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

Re: Rogers' response

On 4 Dec 1995, Jack Rogers wrote:
> Because random is honest and MPJ seems to suggest that I am getting something 
> that I am not.

 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.

JACK SAYS: BUT THAT'S THE FLAW IN YOUR ARGUMENT.  THE DEGREES OF PREFERENCE DO 
NOT MATCH, BECAUSE MY PREFERENCE IS NOT "VALID" DUE TO IGNORANCE.  IT ONLY 
LOOKS LIKE THEY MATCH, BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH "A's" ON THE SHEET.  I HAVE A LIST 
OF TEN FOREIGN FOODS THAT YOU KNOW LITTLE OR NOTHING ABOUT.  YOU MUST LIST AT 
LEAST THREE OF THE DISHES AS THINGS YOU'D LOVE TO TRY.  WHEN YOU TASTE THEM - 
AND DECIDE YOU DON'T LIKE THEM - IT DOESN'T MATTER, YOU MUST FINISH THEM, 
BECAUSE, AFTERALL, YOU RECEIVED YOUR PREFERENCE. IF TWO OF THE DISHES WERE 
INDIAN, DO YOU THINK A PERSON FROM INDIA WOULD HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER YOU?  IF 
YOU BOTH SELECTED AN INDIAN DISH, WOULD THIS CHANGE THE FACT THAT SHE WAS 
MAKING AN INFORMED CHOICE AND YOU WERE NOT?  WOULD THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU SHOULD 
BOTH BE EQUALLY PLEASED WITH YOUR CHOICE STILL APPLY?

 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.

JACK SAYS: RANDOM STRIKE ANSWERS THIS PRESS. I GET TO STRIKE. UNDER MPJ, WE 
MIGHT BOTH GET THE IDIOT WE WANTED TO STRIKE.  WITH KNOWLEDGE MPJ WOULD BE 
PREFERABLE. WITHOUT IT, IT'S JUST ANOTHER  FORM OF RANDOM JUDGING, BECAUSE I AM 
MAKING RANDOM CHOICES THROUGH IGNORANCE.

  In the case of disad #2, grant that mutual nonpreference is 
> better than random in some cases.  However, this doesn'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.

JACK SAYS: YES, PERHAPS MUTUAL "C" WOULD BE BETTER IN THE ROUND, BUT THIS 
DOESN'T ANSWER THE PRESS THAT WE ARE CREATING TWO POOLS OF JUDGES.  NOW ASK 
YOURSELF, DO YOU WANT ALL OUTROUNDS JUDGED BY MUTUAL "C"??? I THOUGHT THE WHOLE 
POINT OF MPJ WAS THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE SO VALUABLE A COMPETITION TO THE 
JERKS AND IDIOTS?

 - Meredith Garmon, Fisk U.

WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

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