[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: MPJ at Nats
Mark Whitney says:
> One response was that the booklet needs to be updated and made more
>accurate. This is fine. I doubt many would disagree with that. But it still
>remains that no matter how good the book becomes, it can NEVER replace actual
>experience with a judge. Others have said that other teams would help you
>pick. That's sure nice. And I believe that they would be doing it in good
>spirit. But why would I want to rank strange judges by what someone else
>likes? Unless they are exactly like the team in question, their
>interpretation
>will necessarily be different. It does NOT replace actual experience.
I think that there is genuine and helpful advice. I don't think
that teams have to be the same to advise one another. I think that
those giving advice can pin down relatively easily something about
teams and judging to be helpful. I've seen it work.
Incidentally, can you coach debaters who are not exactly like yourself?
And, yes, of course, this advice won't be perfect nor will it
replace actual experience. But it will suffice for a TURN to
the lack of exposure that "small" schools would have in any case.
> PROCEDURALLY, MPJ gives the teams with personal
>experience with a lot of judges more of a chance at having a judge they
>"Prefer".
Ah, this argument always comes up against MPJ and I still just
don't get it. Let's play with some numbers here (feel free to
offer your own as a counter-scenarios). Let's say team "big"
is hitting team "small" at Nats. "Big" is lucky enough to know
half of the critics that remain after those from their area and
their strikes are eliminated. Poor "small" - they only know
one fifth after regional constraints and strikes.
(I'm using the big/small labels here with irony.)
To analyze what happens when they debate, you have to make
an assumption over whether team "small" likes the same judges
team "big" likes. Lets consider three illustrative cases:
1. "Small" likes "big" judges.
Probability they both like the judge: 20%
Probability "big" likes the judge and "small" doesn't: 30%
Probability "small" likes the judge and "big" doesn't: 0%
Probability neither likes the judge: 50%
2. "Small" hates "big" judges.
Probability they both like the judge: 0%
Probability "big" likes the judge and "small" doesn't: 50%
Probability "small" likes the judge and "big" doesn't: 20%
Probability neither likes the judge: 30%
3. Half of "small's" pool is in the "big" pool.
Probability they both like the judge: 10%
Probability "big" likes the judge and "small" doesn't: 40%
Probability "small" likes the judge and "big" doesn't: 10%
Probability neither likes the judge: 30%
Get the picture yet? There will always be a 30% advantage for
"big" in one of the categories. So the harm is very, very
non-unique. Could MPJ make this harm worse? I've never
seen a suggestion that it does. Could MPJ make this harm
less? YES!!! And there's the "unique link turn" to this
type of problem! MPJ will reduce the middle two results,
the results where things aren't MUTUAL, that are simultaneously
the results where "big" is hurting "small."
I encourage/challenge you to post any scenarios or numbers
that you think I've missed.
================================
I'm not trying to be nasty with the above example. I
really just don't get it. I try to get it, but I just see the
numbers and the way they work out.
Please take a moment to evaluate the above arguments over
this disadvantage to MPJ.
Answer for yourself. Hurting small schools is a big impact.
But just mentioning the harm does not a disadvantage make.
There's a unique link turn on the flow. The harm exists
now and MPJ would help decrease it. Let's get started!
Thanks for reading,
Zack
MPJ Advocate
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page