Reply to Tim Mahoney

["TONY HUNTER" <TONY_HUNTER.OBGYN@quickmail.ucsf.edu>]

ONTO REBUTTALS....!!!!

POINT OF CLARIFICATION--TEAMS DO NOT PICK JUDGES BECAUSE THEY THINK THE JUDGES
ARE "FAIR."  TEAMS PICK JUDGES WHO THEY THINK WILL GIVE THEM A COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE (AND HIGH SPEAKER POINTS).


TIM SAYS:

I prefer that Pick 20 replace regional constraints but with or without
regional constraints I think Pick 20 is better than the status quo.

BETTER FOR WHO?  NATIONAL CIRCUIT TEAMS OF COURSE (TEAMS THAT ARE REIFIED WITH
TOP 10 LISTS, POWER RANKINGS, DESIGNATES, ETC).  WITH THE STATUS QUO, THE
*PROCESS OF SELECTION* DOES NOT HAVE A BIAS.  IT IS RANDOM.  IF YOU GET A
JUDGE THAT YOU LIKE, THAT IS THE DRAW.  IF YOU GET A JUDGE YOU DON'T LIKE,
THAT IS THE DRAW (SHOULD'VE USED YOUR STRIKES BETTER).  THE *PROCESS OF
SELECTION* IS NOT TO BLAME, EVERY JUDGE HAS THE SAME CHANCE OF BEING ASSIGNED
THAT ROUND (EXCEPT REGIONAL CONSTRAINTS/STRIKES/FORMER COACHES/ETC.).  THE
*PROCESS OF SELECTION* PARALLELS THE PAIRINGS OF TEAMS.  THE FIRST TWO ROUNDS
ARE RANDOM WITH REGIONAL CONSTRAINTS.  AFTER THAT THE TEAMS ARE MATCHED BY
RECORD AND SPEAKER POINTS, ETC.  *NOT* BY A PICK 20 TEAM LIST OF PREFERRED
OPPONENTS.

WITH PICK 20, AS I EXPLAINED IN MY EARLIER POST, NATIONAL CIRCUIT SCHOOLS WILL
ALMOST ALWAYS GET PREFERED JUDGES AND REGIONAL SCHOOLS WILL VERY RARELY GET
(TRULY) PREFERED JUDGES.  WITH RANDOM JUDGES I CAN ACCEPT WHATEVER VARIATIONS
MIGHT OCCUR (WE GOT GOOD JUDGES/WE GOT BAD JUDGES).  HOWEVER, I HAVE A REAL
PROBLEM WHEN AT THE END OF THE TOURNAMENT ONE TEAM GETS EIGHT SELECTED JUDGES
AND ANOTHER TEAM GETS ZERO.  THE ANSWER TO RANDOM JUDGING IS: LUCK OF THE
DRAW, IT'S THE SAME FOR EVERYONE.  THE ANSWER TO PICK 20 IS: YOU DON'T KNOW
THE RIGHT PEOPLE.

FROM TIM'S POST:
Tony writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IN EFFECT, THE PROBABILITY FOR *BIG* SCHOOLS (AS TIM LIKES TO CALL THEM) IN
EQUATION BIG VS BIG, WILL BE EVEN HIGHER BECAUSE THERE WILL ALMOST ASSUREDLY
BE MORE THAN ONE OVERLAP BETWEEN NATIONAL CIRCUIT TEAMS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed. This is why big schools won't use their pref sheets as strike sheets.

*BIG* SCHOOLS WON'T USE THEIR PREFERENCES AS STRIKE SHEETS--DUH...[SORRY,
HAVEN'T USED THAT WORD IN A LONG TIME...:-)]  *SMALL* SCHOOLS CAN PICK JUDGES
THAT *BIG* SCHOOLS WOULDN'T TOUCH [LET'S JUST USE ME AS AN EXAMPLE :-)]  A
*SMALL* SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE EVERY INCENTIVE TO PICK ME AND 19 ROCKS SO THAT IF
THEY HIT A NATIONAL CIRCUIT TEAM THAT THEY DON'T GET A NATIONAL CIRCUIT JUDGE,
WHO IS FAIR, BUT WHO HAS ALREADY JUDGED THE NATIONAL CIRCUIT TEAM 15 TIMES. 
BY PICKING 20 JUDGES THAT *BIG* SCHOOLS PROBABLY WOULDN'T PICK, THE *SMALL*
SCHOOL HAS EFFECTIVELY STRUCK ALL OF THE JUDGES ON THE *BIG* SCHOOL'S LIST. 
FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS WOULDN'T SCARE THE HELL OUT OF
THE *BIG* SCHOOLS?

THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT *BIG* SCHOOLS GET TO PICK THEIR JUDGES, *SMALL*
SCHOOLS DON'T.  THAT IS DEFINITELY WORSE THAN RANDOM JUDGING. 

FROM TIM'S POST:
Tony writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TIM SAYS:

>Currently there is no attempt to ensure the judge is mutually >preferred so
it is more likely that a big school will get a >judge they prefer.

MAYBE...BUT THERE'S A TRULY RANDOMIZED POSSIBILITY OF THAT, *AND* (EMPHASIS
HERE) THERE IS STILL A RANDOMIZED PROBABILITY THAT A *BIG* SCHOOL WILL GET A
JUDGE THAT THEY DON'T PREFER.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No maybe about it - it's a fact. If big schools like 50 judges in the pool
and small schools like 20 the probabilities are completely in favor of the
big school in the status quo. 

WHAT I MEANT BY MAYBE IS THAT THERE IS ALSO A GREATER LIKELIHOOD THAT A *BIG*
SCHOOL WILL GET A JUDGE THAT THEY _DON'T_ PREFER.  YOU ARE ONLY LOOKING AT ONE
SIDE OF THE EQUATION.  OVER EIGHT ROUNDS, RANDOM SELECTION SHOULD BALANCE OUT.
HOWEVER, THE DISPARITY OF PREFERENCE BETWEEN *BIG* AND *SMALL* SCHOOLS IN A
PICK 20 SYSTEM DOES NOT BALANCE OUT--NOT A CHANCE....THE ORIGINAL NUMBERS THAT
YOU CITED IN YOUR EARLIER POST EVEN ADMIT THAT.


FROM TIM'S POST:
Tony says:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE *SMALL* VS *BIG* MATCHUP. I WANT TO CLARIFY THIS POINT.
IF THERE ARE NO MATCHES BETWEEN TEAMS, THEN NO ONE ON EITHER LIST OF
PREFERRED JUDGES CAN JUDGE THAT ROUND?  ARE YOU GOING TO STICK WITH THAT
POSITION? YOUR LIST OF PREFERRED JUDGES BECOMES A STRIKE SHEET EVERY TIME A
*BIG* SCHOOL HITS A *SMALL* SCHOOL?  OR IF THE ONLY JUDGE THAT TWO TEAMS HAVE
IN COMMON HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSIGNED--THEN THERE MUST BE A MUTUALLY
NON-PREFERRED JUDGE? HOW IN THE HELL IS THIS GOOD FOR DEBATE?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right if there isn't a preferred judge available then the system trys to
assign a mutually non-preferred judge. It's good for debate because it is
fair - both teams feel the same way about a judge. I think Tony and others
also overestimate how insulated the small schools are. I don't think there
are many schools who go to nationals who don't get out of their region at
least once. Even if they don't ever travel out of the region they probably
attend tournaments where schools from out of the region show up. I think the
small schools have a better idea   about judges than they are given credit
for.

RIGHT...I THINK *SMALL* SCHOOLS HAVE A VERY GOOD IDEA THAT IF THEY PICK A
*BIG* SCHOOL JUDGE WHO HAS HEARD ALL OF THE *BIG* SCHOOLS DEBATE WEEK IN AND
WEEK OUT THAT THEY ARE NOT ON EQUAL GROUND AGAINST ONE OF THE *BIG* SCHOOL
TEAMS.  IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF FAIRNESS, IT'S A QUESTION OF
PICKING THE MOST FAMILIAR AND ADVANTAGEOUS JUDGES.

FROM TIM'S POST:
Tony writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WHY WOULD ANY REGIONAL SCHOOL PICK A JUDGE THAT TRAVELS THE NATIONAL CIRCUIT?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because they had the national circuit judge at a regional tournament and
found them to be a fair critic.

I KNOW THAT TIM IS NOT REALLY THIS NAIVE...FAIRNESS OF THE CRITIC IS NOT THE
ISSUE WHEN "PICKING" JUDGES.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT A *SMALL* TEAM
THINKS THAT THEY HAVE A SHOT AT WINNING THAT JUDGE AGAINST A *BIG* SCHOOL, OR
EVEN WHETHER A *BIG* SCHOOL THINKS THAT THEY CAN PICK UP THAT BALLOT IN A
PARTICULAR SITUATION AGAINST ANOTHER *BIG* SCHOOL.  AND THAT HAS EVERYTHING TO
DO WITH HOW MANY TIMES THAT PERSON HAS JUDGED A TEAM, HOW MANY TIMES THAT
CRITIC HAS PICKED UP THAT TEAM, AND AGAINST WHO...FAIRNESS AND WHETHER THE
JUDGE IS A DECENT HUMAN BEING ARE VERY IMPORTANT THINGS...BUT THEY HAVE
NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER A TEAM WILL "SELECT" THAT JUDGE (YES, I KNOW THAT'S
CYNICAL...)


FROM TIM'S POST:
Tony writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT NOT ALL JUDGES HAVE TO JUDGE THE SAME NUMBER OF
ROUNDS?  THAT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC TO A PICK 20
SYSTEM...? HAS ANYONE MENTIONED THAT...?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are the first to mention it but I've thought about it. It doesn't matter
to the system. Why do you think it would?

BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF ROUNDS THAT A PARTICULAR CRITIC WILL BE JUDGING HAS A
DIRECT EFFECT ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT JUDGE CAN HEAR THE ROUND.  OOPS!  BREAK
ROUND, UNFORTUNATELY THE ONLY MUTUALLY PREFERRED JUDGE HAS ALREADY COMPLETED
HIS/HER FOUR ROUNDS...BUT THE TEAMS WHOSE PREFERRED JUDGES ARE JUDGING EIGHT
ROUNDS WILL DEFINITELY GET THEIR JUDGES, RIGHT...?


FROM TIM'S POST:
Tony writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO STRIKES?  DO WE GET TO STRIKE JUDGES IN ADDITION TO
PICKING 20...?  THAT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD ALSO SKEW THE NUMBERS A BIT...? HAS
ANYONE MENTIONED THAT...?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My system doesn't effect the number of strikes that teams get. Why do you
think that would skew the system?

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE MATH THINGS, TIM...IN A PICK 20 SYSTEM, STRIKES ONLY
MATTER WHEN THERE IS NO MUTUAL PREFERENCE, OR THE MP JUDGE HAS ALREADY BEEN
ASSIGNED.  IF A *SMALL* SCHOOL PICKS ONLY 20 TEAMS, AND THEY HIT A *BIG* TEAM
THAT HAS PICKED 50 TEAMS, THEN THERE ARE 30 MORE CHANCES THAT THE *SMALL*
SCHOOL WILL HAVE STRUCK ONE OR MORE OF THE JUDGES ON THE *BIG* SCHOOL'S
PREFERENCE LIST.  THIS MEANS THAT IN ESSENCE THE *BIG* SCHOOL HAS A HIGHER
PROBABILITY THAT THEIR STRIKES ACTUALLY IMPOSE A RESTRICTION THAT ISN'T
ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR IN PICK X SYSTEM.

OR, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE, YOU COULD SAY THAT
THE *SMALL* SCHOOL ACTUALLY HAD AN EXTRA 30 STRIKES BY NOT CLAIMING 50 JUDGES
AS PREFERRED.  *BIG* SCHOOLS MIGHT THINK THAT THIS IS UNFAIR.  MAYBE THIS IS A
REASON THAT *BIG* SCHOOLS MIGHT ONLY PICK 20 INSTEAD OF 50.  THAT'S THE RISK
THAT YOU TAKE.  OF COURSE, THIS IS A TRADE OFF WITH THE INCREASED POSSIBILITY
OF GETTING MORE PREFERRED JUDGES.  SO THE ABOVE ARGUMENT ABOUT STRIKES AND
THEIR EFFECTS ON THE JUDGING POOL ARE STILL VALID.

BUT IN ANY CASE, EITHER WAY YOU LOOK AT IT, THERE IS A DISPARITY HERE.

FROM TIM'S POST:
Tony writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IT IS MY PERCEPTION THAT THE REAL REASON BEHIND A PICK 20 SYSTEM IS THAT IT
BIG REP TEAMS DON'T WANT TO GET "SCREWED" AT NATS BY PEOPLE THEY DON'T THINK
SHOULD EVEN BE ALLOWED TO JUDGE.  THAT'S THE PRICE OF A NATIONAL TOURNAMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No that is not the price of a national tournament. That is the price of the
CEDA National Tournament as it is currently structured. God forbid teams want
fair judges at nationals. If I were a debater at a small school reading this
I would be insulted. It seems to me you are saying that small schools getting
ready to debate big schools sit around praying that they get crappy judges
because there only hope of winning is if the judge screws up. I have a lot
more faith in debaters than that. Most debaters that I know from big schools
or small schools just want fair judges.

YES, THAT IS THE PRICE OF A CEDA NATIONAL TOURNAMENT!!!!  I DON'T CARE WHAT
SYSTEM YOU USE, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BITCH THAT THEY GOT "SCREWED."  IN ONE
INSTANCE, IT'S THE RANDOMLY ASSIGNED JUDGE, IN ANOTHER IT'S THE NON-MUTUALLY
PREFERRED JUDGE.  THE ISSUE IS DIVERSITY AND TOLERANCE.  A SYSTEM OF PICK 20
IS DESIGNED TO GET RID OF THE NEED FOR EITHER ONE OF THESE IDEAS. (AND AS
QUAINT AS THEY MAY BE TO SOME, THEY ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT TO OTHERS.)

AND NO...I'M NOT SAYING THAT *SMALL* SCHOOLS WANT "CRAPPY" (THAT'S YOUR WORD
NOT MINE, BUD) JUDGES BECAUSE THEY WANT BAD DECISIONS IN THEIR FAVOR...I'M
SAYING THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES AS TO HOW DEBATERS DEBATE, WHAT THEY THINK
IS GOOD DEBATE AND WHAT THEY THINK CONSTITUTES A GOOD JUDGE.  A SYSTEM OF
RANDOM JUDGING MEANS THAT IF A TEAM WANTS TO DO WELL THAT THEY WILL NEED TO
DISPLAY TOLERANCE FOR A DIVERSITY OF DIFFERENT PREFERENCES AND ABILITIES. 
NOTWITHSTANDING THE OPINIONS OF THE TABULA RASA BRIGADE, THERE IS NO NEED TO
HOMOGENIZE DEBATE ANY FURTHER.  A PICK 20 SYSTEM WILL ONLY SERVE TO STRATIFY
DEBATE EVEN MORE.

AS A COACH AT A *SMALL* SCHOOL I AM INSULTED THAT YOU WOULD MAKE AN ACCUSATION
LIKE THIS, BUT AT LEAST IT SHOWS THAT THE REAL REASONS FOR PICK 20 ARE COMING
THROUGH.  GOD FORBID THAT I THINK DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU.

AS FOR STUDENTS AT *SMALL* SCHOOLS BEING INSULTED, I WOULD HOPE NOT.  I AM NOT
THE ONE WHO STARTED MAKING DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN *SMALL* AND *BIG* SCHOOLS.  I
HAVE BEEN ARGUING AGAINST A SYSTEM THAT I BELIEVE WOULD BE MORE UNFAIR THAN
RANDOM JUDGING.  

AND ON THE CONTRARY, I THINK THAT REGIONAL TEAMS AND *SMALL* SCHOOLS CAN HOLD
THEIR OWN AT NATIONALS.  HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THE POSSIBILITIES OF THAT
HAPPENING WOULD BE "UNFAIRLY" DIMINISHED BY A PICK 20 SYSTEM.  THAT IS MORE
THAN JUST MY OPINION.  THAT IS MY ARGUMENT.


TIM'S POST CONCLUDES:
Tony writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A PICK 20 SYSTEM DOES MORE THAN INVITE NON-PREFERED MEMBERS TO LEAVE
DEBATE...IT POINTS A FINGER (I WON'T SAY WHICH ONE).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I disagree. I think it says we are trying to provide a fair system of judge
assignment instead of one that ensures that big schools have an advantage
over small one's purely because they know more judges.

I JUST DON'T GET IT...WHAT IS UNFAIR ABOUT RANDOM JUDGING...? PARDON ME IF I
DON'T BUY THAT YOU ARE DEFENDING THE REGIONAL SCHOOLS FROM THE NATIONAL
CIRCUIT SCHOOLS...YOUR EARLIER POSTS HAVE MADE CLEAR THAT YOU THINK RANDOM
JUDGING IS UNFAIR BECAUSE YOU THINK THERE ARE BAD JUDGES (ACCORDING TO YOUR
STANDARD) AND YOU DON'T WANT THEM JUDGING YOUR TEAMS.  THAT _IS_ TANTAMOUNT TO
SAYING: "I DON'T LIKE YOU -- GET OUT."  I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE COME ANYWHERE
CLOSE TO PROVING THAT A PICK 20 SYSTEM RESULTS IN LESS OF AN ADVANTAGE FOR
*BIG* SCHOOLS OVER *SMALL* SCHOOLS.

IN FACT, UNDER A PICK 20 SYSTEM *BIG* SCHOOLS WILL HAVE _EVEN MORE_ OF AN
ADVANTAGE OVER *SMALL* SCHOOLS.



TONY HUNTER
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

---

• Prev by Date: Mexico: The illusion of innovation & "Time off"take heavy course-loads, study abroad, do internships, participate in their
• Next by Date: Re: Mexico: The illusion of innovation & "Time off"
• Prev by thread: Mexico: The illusion of innovation & "Time off"take heavy course-loads, study abroad, do internships, participate in their
• Next by thread: Re: Reply to Tim Mahoney
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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