[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Bad Judge Blues

* = quotation marks
There are no apostrophes


     Here we go: the annual *Nats is over so it
s time to bitch*
session.  I didn
t get to go to Nats this year.  I also didn
t hear a
single round on this year
s topic (although I wish I could have).
Does this make me, or others like me, a *bad* judge? It would
seem that to some, it would. Maybe they
re right.  I dont know. 
It
s not up to me to decide whether or not I
m a *good* judge. 
But the fact remains, I will participate given the opportunity.
     Im a little uncomfortable with the premise that *we all know
those great seniors deserved to go farther than they did.*  If we
can determine who is best by past record, or reputation, or
coaches opinions, then why do we even hold a national
tournament? We could just call Yuri and ask who should win.
Or, maybe take a poll.  Saying that *team X should have gone
farther* is basically saying that all of those less known teams
dont even have a chance. We know how the round should come
out - X shouldve won.  I firmly believe that those less known
teams DO have a chance. One of the few advantages they have
is that they are less known, and maybe prepared for less than
the favorites.
     Part of the tournament is that the underdog has a chance.
Look at what happened immediately prior to the National
tournament. A case list was put out for many who attended
(except for some of the most powerful - why wouldn
t YOU
participate?). Messages appeared everyday asking for case info
and cites. What do you think the people asking for these did?
Nothing?  It seems a little strange to me that most on here yell
*Oh, we need disclosure. We need to share cases. Openness
creates better debate!*  But when it actually happens you bitch
because the *favorites* didn
t win.
     I certainly won
t pretend that some judges arent better than
others.  But I think many times there is a grey area in a round
where it depends ON THE JUDGE
S interpretation of what is
said. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LANGUAGE AND
COMMUNICATION HERE. It is NOT black and white. ANY
time language is used there is room for interpretation. Often (it
seems), if the interpretation didnt go a particular teams way, it
is chalked up to *bad judges.*  I refuse to believe that just
because someone does it differently than I would like, that they
are bad.
   Weve had this MPJ discussion before, but Id certainly be
willing to hear it again. Hopefully some new insights have come
out. I am against MPJ at nationals for reasons I
ve delineated
before. Id like to hear if there are new reasons for it. Obviously,
there is a significant portion of our participants who would like
it. But the last time it went for a vote... it lost.  I would support
random the first half of the tournament. MPJ the second half,
and a mixture in out rounds.  But if we just want to speculate
on who should have *gone farther* just because they are a
senior, lets just save all the travel and call the psychic hotline.

                      Mark Whitney
                      Mark Whitney
                     SUNY Morrisville
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page