ballots

[Shes legal in dog years 1000000038]

so currently, there are some issues on my local circuit with "short one line rfd" ballots. Terminally, i think most of us** have agreed on the idea of some sort of "online ballot"' system. Any thoughts and ideas?

 

 

 

**There are like 4 people who think the idea is good, most have not commented on it either way.

[King of All Cosmos 3387]

How would that work?

[Shes legal in dog years 1000000038]

How would that work?

 

a few ideas being thrown around are:

 

google groups

group dogs w/ tinyurl

and drop box

 

the main idea would be to upload (full) ballots either post-round or on sunday/monday so that coaches/debaters can read about the round outside of the oral rfd

 

I don't even know what this is but I know it's a dumb idea.

 

Judges don't write short ballots because it cramps their hands. It's because they give oral critiques. Typing ballots online is a much greater hassel.

 

clifford, you don't even judge. From here on out you are banished from this forum...

 

also, it shows your little knowledge of judging.

 

Most judges will write out comments either in their flow (my flow program has it) OR on a separate document (which is what i do). Also, in college, online balloting works rather well.

 

Now, this solution is because of the oral rfd problems and trying to find a good brightline between written ballot/oral. Fundamentally, there should be both but with time constraints its hard.

[debater08 45]

i think having an online ballot system would be pretty nice. Although Andrew makes a good point there are still regional tournaments that don't allow oral critiques and I remember when I was in high school having to read judges handwriting was always a hassle while also trying to read those damn carbon copies of UIL ballots. I think tournaments could also run much more efficiently if the ballot system was online but like Ryan i would like to know how it would work

 

(since you just posted that tommy) How does the college system work now?

[Shes legal in dog years 1000000038]

i think having an online ballot system would be pretty nice. Although Andrew makes a good point there are still regional tournaments that don't allow oral critiques and I remember when I was in high school having to read judges handwriting was always a hassle while also trying to read those damn carbon copies of UIL ballots. I think tournaments could also run much more efficiently if the ballot system was online but like Ryan i would like to know how it would work

 

I think cliffords argument was more around the lines of "oral rfd's take place of written rfds" which may or not be true. personally, i think that in a world in which the tourny is running tight and i have to choose between a written or oral rfd, i err on the side of oral because a) its hearing the advice right then so its fresh on their minds and allows the teams to ask specific questions that they can use throughout the tourny.

 

My hand writting is atrocious, it's nothing new. I am destined to be a lawyer. So i know how you feel.

 

What i did was create a google group (http://groups.google.com/group/ballots) where i will start to upload ballots too.

 

Another solution is that another local judge is using tinyurl and using google docs....that could be a solution as well.

(since you just posted that tommy) How does the college system work now?

 

Most of the time the judges will send the ballots to the tab room who will either print them off/move them somewhere else. Also, they might send the rfd to the debaters themselves.

[koslow 156]

I know they did this at the ADI camp tournament, you should ask one of the administrators (Bruschke was probably the one who set it up) how they did it. The system is probably still in place on the joy of tournaments website, you'd just have to use it.

 

That's the only tournament I know of that's done it, though, and it's certainly not the norm. And even at ADI they used paper ballots also, the electronic ballots were to shorten the turnover time between rounds (because judges could submit the ballot as soon as they were done rather than waiting after the RFD, and the tab didn't have to worry about getting every paper ballot before pairing the next round).

 

Also, even in college (and at ADI) most judges don't write comments on the ballots, so I'm not sure this is really a solution to no comments on ballots.

[Shes legal in dog years 1000000038]

it's not to replace paper ballot couting but rather too allow for a quick "win/lose/speaker/rank" write down and then upload a larger ballot so coaches can see what happened in round.

[Shes legal in dog years 1000000038]

idk, in high school i've noticed more and more will have deductions in pay for not filling out a ballot. I know in college ballots are less likely but that's because of the time for a long rfd, such time is not poissible in most high school tournys.

[brorlob 1369]

That. If judges don't feel the need to write a ballot in the first place, creating an online system won't help.

And this is a real problem. Debaters improve when they change, and giving an oral critique and leaving it at that is tragically inefficient teaching method. Most debaters feel like they should have won every close decision - so it is very easy during oral critique to assume the judge is an idiot for deciding the other way in these rounds. A good, rational rfd with what the losing team could/should have done differently will sink in the next day when they review their ballots and flows.

 

I fill out a full rfd with all 2nr positions reviewed on every ballot I turn in. I will skip the oral critique before I skip the written rfd. While we know the kids prefer oral critiques, it is not the way they learn anything other than who won the round.

[TLF 2147483647]

i can't think of a good reason not to supplement paper ballots with online ballots. it may not solve the whole "rfd" problem, but it seems to have some potential benefits in the areas mentioned by other people here, and little to no potential problems. that said, i'd personally be more likely to type a longer RFD and suggestions than i would to write it on the ballot. it's simply less work, faster work, and lends itself to revision. i could probably type everything i wanted the debateers to know about a given round in abuot 1-2 minutes whereas writing takes much, much longer. that's not just annoying for me, but also holds up the tournament.

[Shes legal in dog years 1000000038]

This is going to be my first time trying google ballots. Lets see if it works.

[Shes legal in dog years 1000000038]

alright.

 

did it and i actually think this worked out pretty well. not only was i able to give oral (rfd's ) that came close to not only what i put on the ballot but also give help with specific in-round arguments but i was able to actually keep a better flow (i was writting during speechs which kept my ears in tuned as well instead of just waiting for the next card).

 

The ballots are online. tell me what you think??

[Shes legal in dog years 1000000038]

http://groups.google.com/group/ballots

[jemmyc 76]

And this is a real problem. Debaters improve when they change, and giving an oral critique and leaving it at that is tragically inefficient teaching method. Most debaters feel like they should have won every close decision - so it is very easy during oral critique to assume the judge is an idiot for deciding the other way in these rounds. A good, rational rfd with what the losing team could/should have done differently will sink in the next day when they review their ballots and flows.

 

I fill out a full rfd with all 2nr positions reviewed on every ballot I turn in. I will skip the oral critique before I skip the written rfd. While we know the kids prefer oral critiques, it is not the way they learn anything other than who won the round.

 

I also prefer to skip the oral. Another problem with oral critiques is that the debaters may not remember everything I tell them several rounds later. With written RFDs and comments, they have a record that they can review with their coaches. Ballots that have just "oral critique" written in the comments section are my coach's pet peeve, because it gives her no feedback on what her student needs to improve on.

 

Most of the time I feel that my oral explanations don't come out as clearly as my written ones. There have been times where the debaters start "clarifying" their arguments in response to my oral critiques and I had to remind them that there is no 3rd rebuttal in policy debate.