[eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies

Glen Frappier gfrappier
Tue Sep 22 17:49:20 CDT 2009

Question - do the same judges who take prep time from teams who are trying
to go paperless  also penalize non paperless teams who can't find cards in a
timely manner to pass on to their opponents? I would say at least 5 minutes
per debate are lost transferring cards from one team to another and it is
rarely, if ever, taken out of anyones prep time. What about when someone
says "im ready" and then they tell their opponents that they need a couple
cards back. That generally takes as long as it does to jump the speech doc
so do you also take that out of a teams prep? What about when when we give
our oppoents the jump drive and it takes a while for them to open it due to
their own incompetence? Does that still come out of the paperless teams
prep?  What about teams who use paper but flow on the computer? If there is
a computer malfunction do you keep the clock running while they fix their
I have very rarely seen anyone keep a true "running clock" in a debate round
and it seems strange that the standard is now being applied to teams who
have made the decision to go paperless.
There is learning curve to getting this paperless thing down. My teams did
it pretty well last weekend but i'm sure there is room for improvement.
We're not going paperless in order to get an advantage over anyone, we're
doing it to try and stretch our dollar and provide more opportunities for
our debaters. Surely thats a goal we all support and i'm afraid that those
who think they need to police a paperless teams prep closer than non
paperless teams are actively trying to discourage this move. You might hate
paperless but i hate that it costs twice as much for my teams to attend
national tournaments because we have to fly literally everywhere outside our
district. Walk a mile in our shoes and see if you wouldn't want to make this
I guess i just don't see paperless teams as taking anymore time than teams
who use paper and i think they are being unfairly persecuted. Rant over.
Paperless is awesome and its inevitable. Get used to it.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Darren Elliott <delliott at kckcc.edu> wrote:

> I've read Russell's updated philosophy and it reminded me to make a brief
> post after judging 9 rounds at UNI this weekend in the dawn of paperless
> debate.
> I am not sure how I feel yet, and am looking at feedback/experiences of
> others.  So I have yet to decide about the prep time issue Jason elucidates
> but am leaning his direction.  It would be nice if other judges would state
> if they have a feeling about this one way or the other.
> Experiences this weekend with paperless teams:
> 1.  Extremely slow in terms of transfering data.  I gave leeway since it
> was the first tournament and its new and some of them even complained "It's
> not my choice, coaches forced it on us".  I began keeping track of time
> between "stop prep" and actual speech starting time to transfer data.  Avg
> amount--3 min 33 sec per speech.  Multiply that by 4-5 speeches by 4 debates
> a day.  Now Steinberg has to eat two donuts!  Seriously this is an issue.  I
> didnt take it off prep time this weekend.  But like I said leaning Russell's
> way.  If we add 15 minutes to every debate thats an hour to every day.  Some
> of the transfer issues were people relying on an internet connection to do
> it--never reliable at many tournaments, some were because of the speed the
> computer could keep up with I'm sure, and others were people finishing and
> not even having a jump drive where they knew where it was before they
> started prepping (here's an idea--keep it in the computer).  : )
> 2.  Most teams transferred data to the small netbooks.  A couple times the
> other team clearly was not happy to have to read from such a small computer.
>  Not sure how I feel about this.
> 3.  Transferring data and letting the team have the whole speech and asking
> them not to read ahead.  I think this is a good idea and is reasonable as a
> best practice.
> 4.  One team offered to jump it to the other team's computer, put it on a
> 3rd computer, OR print it out.  I like this option best.  It's good for the
> opponent who does not want to have to deal with your computer AND allows
> them to split the 2AC for the block's prep time.  This last thing is a big
> concern for me.  When the info is jumped to a 3rd computer only, the block
> has to share that computer to prep.  Paper 2AC's are something the block can
> split up physically with no issue.  So I am concerned for the block's
> ability to prep off 1 single computer.
> Those are just some random thoughts and experiences I had.  My biggest
> concerns are the prep time issue, and like I said I am leaning Russell's
> direction--counts as prep.  The utility of paperless for the opponent is
> also a big concern I have and something that created some minor issues this
> past weekend.
> Would love to hear solutions to the above problems from those who have
> become experts at this.  Would also like to know the prep time stance of
> other judges.
> thanks,
> chief
> ________________________________________
> From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On
> Behalf Of Jason Russell [jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:40 PM
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Subject: [eDebate] judge philosophy
> I've made some updates to my judge philosophy. Some of them may be
> applicable for paperless teams. Others are just about args like
> process cp's, T, and PICs/presumption. Some stuff about speaker
> points. Fair warning to those of you I'm judging in upcoming
> tournaments. It's nothing you don't already know if I judge you
> frequently, but I wanted to get it out there. It's on debate results.
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/67cf62b5/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list