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] 87 Average? - Response from D Heidt
    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

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079629.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/079608.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] 87 Average?
    a range reserved for very very good performances I was surprised to find out that this was terribly low compared to the average I was even more surprised when people who would have in the past called me a point fairy were handing out high 90s To be frank I don t understand the point of the 100 point scale if 87 is average but that is neither here nor

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079577.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] 87 Average?
    0 80 and a 28 5 85 Other scales are pretty close to this but the translation from a 30 point score to a 100 point score would be more definite with this one Here s what the scale would look like 29 5 95 29 0 90 28 5 85 28 0 80 27 5 75 27 0 70 26 5 65 26 0 lol On Fri Oct 9 2009 at 11 31 AM gabe murillo gabejmurillo at yahoo com wrote I agree that there needs to be a discussion before tournaments about what the 100 point scale means When I heard that 87 was average at Kentucky I felt terrible for the people I judged I don t know if I gave above an 87 and I saw many debaters who I consider definitively above average My scale starts at 70 and probably averages around 80 90 and above is a range reserved for very very good performances I was surprised to find out that this was terribly low compared to the average I was even more surprised when people who would have in the past called me a point fairy were handing out high 90s To be

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079609.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] 87 Average?
    lower points overall but he is still preferred Repko suggests a lifetime judge variance system to fix the incentive to pref judges just because they often give high points http www mail archive com edebate at www ndtceda com msg03271 html mirrors http article gmane org gmane education region usa edebate 3402 http osdir com ml education region usa edebate 2007 11 msg00029 html http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate 2007 November 072838 html 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 If we match up the point distributions from Kentucky in 2008 and 2009 the pool engaged in a vote in some sense Matching percentiles 26 0 is 72 at 0 7 26 5 is 75 at 2 3 27 0 is 80 at 10 5 27 5 is 84 5 at 29 5 28 0 is 88 at 59 7 28 5 is 91 at 84 7 29 0 is 94 at 96 3 29 5 is 98 at 99 8 This scale is much higher than the scale suggested below or the one suggested by Hester Either one of those scales would be serious point deflation compared to Kentucky this year I m not suggesting that s a bad thing For charts see the link at the top of this message 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 78 72 26 9 26 0 71 60 Thoughts This is pretty close to a very easy to remember

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079599.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] 87 Average?
    would indicate an equal point scale among all judges the Kentucky tournament jumped from 1 54 to 2 30 in the last year for details see link above Also of note there was no jump in judge scale variance when Wake moved to a 100 point scale Wake provided a full page of instructions on how to use the new scale http groups wfu edu debate DixieClassic Shirley 20Information 202007

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079600.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] For those still killing trees
    each passenger on the itinerary of any premier member of Mileage Plus As you can book up to nine passengers on a single itinerary that s up to 18 bags free Now United is allowing non premier passengers to access this option for a subscription fee of 249 per year That means for a flat 249 for the year everyone on your reservations up to nine passengers can have two

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079542.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] Swing partnerS for KCKCC
    trees Next message eDebate Thank you Kentucky for a great tournament Messages sorted by date thread subject author ESU is now looking for a NOVICE swing partner AND and OPEN swing partner for KCKCC Sam Samuel A Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University next part An HTML attachment was scrubbed URL http www ndtceda com pipermail edebate attachments 20091006 ff85c4da attachment htm Previous message eDebate For those still killing

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079543.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive



  •