[eDebate] Clay judging and other details

Gary Larson Gary.N.Larson
Sun Sep 27 13:45:59 CDT 2009

As of this AM there are 144 teams at Kentucky.  This means that with 4 rounds of commitment per team, we need 576 rounds.  Only 513 rounds have been committed so far so we need 63 more rounds.  Additionally, some judges are currently in for 8 rounds, rather difficult since there are only 7 preliminary rounds.  
I'd appreciate it if everyone would solidify their judging as soon as possible.  We will turn on the pref entry on Tuesday night so it would be best to have as accurate a list as possible at that point.  If you have constraints that aren't entered on Bruschke's system, please send them to me directly.
Two innovations this year - we will be giving judges the option of receiving and submitting ballots via e-mail (a slight variation on what Jon is doing).  If you would like to participate, I need to have you enter you enter your e-mail on Bruschke's site AND communicate you intent to participate to me.  THANKS
We also will use "round-weighted" ordinal preferences similar to those used at Georgia State.  You will enter ordinal preferences the way you have in the past.  But they be computed as a percentage of the entire judging pool based on the number of rounds of obligation for each judge.  For example, if the judging pool ends up with 576 rounds and 26 of those rounds represent judges you are constrained against and your #1 rated judge has a 4-round commitment, they will have a RW ordinal of 4/550 or .73%. If the next judge also has a 4-round commitment, they would be 1.46% and so on.
The reasoning behind the RW ordinal is that if there are 140 judges in the pool that have commitments that range from 1 to 7 rounds, the ordering of the judges should take into consideration how many rounds the judge will hear.  Otherwise a sheet that ranks all of the low commitment judges as best and one that ranks all of the high commitment judges are actually quite different, particularly if you ask the question of whether all of your judges were in the top "half."  It is potentially quite different to ask whether they were all in the top 70 judges or the top 275 rounds with the latter being more accurate and comparable.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/ef6c487e/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list