[eDebate] 87 Average?
Mon Oct 12 14:36:16 CDT 2009
I basically used a scale very similar to the one JP settled on at the end of
his email for both GSU and UK. However, I am really troubled by those
judges who are trending MUCH lower and assuming the "average" points means
all "average" debaters should get those numbers or, in many cases, lower.
As the great Ross Smith told me six of so years ago "you shouldnt punish
teams for wanting to prefer you as a judge."
It is doubly dangerous to over-adjust down because we are also compressing
prelims at all major tournaments. The combination of these trends makes
every judge who is starting at the low end of the spectrum a real
disadvantage for the teams the prefer them. I really do not like the idea
of having to move judges I think are very good down simply because they have
decided to embrace a lower than average scale.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:09 AM, JP Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu> 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
> 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
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman