archive-org.com » ORG » C » CEDADEBATE.ORG

Total: 418

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • [eDebate] Looking for Judges for Capitol Debate Fall Classic HS Tournament - Oct 31 and Nov 1
    Messages sorted by date thread subject author Capitol Debate Fall Classic High School Tournament held near DC is looking to hire judges for its tournament on October 31 and November 1 If you think you will be highly preferred on the MPJ lets talk We will pay your travel and hotel expenses We are getting a nice draw for this tourney and want to have an exceptional TOC judge pool

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079571.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive


  • [eDebate] Looking for Judges for Capitol Debate Fall Classic HS Tournament - Oct 31 and Nov 1
    by date thread subject author Capitol Debate Fall Classic High School Tournament held near DC is still looking to hire a couple more judges for its tournament on October 31 and November 1 If you think you will be highly preferred on the MPJ lets talk We will pay your travel and hotel expenses We are getting a nice draw for this tourney and want to have an exceptional TOC

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079691.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] 87 Average?
    point inflation I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites an interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap You will have judges that fight this interpretation and that s fine but for the rest of us who just want to make sure points are allocated fairly to the debaters it would be a great help to at least find a point of unity somewhere Without some point of consistent measurement to work off of we re going to continue to see some fairly decent judges being reduced on the pref sheets A counterargument to this is that maybe these anti point inflation crusaders aren t that great of judges to begin with in the first place Fair enough But for those of us who wish to stay in the realm of preferable judge whether we are good or not some baseline is needed Maybe it would be wise for us to vote on scales of measurement to set a norm for this community We have the ability to set up an informal or formal voting system This method would at least take the responsibility off a tournament host from arbitrarily choosing a baseline scale With

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079541.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] 87 Average?
    point scale Some people are on this 87 average boat while others place average at around 78 80ish I m no numbers game nor an expert on the history of point distribution etc but I do think more discussion on this scale should occur Reaching consensus is clearly impossible People are still going to fight the good fight against point inflation I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites an interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap You will have judges that fight this interpretation and that s fine but for the rest of us who just want to make sure points are allocated fairly to the debaters it would be a great help to at least find a point of unity somewhere Without some point of consistent measurement to work off of we re going to continue to see some fairly decent judges being reduced on the pref sheets A counterargument to this is that maybe these anti point inflation crusaders aren t that great of judges to begin with in the first place Fair enough But for those of us who wish to stay in the realm of preferable judge whether we are good or not some baseline is needed Maybe it would be wise for us to vote on scales of measurement to set a norm for this community We have the ability to set up an informal or formal voting system This method would at least take the responsibility off a tournament host from arbitrarily choosing a baseline scale With that said I am on board with voting for a point system that looks like this 30 29 6 100 96 29 5 29 0 95 90 28 9 28 5 85 89 28 4 28 79 84 27 9 27

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079572.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] 87 Average?
    Kentucky results came up with the following scale which seems to reflect where the community is going Below average 83 Depends Debaters are above average students Below average competitors don t need a point value to learn how much worse than mediocre they were unless they were rude or cheated Average 85 Clearing barely 87 Clearing high in your not undefeated bracket 90 Getting a top twenty speaker award 92 Getting a top ten speaker award 93 Getting a top five speaker award 94 Top Speaker 96 I won t say this is the proper scale I won t say it fixes all the problems with the old 30 point scale I will say that after 2 tournaments it is the one in use Out of fairness I ll stick to it adjust it according to how others use it if tournaments don t publish guidelines I m completely in favor of tournaments setting ground rules for the use of the scale It makes results more meaningful If a tournament publishes guidelines I ll follow them Bucking the instructions at a tournament just messes up the results JP Brian DeLong wrote Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale Some people are on this 87 average boat while others place average at around 78 80ish I m no numbers game nor an expert on the history of point distribution etc but I do think more discussion on this scale should occur Reaching consensus is clearly impossible People are still going to fight the good fight against point inflation I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites an interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap You will have judges that fight this

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079573.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] 87 Average?
    the Kentucky results came up with the following scale which seems to reflect where the community is going Below average 83 Depends Debaters are above average students Below average competitors don t need a point value to learn how much worse than mediocre they were unless they were rude or cheated Average 85 Clearing barely 87 Clearing high in your not undefeated bracket 90 Getting a top twenty speaker award 92 Getting a top ten speaker award 93 Getting a top five speaker award 94 Top Speaker 96 I won t say this is the proper scale I won t say it fixes all the problems with the old 30 point scale I will say that after 2 tournaments it is the one in use Out of fairness I ll stick to it adjust it according to how others use it if tournaments don t publish guidelines I m completely in favor of tournaments setting ground rules for the use of the scale It makes results more meaningful If a tournament publishes guidelines I ll follow them Bucking the instructions at a tournament just messes up the results JP Brian DeLong wrote Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale Some people are on this 87 average boat while others place average at around 78 80ish I m no numbers game nor an expert on the history of point distribution etc but I do think more discussion on this scale should occur Reaching consensus is clearly impossible People are still going to fight the good fight against point inflation I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites an interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap You will have judges that fight

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079580.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] 87 Average?
    like being a spoiler Just for fun I translated my old scale into a 100 point scale I used division to do it Translation of my old scale using math Below average 92 Average 93 Clearing 95 Getting a top 10 speaker award 97 Getting a very high speaker award 98 Ugh That scale is just as bad as the old broken 5 point scale 27 5 29 5 We all know the old scale isn t very good The important distinctions The ones between teams clearing not and the ones between the top speakers are basically statistical noise So the 100 point scale is better I m a fan of following the judging pool when it comes to points I don t think its fair to do otherwise That does not mean if you got good points before you get them from me That does mean if your debating in the round I judge you is top ten quality you get top ten points I eyeballed the Kentucky results came up with the following scale which seems to reflect where the community is going Below average 83 Depends Debaters are above average students Below average competitors don t need a point value to learn how much worse than mediocre they were unless they were rude or cheated Average 85 Clearing barely 87 Clearing high in your not undefeated bracket 90 Getting a top twenty speaker award 92 Getting a top ten speaker award 93 Getting a top five speaker award 94 Top Speaker 96 I won t say this is the proper scale I won t say it fixes all the problems with the old 30 point scale I will say that after 2 tournaments it is the one in use Out of fairness I ll stick to it adjust it according to how others use it if tournaments don t publish guidelines I m completely in favor of tournaments setting ground rules for the use of the scale It makes results more meaningful If a tournament publishes guidelines I ll follow them Bucking the instructions at a tournament just messes up the results JP Brian DeLong wrote Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale Some people are on this 87 average boat while others place average at around 78 80ish I m no numbers game nor an expert on the history of point distribution etc but I do think more discussion on this scale should occur Reaching consensus is clearly impossible People are still going to fight the good fight against point inflation I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites an interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap You will have judges that fight this interpretation and that s fine but for the rest of us who just want to make sure points are allocated fairly to the debaters it would be a great help to at

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079614.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] 87 Average?
    80 unless work is really bad On Fri Oct 9 2009 at 6 45 PM JP Lacy lacyjp at wfu edu wrote JP Lacy wrote Quick summary Judges should figure out the community scale use it unless a tournament publishes other guidelines I m not a numbers person at all I m also struggling like everyone else with the 100 point scale My point assignment at GSU Kentucky was basically lousy My old scale You cheated 0 Rude 26 Below average 27 5 Average 28 Clearing 28 5 Getting a top 10 speaker award 29 Getting a very high speaker award 29 5 I know this scale is not optimal Its inflated compared to most judges but I don t like being a spoiler Just for fun I translated my old scale into a 100 point scale I used division to do it Translation of my old scale using math Below average 92 Average 93 Clearing 95 Getting a top 10 speaker award 97 Getting a very high speaker award 98 Ugh That scale is just as bad as the old broken 5 point scale 27 5 29 5 We all know the old scale isn t very good The important distinctions The ones between teams clearing not and the ones between the top speakers are basically statistical noise So the 100 point scale is better I m a fan of following the judging pool when it comes to points I don t think its fair to do otherwise That does not mean if you got good points before you get them from me That does mean if your debating in the round I judge you is top ten quality you get top ten points I eyeballed the Kentucky results came up with the following scale which seems to reflect where the community is going Below average 83 Depends Debaters are above average students Below average competitors don t need a point value to learn how much worse than mediocre they were unless they were rude or cheated Average 85 Clearing barely 87 Clearing high in your not undefeated bracket 90 Getting a top twenty speaker award 92 Getting a top ten speaker award 93 Getting a top five speaker award 94 Top Speaker 96 I won t say this is the proper scale I won t say it fixes all the problems with the old 30 point scale I will say that after 2 tournaments it is the one in use Out of fairness I ll stick to it adjust it according to how others use it if tournaments don t publish guidelines I m completely in favor of tournaments setting ground rules for the use of the scale It makes results more meaningful If a tournament publishes guidelines I ll follow them Bucking the instructions at a tournament just messes up the results JP Brian DeLong wrote Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079638.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive



  •