Regional restraints with pick 20

[Steven Hunt <hunt@lclark.edu>]

Currently the National CEDA tournament has regional constraints on 
judges. If pick 20 + which is really pick 20 or more passes, I would 
think people ought to be allowed TO PICK PEOPLE FROM THEIR OWN DISTRICT 
AS PREFERRED. We would still keep regional judges off judging regional 
teams unless it was their choice. 
Remember Pick 20 + is not ABC X  but A    B     X.
A's are preferred 20 +  if you pick a lot more than 20 say 40, 50, 60, or 
80 the term might be "acceptable" or "ok" "good judges" instead of 
preferred. 
B's are people you don't prefer or accept but also people you don't strike.
In many instances, B's would be people you don't know or don't know well 
or find sort of acceptable but you really don't prefer them. B's ARE ALL 
THE PEOPLE YOU DON'T PUT DOWN AS PREFERRED BUT ALSO DON'T STRIKE.
X'S  people that you strike. This would probably be l0% of the total pool 
or about l5 or l6 judges + , if it passes, those with less than l2 rds on 
the Spring topic that you use as free strikes. 

If you are down 3 under the Mahoney plan, the computer is instructed to 
try to find you and your opponent 2 mutual A judges. It then does this 
for down 2 folks and then down l folks and then no loss folks. As Gary 
Larson stated, most maybe all down 3 would get mutual A's (if people had 
picked 20+ esp. if they had picked more than 20 but remember preferred 
becomes good or acceptable at a certain point of picking more)Many of the 
down 2 folks would also get mutual A's but not all. Down l and down none 
folks would probably get mutual B's not mutual A's in Rd IV. In Rd V this 
happens again. Down 3's try to get mutual A's and probably it happens.
Down 2 some get mutual A's some mutual B's down l and none probably get 
mutual B's  Down 4 get mutual B's as they are out of it. This happens 
again in Rds VI VII and VIII. The down 3's get preference RDs IV V VI VII 
and VII the down 2's get next preference The down l's next preference. 
The down none's get next preference. The down 4 or more get no 
preference. 

The reason I say people could pick regional judges as part of their pick 
20+ if that it would allow real preference if a regional judge is one of 
your top 20 or 30 for real. It would also allow small programs not 
knowing many judges to pick judges they know and like respect. 

However, this does breed a potential problem that is avoided by absolute 
regional constraints. If you pick an A judge because you really like and 
respect her, and I pick the same judge, a regional friend, you and I 
could get her as a mutual A and the judge you like and respect generally 
might be feared because of local friendship bias. This applies to all who 
believe that locals vote for locals over national unknowns. 

I just thought this interpretation might help those contemplating pick 20.
Steve Hunt

---

References:

• student judges
• From: amc17@cornell.edu (adam chud)

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Debaters as judges
• Next by Date: student judges -Reply
• Prev by thread: student judges
• Next by thread: re:student judges
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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