[eDebate] GSU College Tournament Invite- Increased Judging Commitment

Aaron Olney aaron.olney
Mon Jul 21 20:59:38 CDT 2008

Get rid of it all together.  MPJ is both exclusionary and bad for education
and not helpful for debaters in the long run.  How often do you get to pick
the person interviewing you for a job?  What happened to adapting to your
surroundings?  Sure there is some of that going on, but with no MPJ, people
would learn to adapt a lot more.   So what if the Harvards, Northwesterns,
Emory's get upset in an early out round occasionally.  It makes for good
drama and good stories and makes this activity more exciting.  Bad judging,
good judging... who is to decide which is which.  Sometimes luck plays into
it, but that is true with life.  Lets play for real and get rid of it all

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Stefan Bauschard <
stefan.bauschard at gmail.com> wrote:

>  >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
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080721/ba5bca17/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list