[eDebate] CEDA Nats and judging

[Sue Peterson]

Darren, et al...
   
  I agree with your analysis of the situation - I think it definitely will hurt rather than help the number of judges in the pool.  I also think that to be fair, judges who are committed should be used first and those not committed only as a last resort.  As put forward, it kind of sounds like everyone has an equal shot at judging four, even if your obligated to only judge one.  I can understand using people who are not committed in order to increase the mutual pref, but if the result is people staying out of the pool completely, I agree that it seems to defeat the purpose.
   
  --Sue

Darren Elliott <delliott at kckcc.edu> wrote:
      Im not Gary but I would like to chime in on this.  I know CEDA has a rule saying we can make people judge 4 rounds.  Without too much detail as to why, I am opposed to the rule as written.  Briefly I have one chief concern.  I think it hurts the judging pool or has the potential to.  Our rule is not written to make it a requirement that all eligibile judges at the tournament are in for 4.  Merely it is that if you are in the pool, you are in for 4.  So if you want to get around the rule just dont schedule yourself to judge any rounds.  It creates a situation where good judges who may otherwise be in for 2 rounds say, will now not judge any because they do not want to judge 4.  
   
  The invitation this year says the rule will be enforced.  If it comes to that I hope it doesnt have the unintended consequence of hurting our pool of judges.
   
  chief
   
  Darren Elliott
  Director of Debate--KCKCC
  CEDA 2nd VP Elect
  


>>> Sue Peterson <bk2nocal at yahoo.com> 3/28/2006 1:48 PM >>>


    Hi Gary..
   
  I'm just wondering about the 4 round rule.  Is everyone REQUIRED to list themselves as available for 4 rounds, or do we list ourselves as available for the number of rounds to cover commitment and then the tournament has the perogative to force us to judge extra (up to four) for the benefit of mutual pref?  Just curious...
   
  Thanks,
   
  Sue

Gary Larson <Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu> wrote:
  I've been assured that the debateresults site has been reopened. I
apologize for any inconvenience. It is absolutely essential that
everyone double-checks their entry today to ensure that the information
is correct. If you have a wait-listed team, make sure that you confirm
that they are now an actual entry. Also check judging t! o ensure that
the round obligations are correct. At present, my math tells me that if
we have 219 teams (201 + 18 waitlisted) we would need a MINIMUM or 876
rounds of judging. At present we have 793 rounds on Bruschke's site, a
shortage of 83 rounds! Beyond that, the operation of the tournament
(undisclosed conflicts, missed rounds, etc.) requires additional rounds
beyond the minimum obligation. Please inform us if you can assist in
this way.

GARY

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate



          Sue Peterson
  Director of Forensics
  Pepperdine University
  
  "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." 
  --John F. Kennedy








Sue Peterson
Director of Forensics
Pepperdine University

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." 
--John F. Kennedy




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060328/067874f7/attachment.html