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

real worldRe: [Half point option]

Hi, Raj, how was your summer?

> In the long run, a re-centering of speaker points or a new scale may be
> needed, however, in the short-run if some judges artificially modify their
> speaker point paradigms to the 18-30 scale and some remain with the 26-30
> scale, debaters judged by the first group of judges may be unjustly hurt.
> I.e. Judge #1's "new"
> average is a 24, Judge #2 refuses to change his/her ways and has 28 averages.
> Until a community concensus is reached judge #1 is handing out lower scores than
> judge #2 for similar performances.

Isn't it true, though, that if each team has an equal chance of getting 
Judge 1 or Judge 2 it should all equal out in the end?  Especially since 
we've seen just from this thread that there are plenty of judges who go 
for each scale?  And as far as the half point option goes, how long will 
it be until everyone gets from 28 to 30, all in half-point increments?  
The half point option really does nothing to slow the trend of 
ever-larger speaker points.

I believe that as long as judges follow their individual preferences, the 
debate world will never stray into the deplorable homogeneity that many 
writers on the L seem to suggest.  The beauty of the system is that all 
debaters are forced to adapt to the paradigms and the rulings of their 
judge.  Isn't that what communication is?  Once one insists on the same 
type of decisions by all, debate loses a great strength -- adaptation.

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