[eDebate] 87 Average?

JP Lacy lacyjp
Fri Oct 9 17:45:37 CDT 2009


JP Lacy wrote:
> [Quick summary -- Judges should figure out the "community scale" & use 
> it unless a tournament publishes other guidelines.]
>
>
> I'm not a numbers person at all. I'm also struggling like everyone 
> else with the 100 point scale. My point assignment at GSU & Kentucky 
> was basically lousy.
>
> My old scale:
>
> You cheated: 0
> Rude: 26
> Below average = 27.5
> Average = 28
> Clearing = 28.5
> Getting a top 10 speaker award = 29
> Getting a very high speaker award = 29.5
>
> I know, this scale is not optimal. Its inflated compared to most 
> judges, but I don't like being a spoiler.
>
> Just for fun, I translated my old scale into a 100 point scale. I used 
> division to do it.
>
> Translation of my old scale using math:
>
> Below average = 92
> Average = 93
> Clearing = 95
> Getting a top 10 speaker award = 97
> Getting a very high speaker award = 98
>
> Ugh!! That scale is just as bad as the old broken 5 point scale 
> (27.5-29.5)
>
> We all know the old scale isn't very good: The important distinctions 
> (The ones between teams clearing & not, and the ones between the top 
> speakers) are basically statistical "noise."
>
> So, the 100 point scale is better.
>
> I'm a fan of following the judging pool when it comes to points. I 
> don't think its fair to do otherwise. That does not mean "if you got 
> good points before, you get them from me." That does mean if your 
> debating in the round I judge you is "top ten" quality, you get "top 
> ten" points.
>
> I eyeballed the Kentucky results & came up with the following scale, 
> which seems to reflect where the community is going:
>
> Below average = 83 (Depends.) Debaters are above average students. 
> Below average competitors don't need a point value to learn how much 
> worse than mediocre they were, unless they were rude or cheated.
> Average = 85
> Clearing (barely)= 87
> Clearing high in your not undefeated bracket = 90
> Getting a top twenty speaker award = 92
> Getting a top ten speaker award = 93
> Getting a top five speaker award = 94
> Top Speaker = 96
>
> I won't say "this is the proper scale." I won't say it fixes all the 
> problems with the old 30 point scale. I will say that after 2 
> tournaments, it is the one in use. Out of fairness, I'll stick to it & 
> adjust it according to how others use it if tournaments don't publish 
> guidelines.
>
> I'm completely in favor of tournaments setting ground rules for the 
> use of the scale: It makes results more meaningful.
>
> If a tournament publishes guidelines, I'll follow them. Bucking the 
> instructions at a tournament just messes up the results.
>
> -- JP
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Brian DeLong 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
>>
>>
>>   
>
>




More information about the Mailman mailing list