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

Items for Ballot at SCA....

#1 Judging qualifications.

This body recommends that the CEDA national tournament committee adopt the
following procedure:

Any judge who has not judged at least 12 rounds on the Spring Semester CEDA
topic will be placed on a supplemental strike sheet. Any team who so chooses
may 'strike' as many of these critics as they want. These strikes will not
count against the normal allocation of strikes.

#2 Pick 50

This body recommends that the CEDA national tournament committee adopt the
following procedure:

All participating teams will be provided a list of all available judges. From
this list the teams will select at least 50 judges as 'preferred'. When
pairing debates the tab room will use the following guidelines: 1) Attempts
will be made to maximize the number of debates where both teams 'prefer' the
critic 2) If no judge is 'prefered' by both teams an attempt will be made to
pair them with a 'non prefered' judge. 3) Round one will be paired maximizing
the number of debates receiving 'mutually prefered' critics. 4) Round two
will pair rounds beginning with teams who did not receive a 'mutually
prefered' critic in round one. 5) Rounds three through eight will pair rounds
beginning with teams who have the most cumulative losses and working up to
the teams with fewest cumulative losses. However, debates in which both teams
have 4 or more losses will be the last debates paired. The intent is to
provide teams with the most losses but less than 4 losses the best chance of
receiving 'mutually prefered' judges but a attempt is still made to maximize
the number of debates receiving 'mutually prefered' critics. For example, in
Round 3 debates between teams who both have 3 losses get the first chance at
a 'mutually prefered' critic, then debates where one team has two losses and
one team has three losses will get a chance at a 'mutually prefered' critic,
etc. Then the process starts over. Debates between teams having 3 losses are
attempted to be paired with judges 'not prefered' by both teams. Then a 'not
prefered' pairing is attempted for a 2 loss, 3 loss round, etc. 6)
Elimination rounds: Every debate will be paired beginning with the round in
which the highest seed is participating. If a 'mutually prefered' critic is
available s/he will be placed in this debate. Then the debate with the next
highest seed participating will be given an opportunity at a 'mutually
prefered' critic, etc.  If there are debates in which a 'mutually prefered'
critic is not available the pairing will be made with a judge 'not prefered'
by both teams. If there isn't a critic meeting this description available a
judge will be assigned randomly. The process then starts over with attempts
made to pair the 'high seed debate' with a 'mutually prefered' critic and
working down the 'seeds', until all debates have 3 judges.

This procedure will not effect the number of 'strikes' available to each
team.
All other details of the 'Pick 50' system will be left to the discretion of
the tournament director.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page