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

Re: MPJ

On Tue, 28 Nov 1995, Jared Phillips wrote:

> My question is, how are judges assigned
> under pick 20 or MPJ?  Do the high-high rounds get picked first?  Do
> break rounds get the first crack at judges?  Or is it completely random?

The usual MPJ approach is to have a team designate 1/3 of the judges "A," 
1/3 "B," and 1/3 "C."  The "pick 20" is essentially the same, except you 
don't get to distinguish B judges from C judges.

As you say, priority can be given to the top rounds or to the middle
rounds.  It can be done, and is done, both ways.  Depends on the
preference of the tab room staff as to whether it is more important to
help out those who win or to help out those who clear (and thus get all
those nifty CEDA points).  A few weeks ago, Ross Smith made an interesting
point that if you are going to have a preference system it should be done
from the top down.  This is a very different approach from the "middle up"
method, since the most avid list-advocate of MPJ has admitted that his
approach will often leave the undefeated teams with mutual C judges.  But
both approaches are being grouped and sold here under the general heading
of MPJ. 

> Also, wouldn't a system that just lets teams strike say 15% to 20% of the
> judges achieve basically the same effects of a MPJ system?

Hard to say.  There has been talk here about unfair and incompetent 
judges.  MJP advocates don't want these people judging THEIR teams, 
although they don't mind them judging OTHER teams.  But no one has said 
just how many of these creatures are lurking out there.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page