[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Answers to MJP questions from Prof. Hunt
>Warning! Long Post!<
Prof. Steve Hunt says:
>While I am not necessarily opposed to MPJ, I have some questions.
Thank you for listening to MPJ, Prof. Hunt. I think you'll find
that MJP advocates can also engage in courteous defense of MPJ. :)
>Doesn't MPJ give a distinct advantage to those who travel more know more
>judges thus adding to an already advantageous situation for big rich
There are two schools of thought on this one. One school says that
"big" schools will parlay their already considerable knowledge into
an insurmountable advantage via choice of judges. Another school
says that the impact of that is mostly felt right NOW (non-unique)
but that if the "small" schools could be heard they could parlay
their small knowledge into EFFECTUAL choices, thereby reducing the
"big" v. "small" gap. I doubt I could quickly convince anyone that
the second one is right (which I believe) but here is some food
1. Many "small" schools want MPJ. For many reasons, including
competitive success and respect for their own advocacy.
2. Many "big" names are willing to advise others. Berkeley attended
several NDT tournaments this year and got phenomonal amounts of
advice from that community. Many CEDA members stand ready to help
with the CEDA pool. I feel good about saying "small" schools (like
Berkeley) have a chance with MPJ.
>Do some judges get kicked out of the pool or nearly so in MPJ thus
>alienating them and their programs and shrinking the forensics debate
>pool still further?
Yes, some judges may not be preferred (although this is hardly a given;
so far the only EMPIRICAL evidence from Tuna suggest that everyone is
preferred by someone). Would this cause alienation? Interesting
question... how much does one's ego get involved in being preferred to
judge? Not an ironclad link. But speaking of alienation, wouldn't
having a undesired judge surely alienate four individuals (the debaters)
and maybe some coaches (witness the flaming Yuri). And I think that
link is more probable.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, Prof. Hunt, but it sounds to
me like you are suggesting that the alienation of judges is a higher
impact over that of debaters. I hope not, because alienation of anyone
is bad, no matter their role as judge or competitor. So the more probable
alienation of four people should outweigh tenuous alienation of one.
Finally, some judges who are also coaches may take offense and leave
the activity. Perhaps. I see many coaches who don't mind sitting
out, not in the sense that they choose to do so, but in the sense
that they don't take it personally and truly enjoy debate and will
keep their program alive. I fear catering to those who would blackmail
the CEDA community with the existence of their own debate program.
>Yes there is some adaption in MPJ but if folks always want judges who
>accept speed or kritiques or don't buy or do buy topicality arguments
>etc. don't debaters avoid those who don't hold their own debate
>preferences which might also in some cases be called prejudices?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. If you're asking
whether "preferences" should be called "prejudices," this answer
might lie in examining the warrants behind the "preferences." If
these warrants are well-thought-out, they may avoid the trap of
being merely "prejudices."
>How do you deal with guest judges in MPJ? Since they are unknown, are
>they automatic strikes? This would really make guests feel good.
>Currently in debate national champions from 5 years ago are practically
>unknown strangers and would be kicked from the pool.
Well, when I see an unknown name on the sheet, I go ask the school
they are from about them. If they are guest, I would ask the host
school. No, they would not be automatic strikes. Probably someone
would know of the past champions and I think that this knowledge
would get shared.
Regarding guest judges who lack substantial qualifications (like the
department head or some political person), yes, they would not be
preferred. It is even possible that no one in the activity desires
to be judged by them. Heck, they may be just "sidelined." But, really,
so what? We have to eat this impact. Every school may not get the
budget they want at the expense of hurting debaters. This should be
obvious to anyone who cares about an EDUCATIONAL mission at all.
Yes, we have to eat the impact of a bunch of sour old deans pouting
around. And that's ok.
(Interestingly, think of this one in sports. What if the dean of
at Indiana U (where the Final Four was held) said, "Hey, I want to ref
a few games"? Athletics manages to preserve the integrity of their
activity... we owe it to ourselves to take debate at least as seriously.)
>What kind of MPJ is best? Do you rank all judges A B C strike or what?
I'll defer to others on this one. It usually works best when one
has a minimum number of As and Bs and a maximum number of strikes
to use. I've seen 65% work for the number of As needed.
>How much of a problem is it for tab room to enter MPJ for small
>tournament middle sized tournament large tournament?
>How much extra does it cost to assure MPJ vis utilizing paid judges vs
>obligated judges? under what assumptions?
>What does preferred mean does it mean picking l/3 of judges as A's l/3
>as B's or 40% as A's 40% as B's etc. how far do you have to go to make
>the system work?
>What happens when emergency changes are needed a judge becomes ill or
>does not pick up her his ballot?
>If a judge is obligated to 8 6 or 4 rounds but can't judge that many
>because knocked out by MPJ system, who absorbs the cost? is there enough
>judging power left? assuming how many "guest" judges?
I have never run a tab room of any kind so these questions will have
to be fielded by someone else. I know that it has worked smoothly
at tournaments I have attended of small, medium, and big size, but
I don't know the costs, etc.
>Are conflicts of interest handled as per usual in MPJ?
Yes. Judges must turn in a "can't judge this team" list.
>What if a guest judges comes for 4 6 or 8 rounds and only judges 2-3 or
>whatever rounds because knocked out by MPJ does this alienate guest judge
>who is obligated for time guest judge "sits" doesn't judge???
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the second part of this question.
See above regarding alienation and guest judges.
>Does MPJ exacerbate "incestuous" small groups with judges from a few
>schools always judging teams from a few other schools? cutting reducing
Well, if I say "no" would you believe it? No. There is no conspiracy.
Many small schools want MJP as a tool to increase their success. Also,
there really isn't a small group effect... with the (cancerous?) growth
of the grad. ass. across debate tons of schools now have judges that
the "incestuous" conspirators would like to have. :)
Also, I'd like to draw attention to your word choice of "exacerbate."
This word suggests to me an acknowledgement of a pre-existing problem.
The fact that you already are alarmed by this problem makes the
problem "non-unique" and the fact that at least some small schools
think that MPJ would solve this problem suggests the possibility of
a "unique link turn." And that's not a bad 2AR story for MPJ.
>I know these issues have been raised before and debated before but if we
>are really seriously looking at MPJ again they need discussion/debate in
>the marketplace of ideas once again.
Again, thank you for listening. I welcome the chance to address these
and any other concerns.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page