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

eagles calling ducksRe: NDT-CEDA Rumblings

> The real problem isn't the difference in judging philosophies between NDT
> judges and CEDA judges. The real problem is the vast diversity of judging
> within the CEDA community. I'm all for judging diversity - adaptation is
> good.

Really? I must have missed that part of your post.....

 But I am sick of dishonest, lazy regional judges that sit there and do
> little more than justify the way they wanted to vote before the round even
> began. I also think it's the height of two-faced political pollyanna-ness to
> claim that this doesn't take place over and over again in CEDA.

Did someone get whacked with the angry stick this morning or 
what....maybe its just the tone of this post that kind of grated on me, I 
am certainly not in favor of lazy judges, but it seems a bit unfair to 
characterize someone who is a lay judge as DISHONEST.....more below.


> 
> Specific complaints - 
> 
> 1. Judges that claim they couldn't flow a single argument due to speed, but
> never give the debaters any sign that they are having problems. Thanks for
> preserving your image, bozo.
>

 I generally tell people when I can't understand them. However, I do this 
as a service and not because it is my responsibility.  My tendency is to 
think that this has more to do with clarity than speed.  Is this 
automatically the fault of the judge? 

> 2. Judges that claim that one team was incomprehensible, but can give you the
> name and date from every card that the other team was reading, even if they
> also went fast. Must be those variations in regional dialects, right?
> 

It might be a clarity issue. Frequently I find that I get all the tag 
lines but that people assume you aren't interested in the cards, because 
they read them incomprehensibly. If I am trying to flow the cards should 
I stop them in the middle of their speech and tell them or let them go 
about their business and dock speaker points? I usually go for the second 
option....

> 4. Judges that claim they never call for cards, but will intricately examine
> any cards called for by the judge sitting next to them. If you don't call for
> cards, don't limit yourself to reading cards called for by someone else.

sounds like they were intimidated by their panel, their debate or both...

> 
> 5. First-year judges that were excellent debaters who feel that they now can
> impose any standard of evaluation on current debaters, without bothering to
> articulate their newfound uniqueness in advance.
> 

Don't know who you are talking about. But last time I checked being a 
first year judge can be difficult. It is not always an easy transition, 
and it is especially hard to not judge based on the way you would have 
debated the round.


> 6. Tournaments that think it's hilarious to but the no-flow buffalo into
> critical rounds. Real funny, real educational, and real demonstrative of your
> true concerns.
> 

I have never been to a tournament that got off on doing this, perhaps you 
could tell us which one it is so we can avoid it.

I agree that strike sheets make everyone happier. However this post seems 
to me to be little more than public ranting. I don't think that poor 
judging is a new thing, but it makes me a bit uncomfortable to see 
someone generically going off on a wide group of people. It seems to me 
that CEDA poses a very serious question to us: what do we want in debate? 
(1)technically elite professionals or (2) a pluralistic community.  Some 
would say that the two are not mutually exclusive, yet from what I saw at 
South Carolina this was the fundamental issue.  Our teams that did best 
were the teams that adapted. Kids not too far removed from high school 
who didn't choke up when they had a judge that might not know the issues 
as well as they did, or who might not flow at light speed if at all.  
CEDA nationals is nothing if not an exercise in pluralism. While that 
means that the early elimination rounds can be crazy, I would argue that 
this pluralism is at the heart of the strength of CEDA.  It is BECAUSE 
CEDA includes such a wide range of people that it is a strong 
organization.  Novices are given an opportunity to become part of the 
debate activity. Women and people of color have a chance to participate. 
Are we going to be two faced pollyanna's and pretend that every school 
has an elite seasoned DOF who knows the argumentative ropes like the back 
of their hand? OR are we going to recognize that the true benefit of the 
"merger" is that it potentially allows for the greatest good for the most 
people in debate. People are given choice about the tournaments they 
attend. If you want elite judges and debates you can travel the national 
Ceda circuit and/or attend national Ndt tournaments. If you are looking 
to give your novices a place to learn you can now send your (formerly) 
Ndt novices to regional Ceda circuits.  I think it is highly unfair to 
suggest that someone is dishonest, or that they just plain suck, simply 
because someone does not have totally rich debate background.  I would 
hate to think that Bear was advocating elitism.
Respectfully,

Jason Jarvis
Wake Forest
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page