[eDebate] GSU College Tournament Invite- Increased Judging Commitment

Brad Hall hallbrad
Mon Jul 21 19:52:55 CDT 2008

If the highly preferred judges would actually judge (or increase their
commitments beyond 1-2 debates), many of the problems would be solved. This
is not a new problem (it was discussed around the Shirley last year I
believe), but I think this post misdiagnoses the problem.

Perhaps the better solution is an NDT-style requirement that everyone at a
tournament judge 3-4 debates. It may seem easy to propose a purely financial
solution, but as anyone who regularly runs a college tournament can tell
you, there are not dozens of rounds of highly preferred judging who are only
waiting on a financial incentive to judge more debates.


On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Aaron Kall <mardigras23 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> ------------------------------
> "JUDGING REQUIREMENTS. Schools must supply 5 rounds of judging for every
> team, regardless of division. If you have two teams, for example, you will
> need to provide 10 total rounds of judging.  If this requirement is going
> to create a serious financial hardship for your team, please contact Joe
> Bellon (joe.bellon at gmail.com) so we can discuss possible alternatives."
>  this e-mail is not directed specifically at the gsu tournament, which i
> have always enjoyed.  i'm especially happy with the new tournament hotel.
> the gsu tournament just happens to be the first major tournament of the
> college season and it appears they've decided to increase their judging
> requirements.  i think this is a bad idea in general and think a dialogue on
> this idea and judge preferences in general needs to be started.  so,
> hopefully this e-mail will facilitate this process.
> i think it's generally a bad idea for our community to start increasing the
> size judging commitments and i hope other tournaments won't consider doing
> the same thing.  unless someone is being paid specifically to judge, four
> out of eight rounds seems to be an appropriate judging commitment .  i know
> directors and the like aren't going to be eager to judge a fifth debate, so
> this new policy will likely only add to increased tournament costs.
> considering recent increases in travel costs associated with oil prices,
> luggage, etc., it seems like this is possibly the worst time to further
> increase tournament costs/fees in this way.
> There are obviously many reasons, but in my opinion (after talking with
> many tab directors) the greatest reason college tournaments are constantly
> short on judging is because several teams are providing the requisite amount
> of judging, but not providing the requisite amount of "mutually preferred
> judging".  Tournaments routinely lose dozens of rounds of committed
> judging because several judges can be placed in few or zero rounds.  This
> problem gets exacerbated when a team fulfills their judging commitment with
> a non-mutually preferred judge and this same judge hires his or her other
> half commitment out to another team so they can also fulfill their judging
> commitment.  A new policy of increasing the size of judging commitments
> doesn't really get at the root of this problem.  It basically punishes
> everyone to make up for the rounds lost from teams that don't bring enough
> mutually preferred judges.
> One potential way to deal with this problem- If schools don't end up
> providing the requisite amount of mutually preferred judging at tournaments,
> they should pay the tournament the appropriate hired judging fee.  The
> tournament can in turn use this money to hire local mutually preferred
> judges and/or pay other mutually preferred judges at the tournament who have
> extra rounds available and want to judge additional rounds for money.
> If this type of system is viewed as unfair or too elitist (certainly
> reasonable concerns), I think we have to re-examine the whole concept of
> mutually preferred judging.  If the requisite amount of mutually preferred
> judging can't be provided by asking teams to provide half judging
> commitments, we should re-evaluate the system of mutual judging.  If this
> year it's 5/8 round judging commitments, 6/8, 7/8, or 8/8 won't be that far
> off in the distance.  At the NDT last year, we had to provide 24 rounds of
> judging for only one team.  I'm generally in favor of some type of mutual
> preference judging system, but not if the only way to achieve it is through
> increased judging commitments and fees.  I would personally rather get an
> A- or a B instead of an A+ judge, as opposed to subjecting the entire
> tournament to increased judging commitments/fees.
> Aaron
> ------------------------------
> With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. Connect on
> the go.<http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mobile_072008>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

Brad Hall
hallbrad at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080721/3600aae2/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list