[eDebate] How I voted for the First-Rounds

Mike Davis davismk13
Tue May 19 14:57:45 CDT 2009

Thanks for sharing. I think it is very useful to know what the method
individuals use for ranking.

My question is:

Can bad wins hurt you? If a team goes to a small regional tournament
and does not debate anyone in the higher tiers, but does not lose a
debate can the lower quality of those wins hurt their bid?


On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:37 PM,  <repkowil at msu.edu> wrote:
> As I did the first-round balloting (Feb), I included my rationale for each
> placement. Most of the decisions were based on math, but some were not.
> This is all part of an effort to have a slightly more transparent process --
> as well as a follow-up on this post:
> http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-January/077568.html
> That post explains the system that I (currently) use.
> I am hoping for non-Strega feedback on the system. Plus, I think some people
> may be interested in seeing how the theory of the system worked-out in
> practice.
> Also, please consider the committee works unlike any other committee I've
> ever really been on -- there is no "debate" within the committee as to how
> to rank, what criteria to use, etc.
> I owe a special thanks to Eric Morris of Mo State. He -- like me -- is a
> "debate rankings dork" of sorts. He helped me realize that the rationale for
> first-round voting can and should be discussed publicly. We both agreed to
> post on the subject -- and this is an extension of that joint effort.
> The rankings/rationale for each applicant are attached.
> The first two sections are for the math nerds ? the more interesting stuff
> is where the document starts to say:
> ??????????????? "Why ranked ranked Kansas 2nd, etc"
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Mailman mailing list