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

Re: Power and Dominance as a Coaching Strategy

1) It is often helpful to track the voting record of the judges that hear your 
teams.  I insist that my debaters maintain judging cards.  On those cards they 
list the judge, how s/he voted and the RFD's.  This accomplishes a couple of 
things: 1) When they start to complain about drawing a certain judge during a 
tourney, because s/he always votes against them, you refer to the cards.  Gee, 
Dr. X voted for you five times and against you three times.  Looks like you've 
got a good chance of winning the ballot if . . . refer to past RFD's.  This 
changes their attitude and helps them to enter the round with confidence and at 
least some idea of what it will take to justify the ballot.  2) If the voting 
record is 17 against 0 for, then I find a talk -- NONCONFRONTATIONAL -- with 
the critic often helps.  Gee, Dr. X you've heard my teams 17 times and have not 
found justification to vote for them even once?!?  What can my teams do to 
improve?  Now Dr. X is on notice that you are aware of a problem.  
Additionally, I have often found that it can help Dr. X to perceive that you 
are asking for advice, which s/he will give.  They now feel identification with 
your team and are somewhat more likely to vote for the team that they "offered 
advice to."  Does this work?!?  Yes, I have managed to turn around several Dr. 
X's during my tenure as a DOF.  Try it.

2) While I do not approve of rudeness from a debater or his or her coach, I am 
not surprised by the "after the call" argument.  Look at any confrontational 
"sport" and you will see referees who are idiots, make stupid calls and need 
glasses.  The way we vote is terribly important to those we hold the power of 
the ballot over.  After a close round, full of aggressive, confrontational 
"argument," I'm not surprised that it sometimes spills over after the decision 
is announced.  First a suggestion, then a questions/concern:

 A) Don't announce/reveal.  That gives everyone time to cool down and get a 
little distance.  I just compliment them on their strong points and tell them 
to read the ballot.  After some time has passed, if approached by a team, I 
tell them that if they will bring their coach, I would be glad to give them my 
insights.  I also find it helpful not to buy into the emotion.  I freely admit 
that I could be wrong, might have missed an issue, but my ballot is my ballot 
-- It stands.  I did the best I could and that's the way it goes. This often 
diffuses a tense situation.

 B) Since emotions run high among the students and confrontations  are bound to 
happen, my concern/question is how do we -- the professionals -- handle it?  
What is the appropriate response of the tourney director?  Any suggestions?

Jack Rogers
UT Tyler

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