[eDebate] CEDA Nats and judging

[Josh Hoe]

The way the rule should operate is "all critics who are elligible to judge
are committed for 4 debates.  Only critics who have judged LESS than 12
rounds are not committed to the pool."  That solves the free rider problem,

Josh


On 3/28/06, Sue Peterson <bk2nocal at yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>  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 thi! s.  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-c! hecks 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

>

> _______________________________________________

> eDebate mailing list

> eDebate at ndtceda.com

> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060328/c4ecc644/attachment.htm