[eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies

Gordon Stables stables
Tue Sep 22 20:36:37 CDT 2009


One random suggestion from someone who very much appreciates the
importance of our community moving away from paper.

With the understanding that not all tournaments or debates have online
access - when at a tournament with online access - use a round
specific google group.

If paperless teams could create a google group for the participants at
the start of each debate (just like we used to fill  out a ballot)
all of the files could be immediately pasted to that group. It would
be instant (cut and paste) for all of the participants, including
judges. At the conclusion of the debate and decision the group could
be deleted. This doesn't involve software issues with jumping files or
potential virus issues on jump drives.  I suspect that this will be
much faster, especially on larger panels.

I appreciate all of the work done to make paperless happen and I am
curious to hear other ideas.

Gordon

Gordon Stables, Ph.D.
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
Office: 213 740 2759
Fax: 213 740 3913
www.usctrojandebate.com



On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Jim Hanson <hansonjb at whitman.edu> wrote:
> some thoughts on the issues darren has raised (I couldn't find jason's
> philosophy to respond to whatever his concerns are):
>
> 1. transfering data shouldn't take more than 40-50 seconds.
> ----if judges wanted, a 1 minute limit for transferring data (and not for
> prep'ing in any way) would be very reasonable. I don't think it is fair nor
> a good idea for judges to time transferring data from the get go. if you are
> really going to do that, I'd ask those judges to time paper teams getting
> files to the other team (and to time re-filing at the end of the debate)
> ----teams should do transfer drills--practice so they do it quickly.
> ----remember that at the end of the debate--the debaters are ready to go to
> their next round pretty much right away instead of taking 15-20 minutes to
> get their stuff refiled and then trudging with tubs and cart to their next
> round. that is time saved for dave's doughnuts. :)
>
> 2. re laptops for the block
> ----the aff should give the files to the neg on TWO computers so both the
> 2nc and 1nr can prep
>
> 3. re netbooks
> ----if the screen is really small and I can totally understand this as an
> issue
> ----netbooks are cheap but you can get $350-$550 totally useable laptops
> (inspiron 15s; they have other types available too). at
> dell:
> http://www.dell.com/us/en/dfh/notebooks/ct.aspx?refid=notebooks&s=dfh&cs=22
>
> jim :)
> hansonjb at whitman.edu
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Darren Elliott" <delliott at KCKCC.EDU>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:40 PM
> To: "Jason Russell" <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com>; <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies
>
> 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
>



More information about the Mailman mailing list