From
http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/usu2011/USU_11_Blog/Entries/2010/3/31_THOUGHTS_ABOUT_USU_PROCEDURE.html
John Meany of Claremont has raised some interesting issues, and as
convener of a potential USU 2011 at the University of Vermont I wanted
to reply.
1. Titles:
* Convener - run the logistics of the tournament. If it is on his or
her campus they are ultimately responsible for the tournament.
* CA - coordinate motion writing, plan and implement judge and
debater training, tabulate judge feedback. Guidelines for motion
writing will be made available.
* DCA - assist in these efforts of the CA
* Tab - record ballots, input judge rankings from CA/DCA based on
training test and feedback form, allow computer to pair the round.
* Equity officer - hear complaints from any participant. Need not be
a woman. Convene informal investigation and offer informal
suggestion of a
resolution of a problem to the convener, who should then be
involved because it is probably his or her institution that is
hosting. Such decisions will be made in concert with host
institution. We will gain guidance from our university legal
offices before the tournament and have a representative of that
office on call. Standards for conduct need to be stated publicly
in advance.
2. Manual changes to the pairings: will not be done except in extreme
circumstances. The judge ratings are put into the machine, and the
machine assigns judges. Changes may be made when:
* Judge needs to be replaced for reason of illness, etc.
* Judge informs tab of a serious conflict that should have been
reported earlier.
* Extreme situation, judge and one of the debaters in a situation
and would rather not now judge.
* Bizarre and highly unusual situation I cannot imagine at this time
* NEVER in an effort to make a "better" or "more balanced" panel.
There is too much potential for abuse. Always keep a record of such
changes.
3. Transparency: have the tab area in an open and available space
depending on room availability. For example, we would not have USU tab
in the room where everyone is hanging out because of noise, but it
should be in an open identified space so people can drop in for the
purposes of transparency and helping people understand how the
tournament is tabulated. Frankly, if we have 120+ teams at USU 2011
there is no room that can house both debaters and judges in the same spot.
4. I believe in open adjudication for all rounds. As convener I will try
and persuade others helping me run the event that this should be so. In
all of our regional events we have had open adjudication and none of us
have been able to see any negative effects.
5. Judge training. We think that documents about judging should be made
available before the tournament, we believe there should be an online
judge test before the tournament (to allow timely examination of the
results). We would look at the way the decision is explained as much if
not more than the decision that is reached. There should also be format
information made available to participants beforehand. We do believe in
using feedback forms, because we think debaters deserve to have a say.
Someone may make a good decision but give lousy feedback, and we want
debaters to be able to comment on this because their learning is at stake.
Thanks to John for raising these issues, and I think all of them are
good ones. I know that John believes we should not form an organization
(USUDA) but then that would be one way to put standards to work. On the
other hand, those bidding can be public about things so voters can know
what they are choosing. This is why we are doing this now.
Thanks, and we hope you will support our bid.
--
Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna
Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics
University of Vermont
Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/
Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com
Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu
802-656-0097 office telephone
802-656-4275 office fax
|
