[eDebate] GSU College Tournament Invite- Increased Judging Commitment

Stefan Bauschard stefan.bauschard
Mon Jul 21 20:08:38 CDT 2008

>I use at regional tournaments is ABC
with no strikes. I like it because it preferences mutuality instead of
preference. This means new judges get some exposure. Now I think if we
adopted this at the GSU tournament not as many people might come.

This is really the only solution I don't like at all. It is only
psychological (33% of the pool is not A judging for any team) and it is
harmful (it collapses preference -- within A there is A1, A2, A3 and in many
debates there will be A1,A3 "mutual preferences", essentially creating 1/3
judging in multiple debates in a 9 category system).

Systems with higher number categories better protect mutuality because they
can provide A2/A2 or A3/A3.  It *appears* to lower preference but it doesn't
because you can get those A3 judges (your 3s)  or your B6 judges (your 6s!)
all the time in the ABC system.

When running a tournament, I'd rather have the ability to try to give teams
an A1/A1 or an A2/A2 in a break round rather than end up given teams an
A1/A3.- Show quoted text -

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Mike Davis <davismk13 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I know that there are caselist related reasons for increasing the
> commitment as well, but I will say a couple of things from inside the
> tab room:
> 1. We have talked about the idea of charging people whose judges
> cannot be placed, but there are a ton of problems with that. A lot of
> it is luck of the draw so I may be able to get a person in four or
> five debates one year because the matchups happen to work out and then
> the next year they don't judge at all. Also, it seems to punish
> particular schools and judges. New judges (and anyone who hires them)
> will be unfairly punished as will those not associate with national
> level programs. It is amazing to see how people preference changes
> over the course of one year when they move to a big program. Finally,
> there are not very many judges for hire. Joe is generous with hired
> judging money and if there were more people to hire he would hire
> them.
> 2. Their is a weird phenomenon at GSU because it is the first
> tournament of the year. The judging pool gets compressed. Everyone
> tends to agree who the top judges are, but more importantly everyone
> seems to agree who the bottom judges are. Last year the bottom 3
> categories were the same for about 70% of the teams. The first two
> years we only gave 6s and 7s to teams that were out of the tournament.
> We lost over 100 rounds of judging under that system. We tweaked the
> system a little the last two years to allow 8s once teams are out (one
> of my own teams got a strike later year) and giving a very limited
> number of 6s and 7s (not more than one per team and not in a break
> round). Now we lose about 60 rounds from judges we are unable to
> place. We still have to beg for judging every year. Some people always
> give some never do. It is unfair that those who are generous have to
> accept the burden for everyone. The people who give these rounds
> complain about being asked every year and a bunch of people still
> complain about their judging. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I
> know that five rounds will help this problem. I am certainly open to
> other solutions.
> 3. It is not a question of A+ versus B judges. I wish it was. It is a
> problem of not having enough judges in the first five categories. I am
> all for changing the system of preference. I think that we have too
> many categories and the solution I use at regional tournaments is ABC
> with no strikes. I like it because it preferences mutuality instead of
> preference. This means new judges get some exposure. Now I think if we
> adopted this at the GSU tournament not as many people might come.
> I appreciate the start of this conversation and I admit I wish I could
> give everyone four rounds per tournament and have them only judge
> every other elim. I think it is more humane, but the community would
> have to drastically change their approach to mutual preference for
> this to happen (and keep more people in the activity to have enough
> judges).
> Mike
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:11 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Stefan Bauschard

President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com
Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools
Debate Coach, Harvard Debate

(c) 781-775-0433
(fx) 617-588-0283
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080721/23cb6e2c/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list