[eDebate] Adoption of the 100 pt scale

David Glass gacggc
Wed Sep 23 13:33:00 CDT 2009


My suggestion on this is as follows:

1)   For several tournaments, continue to use the 30 point system, but
have judges also give
a score on the 100 point scale.

2)  Publish the data, in this forum, demonstrating the norms and
variance as to how different
people map the various scores on the 30 point system to the 100 point system

3) Discuss the data, in this forum

4) This will have the effect of educating everyone as  to the range
that the 30 point
scale is translated to the 100 point scale, and will help to decrease
dramatic outliers.

5) After this sort of transition period where people have a chance to
understand how
the 100 point scale is being used on average in the community, then
the 100 point scale could
be more safely adopted.

In contrast, if one just immediately switches over to the 100 point
scale, the odds
that different people will interpret the new system in very different
ways seem to be
very high, resulting in speaker awards that don't accurately reflect
the judges' intent.

David Glass

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:59 AM, michael hester <uwgdebate at gmail.com> wrote:
> Russell is correct. 87 is too high. i was conservative (i.e., tried to
> stay close to what i thought others would do) at GSU b/c i felt like
> UTD got jobbed last year missing on points and it affected their bid
> application.
>
> but i will also go on record and say my 100 point scale will look like this:
>
> 27-27.5: 70-74
>
> 27.5-28: 75-82
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?--> these two have large ranges b/c they are the
> areas i want to distinguish the most
> 28-28.5: 83-89
>
>> 28.5: 90-100
>
>
>
> i'm adding this to my judge philosophy (plus, there are some other
> additions since GSU)
>
> hester
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Jason Russell <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 87 should assuredly not be the average. That's ridiculous. If 87 is
>> average then we're using this scale needlessly and could easily use
>> the old 30 point scale just as well since it is likely no one is
>> getting below a 75 even if they're really terrible with 87 set as the
>> mark. In fact, that average would argue we'd need less
>> differentiation, not more.
>>
>> I'm not so worried about the top speaker having really high points as
>> I am about the middle and bottom being differentiated. The top 20
>> speakers at most tournaments are objectively very close in skill and
>> persuasiveness. Those debaters typically do A level work (90-100). I'm
>> not shocked they're about the same. I am constantly shocked at how
>> close the 50th debater is in points to the 20th debater. In my mind,
>> there is a huge difference.
>>
>> I wish tournaments would stop providing advice on what the scale means
>> because it directly influences judges. Many people I know have said to
>> me re: the old Wake system histogram "yeah, I thought a 70 or so
>> should be average like a term paper, but it says here an 82 is a 27,
>> so that's what I'll go by". Judging is so referential to important
>> opinion leaders and norms and trends that this simple suggestion
>> quickly becomes a law. Let's be honest: we got to the problem of point
>> inflation because many judges want the good teams to pref them. If you
>> give lower points, you won't get preffed by the top teams fighting for
>> elim seeding or even the 30-45 teams fighting to clear. So the trend
>> in points went up to satisfy debaters' egos and consequently judges'
>> egos. Now, because of these "suggestions" at tournaments regarding the
>> meaning of their scales, debaters have concrete expectations about
>> their points that START at 87. This is like students who walk into a
>> college classroom and believe that completing all of their work gets
>> them an A. It's nonsensical, uneducational, and frankly does debaters
>> a disservice in evaluating their true skills, both strengths and
>> weaknesses.
>>
>> 87 won't be my average at 100 point scale tournaments. I will start at
>> 75 and work from there.
>>
>> J
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



More information about the Mailman mailing list