[eDebate] Participant Consensus

[Andy Ellis]

why the points for consensus. coercion for consensus seems to not
really be much of consensus at all.

On 12/23/07, Michael Kloster <kloster at mynamesmike.com> wrote:

> In the spirit of Participant Consensus, friendly amendments are welcome.

>

> In a backchannel I had suggested a new category of "consensus points"

> which could be used as the first category in seeding after win / loss

> (ahead of speaker points).

>

> Bonus speaker points have also been suggested.

>

> Michael Kloster

>

> Shawn Whalen wrote:

> > A better system - 3 points for a win given by judge, 0 points for loss

> given

> > by judge, 2 points for a win that is negotiated, 1 point for a loss that

> is

> > negotiated.

> >

> > sw

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On

> > Behalf Of Michael Kloster

> > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 6:12 PM

> > To: edebate at ndtceda.com

> > Subject: [eDebate] Participant Consensus

> >

> > What would you think if after each debate round the participants had 15

> > minutes to discuss the round and come to a consensus on who won? If they

> > came to a consensus, the winner would be awarded a 1.5 round win and the

> > loser would get a .5 round loss. In other words each team would get a

> > half round bonus for coming to a consensus. If no consensus was reached

> > the judge would render a decision.

> >

> > In the history of competitive debate has there already been

> > experimentation with such a concept?

> >

> > Michael Kloster

> >

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > 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

>