[eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing

Samuel Maurer chairman.maurer
Mon Aug 11 22:05:19 CDT 2008


How about this.  Every team attending the tournament must distribute
their respective judging commitments evenly between all of the judges
they bring.  How they distribute remainders is up to them.  So Mike's
example (3 judges, 1 team) two judges would judge one and a third
would judge two (Judge A = 1 round, judge B = 1 round, judge C = 2
rounds).  Seems to accomplish the same effect as Paul's suggestion of
the NDT-type rule and avoids Mike's point about unfair judging burdens
for schools with fewer teams.

A problem may be that this would create an incentive to hire judges.
As in, why wouldn't schools just hire-out all of their rounds (to an
"unqualified" judge) and then distribute what they had left among
their judges.  So a school with 3 judges and 5 teams would just hire
16 rounds to "unqualified" hired judges and then distribute 4 rounds
among 3 "qualified" judges, right?  I think this problem could be
alleviated by not allowing schools to hire judges in excess of the
highest commitment any of that school's judges.

So this would be against the rules:
3 teams (20 rounds)
Judge A = 1
Judge B = 1
Judge C = 2
Judge X (hired) = 8
Judge Y (hired) = 8

The hired judge round maximum, instead, would force this:
3 teams (20 rounds)
Judge A = 4
Judge B = 4
Judge C = 4  (so hired judge max is set at 4)
Judge X (hired) = 4
Judge Y (hired) = 4

or this:
3 teams (20 rounds)
Judge A = 5
Judge B = 5
Judge C = 5 (hired judge max is set to 5)
Judge X (hired) = 5

or, of course, this:
3 teams (20 rounds)
Judge A = 6
Judge B = 7
Judge C = 7

A lot of schools do this anyway.  I know JT and I always split the
rounds pretty evenly, I know that's what Wake used to do when I was
there ("Many hands makes light work").  Seems like it wouldn't be too
hard to implement.

Mandatory even distribution and a hired judge cap may alleviate some
of the issues with hi-commit, lo-pref judges that artificially inflate
the judging pool with unusable rounds.  There are probably a bunch of
problems with this that I haven't thought of yet so please point them
out if you see one.  I had just been kicking this idea around in my
heads since I saw discussion and thought I would  throw it out there.

Also, a couple of other comments about "unqualified" judges.  Someone
who show's up, is willing to make their best effort at thinking
through a debate and explain their thoughts about the debate
afterward, to me, is a qualified judge.   It takes a lot of guts on
the part of the people who don't really know what they're doing or
have been out of the game for awhile to step-in and try their best.
Some of us have been judging so long and so much we forget how scary
it was, even as a first-year judge who just graduated, to do it.  The
debate community as a whole holds these folks in very high regard (and
if not they should) and they should know that their efforts are
respected and that their courage is admired.  No one posting to this
thread is trying to take anything away from their efforts.

Thus, it seems easier to approach the problem of MPJ and lo-pref,
hi-commit judges from an angle that does not necessitate codification
of a term like "qualified" into some formal category (which I don't
think MPJ does; there's a difference between what one team prefers and
making some universal claim about who is good and bad at judging).  I
don't think anyone is attempting to undertake the latter. Rather we
are just trying to solve the LSAT-esque problem of a myriad of
different individual team preferences.

And, by the way, best of luck Jeremy!  USF seems like it would be a
great place to start a debate team, I hope everything works out.

Sam





On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Dr. Joe Bellon <debate.gsu at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have only two real things of substance to add to this discussion:
>
> First, the word "qualified" does not appear in our invitation. We say, and I
> quote: "we strongly encourage teams to bring judges whose reputation will
> allow them to judge their entire commitment of rounds."
>
> Second, we did not add this request because of some alleged "clash of
> cultures" split in the pool. We did this because we were hoping to encourage
> in-demand judges to actually judge debates. You will notice that there is no
> punishment, no enforcement mechanism, not even a hint of some kind of
> taxonomy for what constitutes a good judge. It's just a request.
>
> -Joe
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Mike Davis <davismk13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for the multiple posts. Gmail said it could not be sent and to
>> try again. I did. Sorry.
>>
>> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Michael Davis
>> Director of Debate/Assistant Professor
>> James Madison University
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
Samuel A. Maurer
Director of Debate
Emporia State University



More information about the Mailman mailing list