[eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Wed Sep 23 09:36:00 CDT 2009


Perhaps a google document is even easier than a google group. You can
immediately share it and you can terminate sharing preferences after the
round, watch for google wave to make this super easy in the coming weeks.
http://wave.google.com/

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Gordon Stables <stables at usc.edu> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090923/b360b19e/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list