Flat Preference

[Kenneth Broda-Bahm <broda@midget.towson.edu>]

Korcok mentions the 'middle route' of a flat preference system where 
teams would receive equal, but not necessarily high mutual preference.

Answering, as it does, the broad-education based objections to judge 
selection, this option was considered during my time on the CEDA Nats 
Judge Assignment Committee (does anyone remember that?  The result was a 
straw poll that _rejected_ the use of ABCX.).  

One problem with the flat system however is that it creates no incentive 
to fill-out the forms in the first place.  Teams might fill them out 
based on an altruistic love of fair judging, but from their own 
perspective they are limiting their chance of having a judge that is more 
preferred by THE OTHER SIDE as much as they are limiting their 
chance of of having a judge that is preferred by THEMSELVES.  Why bother?

Indeed, to take it further, teams that believe that in general there are 
more judges in the pool in will 'like' them as opposed to most of your 
opponents (e.g., if you are in the top 50% of 'respected and admired' 
teams) you will have an incentive to NOT fill out a preference form 
because it will level out a field that was heretofore in your favor.  

Ken Broda-Bahm
Towson State

---

• Prev by Date: SIU grad schoolJust a reminder to those who requested information about the two graduate
• Next by Date: Re: Rogers' Rebuttal
• Prev by thread: SIU grad schoolJust a reminder to those who requested information about the two graduate
• Next by thread: MPJ and Accountability
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page