[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Rogers' response
MPJ doesn't promise that you'll get A's (and not just guess-A's
either). MPJ only promises just what it delivers: that the degree of
preference you marked on your sheet for the judge you end up getting will
match the degree of preference your opponent marked for that judge.
Yes, it is always a disadvantage to know less than someone else,
> but in the case of disad #1, the illusion is that I am getting to decrease the
> impacts of that ignorance by making choices. My argument here is that they are
> empty choices.
I agree that if you don't know anyone on the sheet, then your
choices will all be empty. But if there's even ONE judge on that sheet
that you know you want to strike, or know you want to rate A, you're
better off than you would be with random judging.
In the case of disad #2, grant that mutual nonpreference is
> better than random in some cases. However, this dosen't answer the press that
> we still create two pools of "A" judges that makes it increasingly difficult as
> the out rounds loom near to select mutually prefered judges. Hence, the out
> rounds might be "doomed" to all "C" choices?
What's the alternative? Take our chances with judges in those
rounds that are (or would be, had preferences been indicated) A for one side
and B or C for the other? Mutual C would be better.
- Meredith Garmon, Fisk U.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page