[eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies

Nick Ryan runlittleman
Wed Sep 23 13:23:48 CDT 2009


Liberty experimented with a solution to the jump drive problem at Georgia
State that for the most part enjoyed extensive success in minimizing wasted
time in-round and created several other benefits as well (like Malcom we say
for the most part because we have some teams who have put a lot of effort
into making paperless work, and some that have not).

The system connects three laptops together on an isolated wireless network
that does not require an external router, but rather uses only the internal
wireless cards of the three computers to instantly transfer files and
speeches back and forth.  Two computers are for the two debaters and include
a folder shared only between them, the third computer is for the other team
and a second folder is shared between all three computers that should only
hold the speeches presented in the round.  This allows the team to share
only their speeches with the other team and protects the rest of their files
from snooping.

This has several advantages -
     First, and most obvious, is the instant transfer of data between
partners and to the third computer both in round and during pre-round prep.
     Second, it doesn't require tournaments to have an external wireless
network in order to function properly.
     Third, it protects a teams files, and the danger of losing jump drives
with a teams backfiles or topic files on them is also greatly reduced
because you don't have to jump them back and forth between partner computers
or other computers on your team all the time.

Concerning the most common complaint of division of the 2AC for 2NC prep
time a jump drive can be made available for the negative to transfer the
speech to their own laptops during the 2AC c/x or the affirmative team can
lone one of their personal computers for the few minutes of prep time before
the 2NC.  Once the 2NC starts the aff would get their laptop back and the
1NR would keep the third computer to continue prepping.

The attached document includes instructions for creating the network and the
folder setup.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/bb769908/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Instructions for Setting up Ad Hoc Network.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 24776 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/bb769908/attachment.bin 



More information about the Mailman mailing list