[eDebate] 87 Average?

Stefan Bauschard stefan.bauschard
Tue Oct 13 08:31:02 CDT 2009


Not "my scale" (yet), but you could use:

30=100
29.9=99
29-8=98

With most judges not usually giving below a 27 on the 30 scale, this creates
a scale of 70-100.

I think it effectively deals with one of the rationales for moving to 100 --
creating differentials without moving to 29.8, 29.9, etc.

It doesn't deal so well with the second rational for moving to 100 (as
opposed to some other change) -- people understand a 100 point grading
system.  A 27 isn't really a bad score for a debate speach, but a 70,
especially for most debaters, is a pretty bad grade.  A 60 (which would be
awarded if you gave someone a 26) is basically an F.  While a 26 certainly
signals that you have to do a lot of work to get better, a 60
potentially communicates that you failed at debate.

I think that conceptualizing the point scale as a grade is making this
someonewhat difficult, especially for instructors who ordinarily give at
least an 80 unless work is "really bad."




On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 6:45 PM, JP Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu> wrote:

>  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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>



-- 
Stefan Bauschard

President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com
Debate Coach, Harvard Debate
Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools
Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011


(c) 781-775-0433
(fx) 617-588-0283
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091013/c60db47b/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list