[eDebate] 87 Average?

Josh jbhdb8
Thu Oct 8 21:09:56 CDT 2009


It is worse, given the decline of competition rounds - and the increase in
unpredictable judge variability at the same time...many people are going to
start being two and out based on variability more than skills.

Josh

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Brian DeLong <bdelo77 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between
> pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale.
> Some people are on this 87=average boat, while others place average at
> around 78-80ish.  I'm no numbers game, nor an expert on the history of
> point distribution etc. but I do think more discussion on this scale
> should occur.
>
> Reaching consensus is clearly impossible.  People are still going to
> fight the good fight against point inflation.
>
> I would suggest that  tournament providers include in their invites an
> interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap.  You will
> have judges that fight this interpretation and that's fine, but for
> the rest of us who just want to make sure points are allocated fairly
> to the debaters it would be a great help to at least find a point of
> unity somewhere.  Without some point of consistent measurement to work
> off of we're going to continue to see some fairly decent judges being
> reduced on the pref sheets.  A counterargument to this is that maybe
> these anti-point inflation crusaders  aren't that great of judges to
> begin with in the first place.  Fair enough.  But for those of us who
> wish to stay in the realm of preferable judge, whether we are good or
> not, some baseline is needed.
>
> Maybe it would be wise for us to vote on scales of measurement to set
> a norm for this community.  We have the ability to set up an informal
> or formal voting system.  This method would at least take the
> responsibility off a tournament host from arbitrarily choosing a
> baseline scale.
>
> With that said, I am on board with voting for a point system that
> looks like this:
>
> 30-29.6 = 100-96
> 29.5-29.0=95-90
> 28.9-28.5=85-89
> 28.4-28=79-84
> 27.9-27=78-72
> 26.9-26.0=71-60
>
> Thoughts?
>
> To respond to number's games observations, As Ross Smith once claimed,
> the most recent scientific data indicates that we naturally cluster
> numbers to help us simplify complex information.  5 and 10 clustering
> is only inevitable.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20091008/f489c697/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list