[eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies

christopher loghry loghry
Tue Sep 22 19:17:44 CDT 2009

I know I definitely appreciated the Gophers printing their speeches off @
Gonzaga. Chief is absolutely right about block prep time. Splitting up paper
copies is just so much easier than passing a tiny little netbook back and
forth with the added benefit of paper not running out of batteries.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:32 PM, David Cram Helwich
<cramhelwich at gmail.com>wrote:

> I have now judged a fair number of "paperless" debates and coached a squad
> through two "paper-less" tournaments.
> I do not have a particularly strong feeling about whether jumping or
> printing a speech should count as prep time. I do think that it is important
> that we develop a community consensus on this question. The evolution
> towards non-timed roadmaps probably shows that the norm will be towards
> non-timing, but I am not 100% certain of this.
> I will say that, in my experience to date, "jumping" takes more time than
> analgous activity (stacking tubs, etc). Very skilled Whitman teams (CS) are
> pretty fast at it, but most teams I have judged are slow (looking at you,
> Wichita ;).
> As a judge, I am pretty annoyed by people who just hand me a laptop when I
> ask for cards after the debate. I would much rather have an electronic copy
> that I can then delete after the debate--it is much easier to use a familiar
> system than one which is unfamiliar, particulary an older laptop or low-end
> netbook.
> One proposal that we have been kicking around is asking if we can print
> paperless team's speeches. As noted by Chief and others, it can be much
> easier to deal with a papered 2ac than one that is paperless.
> See yinz in Lexington.
> dch
> FYI: UMN teams print their speeches before delivering them. Should this
> activity count as "prep time?" It usually takes a minute.
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:40 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090922/23f42588/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list