5+4nCe 0F MAKiNG A C0mPL3x woRLD $TUp1d 4nd 5iMpLe EN0U9h t0 D3aL W1+H. Mi8chael Korcock, Boyo!
>
> Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf?. Stop by today! 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ? together at last. ?Get it now.
> http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071013/03347002/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:21:53 -0500
> From: "Gary Larson" <Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu>
> Subject: [eDebate]  ans Larson
> To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID: <4710FEB10200003300019981 at gwsmtp.wheaton.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255"
>
> Two thoughts about Mike?s post:
>  
> 1)      I?d be interested in what folks thought about the ?mutuality without preference? option.
>  
> 2)  Since Mike repeats an argument that frequently gets made about MPJ, I?m curious about the following:
>  
> MK  Third, I suspect that it fragments the community. Like many others, i suspect it functions to group debaters and judges into cliques and isolates those groups from each other. It allows and encourages debaters to specialize in types of arguments and approaches by letting them choose judges who favor what they do and letting them isolate away judges who would be more critical. That has the potential to isolate cliques and groups. It also has the potential to widen the divide by not forcing either judges or debaters to confront opposing views.
>  
> GNL  It strikes me that such confrontation still happens a lot.  All of our pairing algorithms schedule teams to debate in rounds that some call a ?clash of civilizations.?  Throughout the tournament, a significant number of debates occur that at least in theory put differing paradigms in conflict.  Whether teams representing the same perspective can have judges who are too sympathetic to what both teams are doing, many rounds don?t work that way.  And SOMEBODY has to judge those debates.  If everyone is really as polarized as we fear, either MPJ reverts back to essentially random since it can?t find any mutual match OR MPJ identifies those critics who are the least polarized.
>  
> When we permit teams to select their opponents as well as their judges OR if Balkanize debate by just having different travel schedules or different organizations, THEN I will be genuinely afraid about fragmentation.  But at least for now there is still hope ?
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071013/dbb637e4/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:41:07 -0400
> From: "matthew farmer" <matthewfarm at gmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] 4 Rounds for Sale at Hardvard
> To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<d704dbad0710131541n9a935e3h271ea10fbf12a69a at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Cash preferred. Please back channel me.
>
> Farmer
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071013/2eb00581/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:45:28 -0500
> From: "Roy Eno" <Roy.Eno at utsa.edu>
> Subject: [eDebate] UTSA Needs Judging for UCO
> To: <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID:
> 	<7CE039ACB3DF9645B48718D2FDB21DCA315101 at opal1604.UTSARR.NET>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I am looking for someone to pick up three rounds of judging at UCO--$25 per round.
>  
> Skip Eno--UTSA
> 210-458-5343
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071013/d8ce641a/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:13:28 -0500
> From: Michael Kloster <kloster at mynamesmike.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] ans Larson
> To: Gary Larson <Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu>
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID: <47115118.30700 at mynamesmike.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255
>
> I've suggested an alternative in the past that I think would have a
> transformative effect on MPJ.  I have had a few interested backchannels
> but overall the idea has received little interest.
>
> The suggestion is to allow debate teams to set up a default MPJ sheet.
> They then can set up additional sheets that override the default
> depending upon the side of resolution and opponent. In addition to
> allowing more accurate MPJ, I believe such a system would limit the
> success of teams who rely on a subset of judges. Think of the change to
> judge placement if you could effectively strike different judges based
> on team you are debating as well as the side of the resolution.
>
> Since it requires more work to set up the various permutations of MPJ
> sheets, software would be needed to make it easy to manage your pref
> sheets as well as make it possible to reuse your pref sheet from one
> tournament to the next, and likely one year to the next.
>
> Gary has previously responded to this at length and I recommend
> interested parties to read the archives. He believes such a system will
> make it difficult or impossible to maintain a high percentage of A-A
> judge placements. While I believe that may be so (in particular for some
> teams), I believe it only demonstrates that in many cases our current
> system provides only a myth of mutuality. While apparent A-A placements
> may decrease, at least our statistics showing so would be more 'honest'.
>
> Michael Kloster
>
> Gary Larson wrote:
>   
>> Two thoughts about Mike?s post:
>>
>>  
>>
>> 1)      I?d be interested in what folks thought about the ?mutuality
>> without preference? option.
>>
>>  
>>
>> 2)  Since Mike repeats an argument that frequently gets made about
>> MPJ, I?m curious about the following:
>>
>>  
>>
>> MK  Third, I suspect that it fragments the community. Like many
>> others, i suspect it functions to group debaters and judges into
>> cliques and isolates those groups from each other. It allows and
>> encourages debaters to specialize in types of arguments and approaches
>> by letting them choose judges who favor what they do and letting them
>> isolate away judges who would be more critical. That has the potential
>> to isolate cliques and groups. It also has the potential to widen the
>> divide by not forcing either judges or debaters to confront opposing
>> views.
>>
>>  
>>
>> GNL  It strikes me that such confrontation still happens a lot.  All
>> of our pairing algorithms schedule teams to debate in rounds that some
>> call a ?clash of civilizations.?  Throughout the tournament, a
>> significant number of debates occur that at least in theory put
>> differing paradigms in conflict.  Whether teams representing the same
>> perspective can have judges who are too sympathetic to what both teams
>> are doing, many rounds don?t work that way.  And SOMEBODY has to judge
>> those debates.  If everyone is really as polarized as we fear, either
>> MPJ reverts back to essentially random since it can?t find any mutual
>> match OR MPJ identifies those critics who are the least polarized.
>>
>>  
>>
>> When we permit teams to select their opponents as well as their judges
>> OR if Balkanize debate by just having different travel schedules or
>> different organizations, THEN I will be genuinely afraid about
>> fragmentation.  But at least for now there is still hope ?
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>     
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:47:51 -0500
> From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
> Subject: [eDebate] ans to Korkock
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID: <1192322871.4711673702b7f at webmail.grandecom.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Mike,
>
> Given the subjectivity of debate judges paradigms, "pandering" is pretty much
> part of the game. If I knew that a mime routine in which we acted out a nuclear
> war causing the death of all humans and the blossoming of new species ("the
> Flower"-Quick Bob Fossie hands to the face move!), with an eep ecology
> overview--would mean winning a semi-finals round, we'd do it. The only
> difference between that and a "strong-policy" round would be that we read ten
> extra cards on why humans are aconcer on Mother Earth. Not pandering, Mike,
> adapting our original arguments to appeal to the judge's aesthetic. Because,
> unfortunately, policy debate has become for a question of appealing to a judges
> tastes, than a true contest of actions that should be taken to make the world a
> better place.
>
> So, I guess I do teach a form of pandering to the audience. But MPJ allows
> debaters and coaches to point blank EXCLUDE audiences from their debates. (A
> CENTRAL POINT FOLKS!) I get to say "screw Andy and his hip-hop bullshit, fromt
> he confort of my keyboard, and he has no opportunity to interact with my team
> because we rank him as a C- judge, and Gary's programs virtually guarantee that
> we will not have C-rated judges evaluate my teams.
>
> For the record, we would probably put KORCOCK AND ELLIS as A-judges. Because I
> think we have a strat that would appeal to either one of you. We carry a boom
> box with 2-live-Crew remixes with us just in case. Andy, you should hear our
> Zydeco/Cajun Culture turns (not a joke).
>
> Another old dinosaur telling the whipper snappers how things ought to be.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:58:49 -0500
> From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
> Subject: [eDebate] Results-UL-Lafayette High School Tournament
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID: <1192323529.471169c9953c1 at webmail.grandecom.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
> The University of Louisiana-Lafayette hosted the first ULL high school speech
> and debate tournament in over ten years. Based on the reviews from coaches and
> parents, it was an overwhelming success for Louisiana High School Forensics.
>
> The CX portion of the tournament ran about 40 mintues AHEAD OF SCHEDULE on
> Friday night. We had three rounds of novice and varsity finished and tabbed by
> 7:00 p.m. My wife and I were at a Jazz club by 7:30 p.m. The food and drinks
> were awesome.
>
> Saturday's CX tournament finished a full two hours AHEAD of scehdule and the
> I.E.-L/D part of the tournament finished about  30 minutes ahead of schedule.
> Again, my wife and I were out by 7:30 p.m. on the Saturday night of a high
> school tournament. We are done and in our jammies already.
>
> Lafayette High School closed out semi finals in varsity cx debate.
> Parkway High School closed out finals of novice debate.
>
> Our plan is to open up the tournamnet for a national draw in cx debate next
> year. I would like for this to become a TOC qualifiying tournament in cx
> debate. I encourage those working with high school programs to consider
> attending the UL-Lafayette 2008 tournament.
>
> Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D. J.D.
> Director of Debate, UL-Lafayette
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:33:58 -0400
> From: Alfred Snider <alfred.snider at uvm.edu>
> Subject: [eDebate] Get rid of MPJ?
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID: <47118016.8070901 at uvm.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I was CEDA president when MPJ was used at the tournament. I imposed it
> and took a lot of criticism because of it. I new that once it was in
> there would be no getting it out.
>
> Whether it is good overall or not, I am now hooked on it. We have clear
> preferences and being able to avoid SOME judges releases us from a huge
> preparation burden.
>
> I also introduced and argued for the motion at the CEDA meeting that
> allowed the NDT/CEDA merger. Once again, it may have been a bad idea but
> I was a big part of it. Others can say "told you so" but I did what I
> thought was best and the community agreed with me.
>
> It was not the first time I found myself in this position and it will
> not be the last time.
>
> Note this for the future. Beware my initiatives.
>
> Tuna
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: akbiotech.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 397 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071016/1ffebab2/attachment.vcf 



More information about the Mailman mailing list