[eDebate] the good old days?

Zompetti, Joseph Perry jpzompe
Sun Oct 14 18:37:39 CDT 2007


Hmmm...I didn't debate at a "pretty good [debate] school," nor did the random judging favor us, per se.  
 
While I know about the "old days" when judges were placed by tab room directors, that happens now too.  Maybe not to the same extent, maybe it's not as eggregious, maybe it's not as widespread, but MPJ doesn't, but itself, prevent such bias.  I think a community norm has created an expectation that these sorts of tab rooms become less and less.
 
jz

________________________________

From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of matt stannard
Sent: Sun 10/14/2007 3:19 PM
To: LACC Forensics; E-Debate
Subject: [eDebate] the good old days?


"Golden age" arguments scare me.  
 
 
I would venture to say (and I think much of the edebate discussion has borne out) that many of those who long for pre-MPJ days debated at pretty good schools themselves, and in circuits where the "random" judging favored them and their colleagues fairly consistently.  Of course many of them would long for the good old days, when some unknown team didn't stand a chance against them and the judges they partied with the night before.    
 
mjs


> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:58:04 -0700
> From: forensics at lacitycollege.edu
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] ans Larson
> 
> I think Mike has the right idea about Gary's call for an alternative.
> 
> Prior to the full MPJ we practice today, most national-circuit tournaments
> simply allowed a certain number of strikes. Beyond that, judging should be
> random. The strikes serve the purpose of controlling specific issues such as
> judges who have prejudices against certain debaters or programs (a very real
> problem) but randomizing the remaining judging pool does require teams to
> adapt in ways that currently do not occur.
> 
> Of course, there is no perfect solution. There will never be complete
> adaptation by teams with the great diversity of argumentative approaches
> that have developed. For example, my teams are never going to engage in
> performance alternatives or be pirates no matter who the judge is. But, at
> least there would be a better chance that my teams would have a fair chance
> at the few "policy only" judges, as Josh calls them, who might be in the
> pool.
> 
> I will admit that the evidence is merely anecdotal and confounds Gary's call
> for testable alternatives, but the more I read this list lately, the more I
> see that I am not the only person in the community who thinks that there has
> been significantly more stratification and interpersonal conflict in the
> community since MPJ became standard.
> 
> Ken Sherwood
> LACC Debate
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate



________________________________

Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook - together at last. Get it now! <http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033>  



More information about the Mailman mailing list