[eDebate] practicing to be a "qualified" judge - the wonders of technology

Art Kyriazis akbiotech
Wed Aug 13 11:47:28 CDT 2008


to all the friendly folks of ndtceda:

perhaps one thing being overlooked in the debate over "qualified judges" 
is how easy it is to practice to become a qualified judge using the 
technology now available on the web.   For example, Prof. Snider and 
others have posted live debate rounds and speeches on video on the web, 
so it's very easy to just watch the round and practice flowing it and 
practice understanding it.  If you can't flow it the first time due to 
speed, incomprehensibility, or not understanding the generic arguments, 
you just run it again. 

It's not too different from golf.  I usually go out to the driving range 
and hit a couple of buckets of balls the day before I play nine or 18 
holes.  It's called practicing.  With videotape debate rounds, you can 
practice flowing a round before you actually show up for a round.   
Experienced judges might even consider it if they wanted to know what 
arguments might be around for a given topic.

in my view, if a grad student that has never even judged a round, has 
taken the time to review all of the pertinent web materials from the 
CEDA/NDT websites, from debate central, has taken the time to flow a 
round from video tape and get it right, has been properly prepared by a 
knowledgeable coach for judging, and has some acquaintance with the 
agriculturual issues/arguments that might come up during the round, then 
that individual is a "qualified judge" for preliminary rounds. 

it's better to let some new judges judge.  this policy field is enough 
of a meta activity that we need new blood constantly to refresh the 
judging pool. 

It might well be that MPJ might strike them in an octofinal round, but 
even there you have three judges, and heck, by then the newbie has 
judged six or seven rounds, they're actually experienced.

--art kyriazis



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. "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
>       (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
>    2. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Jeremy Bowers)
>    3. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Paul Johnson)
>    4. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Mike Davis)
>    5. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Mike Davis)
>    6. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Mike Davis)
>    7. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
>       (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu)
>    8. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Mike Davis)
>    9. Tournament invitation hosted by Gonzaga (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
>   10. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Dr. Joe Bellon)
>   11. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Samuel Maurer)
>   12. "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Martin Harris)
>   13. yellow fever (Kevin Sanchez)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:48:30 -0500
> From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
> Subject: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID: <1218480510.48a0897e85ff5 at webmail.grandecom.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> MPJ has morphed into a insidious and more exclusionary process. Tournaments are
> now requiring teams to provide "qualified judges." This is a serious problem
> that means the difference, for my program, between travling four students and
> travling twenty students this year.  What counts as a "qualified judge?"
>
> I have been looking at the GSU and UNLV invites. Not focusing on them as some
> particular attack, but I have noticed a judging requirement to provide
> "qualified judges." We want to go to these tournaments, but now I don't think we
> can. (Let me be clear, this is a criticism of the trend, and not
> of specific programs or people, so put your ad homs away.) What is this code
> word? Does this mean "qualified," as in able to fairly to the best of one's
> ability to listen and evaluate arguments made by college students. Or, is this
> a code word for people that follow popular trends within the policy debate
> community?
>
> I have been around this activity for almost thirty years. But I have a program
> that is less than a year old. We have gone from zero teams to 8 or more teams
> in just one year. I don't have a set of graduate students who have been
> debating and coaching for ten years. So, I want to travel to  more tournaments
> and travel a lot of teams. However, I don't think we can fulfill our judging
> commitments. So, I  have students who have worked hard, went to camps, and
> are practicing. We have the funds to travel them. But we do not have enough
> judges to judge for our program. I spent  a few thousand dollars sending a
> graduate student to ADI, just so he would have some idea of what policy debate
> is. But with no real tournament debating experience, does he count as a
> "qualified judge?" I have been around the game for decades, but I have several
> political points of view about debate that are very unpopular. Does that mean I
> am unqualified? Many of you may say yes, I am unqualified (LOL. Which proves the
> point I am making.) If you don't like someone, or their political views, does
> that make them an unqualified judge?
>
> Does a graduate student count as a qualified judge or not? What about my
> department chair-a full professor of communication, but no debate background.
> What about my Dean--a full professor of analytical philosophy, but with no
> policy debate experience? What about a professor of women's studies or African
> American studies, but with no policy debate experience? Is policy debate going
> to become so exclusionary that only those who debated for four years and high
> school and four years in college are the only one's "qualified" to judge policy
> debates?
>
> If Ede and other critics of how this game is set up want to advance their
> critique of MPJ,and policy debate in general, this new manifestation of policy
> debate exclusionary policies has more impact on whether students can
> participate in debate than MPJ or any other aesthetic choices. Why? Because if
> we cannot cover our judging commitments because of these "qualified judges"
> provisions, our students do not travel to tournaments.
>
> Who gets to determine the qualifications of a judge? The tab room staff. Friends
> of the tabroom? People who think they got screwed in a round by a judge four
> years ago?
>
> Doesn't this create a self-perpetuating problem for women and minority
> participation as well as their points of view?
>
> I think it does because the
> people making the decisons are making the evaluation
> of what constitutes a "qualified judge" based on their subjective
> interpretations of what constitutes a qualfied judge in policy debate. My
> sneaking suspiscion is that this means the ability and willingness to flow
> debates at a million miles an hour and a willingness to accept anything
> presented in a round as a legitimate argument. Both are aesthetic trends that
> should not be the basis for considering a judge's qualifications. Just because
> a buntch of geeky guys love to spew at a million miles an hour cards of
> Hiedegger does not mean that a judge is unqualified. It means that those
> debaters have lost the first principle of persuasion, one must discern the
> available means of persuasion based upon their target audience. The focus on
> mpj and judge qualifications turns two thousand years of communication theory
> on its head--having the audience be forced to adapt to the speaker, rathern
> than vice versa. Given that debate is dominated by a particular aesthetic, the
> judgment of judge qualification will only further, if not exacerbate, current
> exclusionary trends in this activity.
>
> Nor should qualifications be based on MPJ popularity. Just because your MPJ
> system breaks down every now and then does not justify the exclusion of
> otherwise educated human beings from judging, and worse, the exclusion of
> student debaters because their programs cannot meet your arbritrary standards
> of "qualified." There should be a clear standard for qualified judges that
> creates minimum exclusionary practices.
>
>
> Many of you will say, hire judges. I think you need to answer back a few
> objections. First, why should I hire judges when there are plenty of graduate
> students, my faculty, or alumni that would volunteer to do the work. The amount
> i spend on hired judges directly trades off with the number of students I can
> bring to a tournament--further privileging well funded programs. Second, where
> are these qualified judges for hire? I know that they are not always available.
> We were in a jam at North texas and UT dallas last year when I had four teams.
> It cost an arm and a leg to find and pay for  hired judges.
>
> I have a solution for this disturbing trend. The definition of a qualified judge
> for college policy debate: the person holds a four year college degree or
> higher. But, as it stand now, this vague term creates a very real hurdle for
> new programs and is one of the most exclusionary new practices to crop up in
> this activity.
>
> Scott Elliott
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:24:15 -0400
> From: "Jeremy Bowers" <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<1beb531d0808111224h5049c22fv93bf4d028f02ca2c at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I'd have to agree with Scott. We're just starting our CEDA program
> here at the University of South Florida (wish us luck!) -- and I don't
> think anyone traveling with the team would be a "qualified" judge. In
> fact, my wife would likely be one of our judges. While she's got a
> cleaner flow than half the folks that judged me in college - and is an
> honest-to-god journalist at a real newspaper - she would be out on two
> counts even by Scott's measures below (not "qualified" and not a
> college graduate).
>
> So, how can the community help support small programs like ours, or
> big programs like Scott's that can't afford to hire the most popular
> judges or experienced grad students?
>
> Also, this is my first edebate post in probably 8 years. Good to see
> many of the same names.
>
> Jeremy Bowers
> St. Petersburg, Fla.
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM,  <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
>   
>> MPJ has morphed into a insidious and more exclusionary process. Tournaments are
>> now requiring teams to provide "qualified judges." This is a serious problem
>> that means the difference, for my program, between travling four students and
>> travling twenty students this year.  What counts as a "qualified judge?"
>>
>> I have been looking at the GSU and UNLV invites. Not focusing on them as some
>> particular attack, but I have noticed a judging requirement to provide
>> "qualified judges." We want to go to these tournaments, but now I don't think we
>> can. (Let me be clear, this is a criticism of the trend, and not
>> of specific programs or people, so put your ad homs away.) What is this code
>> word? Does this mean "qualified," as in able to fairly to the best of one's
>> ability to listen and evaluate arguments made by college students. Or, is this
>> a code word for people that follow popular trends within the policy debate
>> community?
>>
>> I have been around this activity for almost thirty years. But I have a program
>> that is less than a year old. We have gone from zero teams to 8 or more teams
>> in just one year. I don't have a set of graduate students who have been
>> debating and coaching for ten years. So, I want to travel to  more tournaments
>> and travel a lot of teams. However, I don't think we can fulfill our judging
>> commitments. So, I  have students who have worked hard, went to camps, and
>> are practicing. We have the funds to travel them. But we do not have enough
>> judges to judge for our program. I spent  a few thousand dollars sending a
>> graduate student to ADI, just so he would have some idea of what policy debate
>> is. But with no real tournament debating experience, does he count as a
>> "qualified judge?" I have been around the game for decades, but I have several
>> political points of view about debate that are very unpopular. Does that mean I
>> am unqualified? Many of you may say yes, I am unqualified (LOL. Which proves the
>> point I am making.) If you don't like someone, or their political views, does
>> that make them an unqualified judge?
>>
>> Does a graduate student count as a qualified judge or not? What about my
>> department chair-a full professor of communication, but no debate background.
>> What about my Dean--a full professor of analytical philosophy, but with no
>> policy debate experience? What about a professor of women's studies or African
>> American studies, but with no policy debate experience? Is policy debate going
>> to become so exclusionary that only those who debated for four years and high
>> school and four years in college are the only one's "qualified" to judge policy
>> debates?
>>
>> If Ede and other critics of how this game is set up want to advance their
>> critique of MPJ,and policy debate in general, this new manifestation of policy
>> debate exclusionary policies has more impact on whether students can
>> participate in debate than MPJ or any other aesthetic choices. Why? Because if
>> we cannot cover our judging commitments because of these "qualified judges"
>> provisions, our students do not travel to tournaments.
>>
>> Who gets to determine the qualifications of a judge? The tab room staff. Friends
>> of the tabroom? People who think they got screwed in a round by a judge four
>> years ago?
>>
>> Doesn't this create a self-perpetuating problem for women and minority
>> participation as well as their points of view?
>>
>> I think it does because the
>> people making the decisons are making the evaluation
>> of what constitutes a "qualified judge" based on their subjective
>> interpretations of what constitutes a qualfied judge in policy debate. My
>> sneaking suspiscion is that this means the ability and willingness to flow
>> debates at a million miles an hour and a willingness to accept anything
>> presented in a round as a legitimate argument. Both are aesthetic trends that
>> should not be the basis for considering a judge's qualifications. Just because
>> a buntch of geeky guys love to spew at a million miles an hour cards of
>> Hiedegger does not mean that a judge is unqualified. It means that those
>> debaters have lost the first principle of persuasion, one must discern the
>> available means of persuasion based upon their target audience. The focus on
>> mpj and judge qualifications turns two thousand years of communication theory
>> on its head--having the audience be forced to adapt to the speaker, rathern
>> than vice versa. Given that debate is dominated by a particular aesthetic, the
>> judgment of judge qualification will only further, if not exacerbate, current
>> exclusionary trends in this activity.
>>
>> Nor should qualifications be based on MPJ popularity. Just because your MPJ
>> system breaks down every now and then does not justify the exclusion of
>> otherwise educated human beings from judging, and worse, the exclusion of
>> student debaters because their programs cannot meet your arbritrary standards
>> of "qualified." There should be a clear standard for qualified judges that
>> creates minimum exclusionary practices.
>>
>>
>> Many of you will say, hire judges. I think you need to answer back a few
>> objections. First, why should I hire judges when there are plenty of graduate
>> students, my faculty, or alumni that would volunteer to do the work. The amount
>> i spend on hired judges directly trades off with the number of students I can
>> bring to a tournament--further privileging well funded programs. Second, where
>> are these qualified judges for hire? I know that they are not always available.
>> We were in a jam at North texas and UT dallas last year when I had four teams.
>> It cost an arm and a leg to find and pay for  hired judges.
>>
>> I have a solution for this disturbing trend. The definition of a qualified judge
>> for college policy debate: the person holds a four year college degree or
>> higher. But, as it stand now, this vague term creates a very real hurdle for
>> new programs and is one of the most exclusionary new practices to crop up in
>> this activity.
>>
>> Scott Elliott
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>
>>     
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Paul Johnson <paulj567 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com, Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com>
> Message-ID: <317558.24780.qm at web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> best solution is to institute an NDT style rule that everyone who comes with must judge a minimum number of debates. this prevents qualified judges from being in for only one or even zero debates while hiring out less highly preferred judges for the entirety of their committment.
>
> i think this rule exists not because of smaller programs who bring less well known judges (we may grumble about the people we dont know, but at the end of the day i think we "get it"), but because of programs with qualified judges who judge less than they should. 
>
> pj
>
>
> --- On Mon, 8/11/08, Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> From: Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
>> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 2:24 PM
>> I'd have to agree with Scott. We're just starting
>> our CEDA program
>> here at the University of South Florida (wish us luck!) --
>> and I don't
>> think anyone traveling with the team would be a
>> "qualified" judge. In
>> fact, my wife would likely be one of our judges. While
>> she's got a
>> cleaner flow than half the folks that judged me in college
>> - and is an
>> honest-to-god journalist at a real newspaper - she would be
>> out on two
>> counts even by Scott's measures below (not
>> "qualified" and not a
>> college graduate).
>>
>> So, how can the community help support small programs like
>> ours, or
>> big programs like Scott's that can't afford to hire
>> the most popular
>> judges or experienced grad students?
>>
>> Also, this is my first edebate post in probably 8 years.
>> Good to see
>> many of the same names.
>>
>> Jeremy Bowers
>> St. Petersburg, Fla.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM, 
>> <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
>>     
>>> MPJ has morphed into a insidious and more exclusionary
>>>       
>> process. Tournaments are
>>     
>>> now requiring teams to provide "qualified
>>>       
>> judges." This is a serious problem
>>     
>>> that means the difference, for my program, between
>>>       
>> travling four students and
>>     
>>> travling twenty students this year.  What counts as a
>>>       
>> "qualified judge?"
>>     
>>> I have been looking at the GSU and UNLV invites. Not
>>>       
>> focusing on them as some
>>     
>>> particular attack, but I have noticed a judging
>>>       
>> requirement to provide
>>     
>>> "qualified judges." We want to go to these
>>>       
>> tournaments, but now I don't think we
>>     
>>> can. (Let me be clear, this is a criticism of the
>>>       
>> trend, and not
>>     
>>> of specific programs or people, so put your ad homs
>>>       
>> away.) What is this code
>>     
>>> word? Does this mean "qualified," as in able
>>>       
>> to fairly to the best of one's
>>     
>>> ability to listen and evaluate arguments made by
>>>       
>> college students. Or, is this
>>     
>>> a code word for people that follow popular trends
>>>       
>> within the policy debate
>>     
>>> community?
>>>
>>> I have been around this activity for almost thirty
>>>       
>> years. But I have a program
>>     
>>> that is less than a year old. We have gone from zero
>>>       
>> teams to 8 or more teams
>>     
>>> in just one year. I don't have a set of graduate
>>>       
>> students who have been
>>     
>>> debating and coaching for ten years. So, I want to
>>>       
>> travel to  more tournaments
>>     
>>> and travel a lot of teams. However, I don't think
>>>       
>> we can fulfill our judging
>>     
>>> commitments. So, I  have students who have worked
>>>       
>> hard, went to camps, and
>>     
>>> are practicing. We have the funds to travel them. But
>>>       
>> we do not have enough
>>     
>>> judges to judge for our program. I spent  a few
>>>       
>> thousand dollars sending a
>>     
>>> graduate student to ADI, just so he would have some
>>>       
>> idea of what policy debate
>>     
>>> is. But with no real tournament debating experience,
>>>       
>> does he count as a
>>     
>>> "qualified judge?" I have been around the
>>>       
>> game for decades, but I have several
>>     
>>> political points of view about debate that are very
>>>       
>> unpopular. Does that mean I
>>     
>>> am unqualified? Many of you may say yes, I am
>>>       
>> unqualified (LOL. Which proves the
>>     
>>> point I am making.) If you don't like someone, or
>>>       
>> their political views, does
>>     
>>> that make them an unqualified judge?
>>>
>>> Does a graduate student count as a qualified judge or
>>>       
>> not? What about my
>>     
>>> department chair-a full professor of communication,
>>>       
>> but no debate background.
>>     
>>> What about my Dean--a full professor of analytical
>>>       
>> philosophy, but with no
>>     
>>> policy debate experience? What about a professor of
>>>       
>> women's studies or African
>>     
>>> American studies, but with no policy debate
>>>       
>> experience? Is policy debate going
>>     
>>> to become so exclusionary that only those who debated
>>>       
>> for four years and high
>>     
>>> school and four years in college are the only
>>>       
>> one's "qualified" to judge policy
>>     
>>> debates?
>>>
>>> If Ede and other critics of how this game is set up
>>>       
>> want to advance their
>>     
>>> critique of MPJ,and policy debate in general, this new
>>>       
>> manifestation of policy
>>     
>>> debate exclusionary policies has more impact on
>>>       
>> whether students can
>>     
>>> participate in debate than MPJ or any other aesthetic
>>>       
>> choices. Why? Because if
>>     
>>> we cannot cover our judging commitments because of
>>>       
>> these "qualified judges"
>>     
>>> provisions, our students do not travel to tournaments.
>>>
>>> Who gets to determine the qualifications of a judge?
>>>       
>> The tab room staff. Friends
>>     
>>> of the tabroom? People who think they got screwed in a
>>>       
>> round by a judge four
>>     
>>> years ago?
>>>
>>> Doesn't this create a self-perpetuating problem
>>>       
>> for women and minority
>>     
>>> participation as well as their points of view?
>>>
>>> I think it does because the
>>> people making the decisons are making the evaluation
>>> of what constitutes a "qualified judge"
>>>       
>> based on their subjective
>>     
>>> interpretations of what constitutes a qualfied judge
>>>       
>> in policy debate. My
>>     
>>> sneaking suspiscion is that this means the ability and
>>>       
>> willingness to flow
>>     
>>> debates at a million miles an hour and a willingness
>>>       
>> to accept anything
>>     
>>> presented in a round as a legitimate argument. Both
>>>       
>> are aesthetic trends that
>>     
>>> should not be the basis for considering a judge's
>>>       
>> qualifications. Just because
>>     
>>> a buntch of geeky guys love to spew at a million miles
>>>       
>> an hour cards of
>>     
>>> Hiedegger does not mean that a judge is unqualified.
>>>       
>> It means that those
>>     
>>> debaters have lost the first principle of persuasion,
>>>       
>> one must discern the
>>     
>>> available means of persuasion based upon their target
>>>       
>> audience. The focus on
>>     
>>> mpj and judge qualifications turns two thousand years
>>>       
>> of communication theory
>>     
>>> on its head--having the audience be forced to adapt to
>>>       
>> the speaker, rathern
>>     
>>> than vice versa. Given that debate is dominated by a
>>>       
>> particular aesthetic, the
>>     
>>> judgment of judge qualification will only further, if
>>>       
>> not exacerbate, current
>>     
>>> exclusionary trends in this activity.
>>>
>>> Nor should qualifications be based on MPJ popularity.
>>>       
>> Just because your MPJ
>>     
>>> system breaks down every now and then does not justify
>>>       
>> the exclusion of
>>     
>>> otherwise educated human beings from judging, and
>>>       
>> worse, the exclusion of
>>     
>>> student debaters because their programs cannot meet
>>>       
>> your arbritrary standards
>>     
>>> of "qualified." There should be a clear
>>>       
>> standard for qualified judges that
>>     
>>> creates minimum exclusionary practices.
>>>
>>>
>>> Many of you will say, hire judges. I think you need to
>>>       
>> answer back a few
>>     
>>> objections. First, why should I hire judges when there
>>>       
>> are plenty of graduate
>>     
>>> students, my faculty, or alumni that would volunteer
>>>       
>> to do the work. The amount
>>     
>>> i spend on hired judges directly trades off with the
>>>       
>> number of students I can
>>     
>>> bring to a tournament--further privileging well funded
>>>       
>> programs. Second, where
>>     
>>> are these qualified judges for hire? I know that they
>>>       
>> are not always available.
>>     
>>> We were in a jam at North texas and UT dallas last
>>>       
>> year when I had four teams.
>>     
>>> It cost an arm and a leg to find and pay for  hired
>>>       
>> judges.
>>     
>>> I have a solution for this disturbing trend. The
>>>       
>> definition of a qualified judge
>>     
>>> for college policy debate: the person holds a four
>>>       
>> year college degree or
>>     
>>> higher. But, as it stand now, this vague term creates
>>>       
>> a very real hurdle for
>>     
>>> new programs and is one of the most exclusionary new
>>>       
>> practices to crop up in
>>     
>>> this activity.
>>>
>>> Scott Elliott
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> eDebate mailing list
>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>     
>
>
>       
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:10:49 -0400
> From: "Mike Davis" <davismk13 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
> To: paulj567 at yahoo.com
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<9a7f6f740808111410s2fe0d401id2cfca4cc36f210b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> We talked about this for GSU this year. The problem is what happens
> when someone leaves themselves off the preference so that they don't
> have to judge. As ti is we have people complaining that they have to
> provide five rounds of judging. Imagine what would happen if the teams
> that bring one team and three judges had to provide 12 rounds of
> judging for one team.
>
> Ideally, we would love it if people could judge as much as they can to
> help everyone's preferences, but in a world where that doesn't happen
> we have to find other ways to try to maximize judging.
>
> And I would guess Paul is 100% right about the reason the rule exists.
>
> Mike
>
> p.s. Paul Johnson is the best judge in the country when it comes to
> giving extra rounds to the tournament. At GSU the last three years we
> have abused Paul's kindness, but he keeps coming back.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Paul Johnson <paulj567 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>   
>> best solution is to institute an NDT style rule that everyone who comes with must judge a minimum number of debates. this prevents qualified judges from being in for only one or even zero debates while hiring out less highly preferred judges for the entirety of their committment.
>>
>> i think this rule exists not because of smaller programs who bring less well known judges (we may grumble about the people we dont know, but at the end of the day i think we "get it"), but because of programs with qualified judges who judge less than they should.
>>
>> pj
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 8/11/08, Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> From: Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
>>> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>>> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 2:24 PM
>>> I'd have to agree with Scott. We're just starting
>>> our CEDA program
>>> here at the University of South Florida (wish us luck!) --
>>> and I don't
>>> think anyone traveling with the team would be a
>>> "qualified" judge. In
>>> fact, my wife would likely be one of our judges. While
>>> she's got a
>>> cleaner flow than half the folks that judged me in college
>>> - and is an
>>> honest-to-god journalist at a real newspaper - she would be
>>> out on two
>>> counts even by Scott's measures below (not
>>> "qualified" and not a
>>> college graduate).
>>>
>>> So, how can the community help support small programs like
>>> ours, or
>>> big programs like Scott's that can't afford to hire
>>> the most popular
>>> judges or experienced grad students?
>>>
>>> Also, this is my first edebate post in probably 8 years.
>>> Good to see
>>> many of the same names.
>>>
>>> Jeremy Bowers
>>> St. Petersburg, Fla.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM,
>>> <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> MPJ has morphed into a insidious and more exclusionary
>>>>         
>>> process. Tournaments are
>>>       
>>>> now requiring teams to provide "qualified
>>>>         
>>> judges." This is a serious problem
>>>       
>>>> that means the difference, for my program, between
>>>>         
>>> travling four students and
>>>       
>>>> travling twenty students this year.  What counts as a
>>>>         
>>> "qualified judge?"
>>>       
>>>> I have been looking at the GSU and UNLV invites. Not
>>>>         
>>> focusing on them as some
>>>       
>>>> particular attack, but I have noticed a judging
>>>>         
>>> requirement to provide
>>>       
>>>> "qualified judges." We want to go to these
>>>>         
>>> tournaments, but now I don't think we
>>>       
>>>> can. (Let me be clear, this is a criticism of the
>>>>         
>>> trend, and not
>>>       
>>>> of specific programs or people, so put your ad homs
>>>>         
>>> away.) What is this code
>>>       
>>>> word? Does this mean "qualified," as in able
>>>>         
>>> to fairly to the best of one's
>>>       
>>>> ability to listen and evaluate arguments made by
>>>>         
>>> college students. Or, is this
>>>       
>>>> a code word for people that follow popular trends
>>>>         
>>> within the policy debate
>>>       
>>>> community?
>>>>
>>>> I have been around this activity for almost thirty
>>>>         
>>> years. But I have a program
>>>       
>>>> that is less than a year old. We have gone from zero
>>>>         
>>> teams to 8 or more teams
>>>       
>>>> in just one year. I don't have a set of graduate
>>>>         
>>> students who have been
>>>       
>>>> debating and coaching for ten years. So, I want to
>>>>         
>>> travel to  more tournaments
>>>       
>>>> and travel a lot of teams. However, I don't think
>>>>         
>>> we can fulfill our judging
>>>       
>>>> commitments. So, I  have students who have worked
>>>>         
>>> hard, went to camps, and
>>>       
>>>> are practicing. We have the funds to travel them. But
>>>>         
>>> we do not have enough
>>>       
>>>> judges to judge for our program. I spent  a few
>>>>         
>>> thousand dollars sending a
>>>       
>>>> graduate student to ADI, just so he would have some
>>>>         
>>> idea of what policy debate
>>>       
>>>> is. But with no real tournament debating experience,
>>>>         
>>> does he count as a
>>>       
>>>> "qualified judge?" I have been around the
>>>>         
>>> game for decades, but I have several
>>>       
>>>> political points of view about debate that are very
>>>>         
>>> unpopular. Does that mean I
>>>       
>>>> am unqualified? Many of you may say yes, I am
>>>>         
>>> unqualified (LOL. Which proves the
>>>       
>>>> point I am making.) If you don't like someone, or
>>>>         
>>> their political views, does
>>>       
>>>> that make them an unqualified judge?
>>>>
>>>> Does a graduate student count as a qualified judge or
>>>>         
>>> not? What about my
>>>       
>>>> department chair-a full professor of communication,
>>>>         
>>> but no debate background.
>>>       
>>>> What about my Dean--a full professor of analytical
>>>>         
>>> philosophy, but with no
>>>       
>>>> policy debate experience? What about a professor of
>>>>         
>>> women's studies or African
>>>       
>>>> American studies, but with no policy debate
>>>>         
>>> experience? Is policy debate going
>>>       
>>>> to become so exclusionary that only those who debated
>>>>         
>>> for four years and high
>>>       
>>>> school and four years in college are the only
>>>>         
>>> one's "qualified" to judge policy
>>>       
>>>> debates?
>>>>
>>>> If Ede and other critics of how this game is set up
>>>>         
>>> want to advance their
>>>       
>>>> critique of MPJ,and policy debate in general, this new
>>>>         
>>> manifestation of policy
>>>       
>>>> debate exclusionary policies has more impact on
>>>>         
>>> whether students can
>>>       
>>>> participate in debate than MPJ or any other aesthetic
>>>>         
>>> choices. Why? Because if
>>>       
>>>> we cannot cover our judging commitments because of
>>>>         
>>> these "qualified judges"
>>>       
>>>> provisions, our students do not travel to tournaments.
>>>>
>>>> Who gets to determine the qualifications of a judge?
>>>>         
>>> The tab room staff. Friends
>>>       
>>>> of the tabroom? People who think they got screwed in a
>>>>         
>>> round by a judge four
>>>       
>>>> years ago?
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't this create a self-perpetuating problem
>>>>         
>>> for women and minority
>>>       
>>>> participation as well as their points of view?
>>>>
>>>> I think it does because the
>>>> people making the decisons are making the evaluation
>>>> of what constitutes a "qualified judge"
>>>>         
>>> based on their subjective
>>>       
>>>> interpretations of what constitutes a qualfied judge
>>>>         
>>> in policy debate. My
>>>       
>>>> sneaking suspiscion is that this means the ability and
>>>>         
>>> willingness to flow
>>>       
>>>> debates at a million miles an hour and a willingness
>>>>         
>>> to accept anything
>>>       
>>>> presented in a round as a legitimate argument. Both
>>>>         
>>> are aesthetic trends that
>>>       
>>>> should not be the basis for considering a judge's
>>>>         
>>> qualifications. Just because
>>>       
>>>> a buntch of geeky guys love to spew at a million miles
>>>>         
>>> an hour cards of
>>>       
>>>> Hiedegger does not mean that a judge is unqualified.
>>>>         
>>> It means that those
>>>       
>>>> debaters have lost the first principle of persuasion,
>>>>         
>>> one must discern the
>>>       
>>>> available means of persuasion based upon their target
>>>>         
>>> audience. The focus on
>>>       
>>>> mpj and judge qualifications turns two thousand years
>>>>         
>>> of communication theory
>>>       
>>>> on its head--having the audience be forced to adapt to
>>>>         
>>> the speaker, rathern
>>>       
>>>> than vice versa. Given that debate is dominated by a
>>>>         
>>> particular aesthetic, the
>>>       
>>>> judgment of judge qualification will only further, if
>>>>         
>>> not exacerbate, current
>>>       
>>>> exclusionary trends in this activity.
>>>>
>>>> Nor should qualifications be based on MPJ popularity.
>>>>         
>>> Just because your MPJ
>>>       
>>>> system breaks down every now and then does not justify
>>>>         
>>> the exclusion of
>>>       
>>>> otherwise educated human beings from judging, and
>>>>         
>>> worse, the exclusion of
>>>       
>>>> student debaters because their programs cannot meet
>>>>         
>>> your arbritrary standards
>>>       
>>>> of "qualified." There should be a clear
>>>>         
>>> standard for qualified judges that
>>>       
>>>> creates minimum exclusionary practices.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Many of you will say, hire judges. I think you need to
>>>>         
>>> answer back a few
>>>       
>>>> objections. First, why should I hire judges when there
>>>>         
>>> are plenty of graduate
>>>       
>>>> students, my faculty, or alumni that would volunteer
>>>>         
>>> to do the work. The amount
>>>       
>>>> i spend on hired judges directly trades off with the
>>>>         
>>> number of students I can
>>>       
>>>> bring to a tournament--further privileging well funded
>>>>         
>>> programs. Second, where
>>>       
>>>> are these qualified judges for hire? I know that they
>>>>         
>>> are not always available.
>>>       
>>>> We were in a jam at North texas and UT dallas last
>>>>         
>>> year when I had four teams.
>>>       
>>>> It cost an arm and a leg to find and pay for  hired
>>>>         
>>> judges.
>>>       
>>>> I have a solution for this disturbing trend. The
>>>>         
>>> definition of a qualified judge
>>>       
>>>> for college policy debate: the person holds a four
>>>>         
>>> year college degree or
>>>       
>>>> higher. But, as it stand now, this vague term creates
>>>>         
>>> a very real hurdle for
>>>       
>>>> new programs and is one of the most exclusionary new
>>>>         
>>> practices to crop up in
>>>       
>>>> this activity.
>>>>
>>>> Scott Elliott
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> eDebate mailing list
>>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> eDebate mailing list
>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>>       
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   
-------------- 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/20080813/db4ed7d8/attachment.vcf 



More information about the Mailman mailing list