Jump to content
Rowedan

100 point scale

Recommended Posts

As you all know, St Mark's is using the 100 pt. scale for speaker points this year. I like it. This is the conversion I am using. There is a BUNCH of debate about this in the college curcuit, so hit up e-debate for opinion's from people who are smarter than me.

 

 

27=70

27.5=75

28=80

28.5=85

 

 

etc

 

drop the 2, move decimal over to the right. Allows same levels of gradation among speakers with more variance. Instead of giving two speakers 28.5 because they were both pretty close you can give an 85 and an 87.

 

In terms of college debate, this seems to be a bit lower than most judges, but it is what i am going to use for St. Marks.

 

What does everyone think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you all know, St Mark's is using the 100 pt. scale for speaker points this year. I like it. This is the conversion I am using. There is a BUNCH of debate about this in the college curcuit, so hit up e-debate for opinion's from people who are smarter than me.

 

 

27=70

27.5=75

28=80

28.5=85

 

 

etc

 

drop the 2, move decimal over to the right. Allows same levels of gradation among speakers with more variance. Instead of giving two speakers 28.5 because they were both pretty close you can give an 85 and an 87.

 

In terms of college debate, this seems to be a bit lower than most judges, but it is what i am going to use for St. Marks.

 

What does everyone think?

 

I think it's good - Stefan posted something similar to this. (and uniformity is the goal here.)

 

Really, any number of scales would be OK. The problem is a lack of uniformity.

 

3 big things screw up uniformity:

 

1. Tab rooms refuse to publish guidelines. I think that's unfortunate. It's your tournament - tell us what you want us to do.

 

2. Horrible judges who want to prove that they're "tough" or that debate was way better when they won the East Gumption Classic in 93, so refuse to adjust to the scale. These individuals deserve mockery.

 

3. Judges who want to continue to be pref'd and fear a college judging career in JV. This is at least understandable, although it does suck for all the other children. Some judges, like me, are just temperamentally softies.

 

Ideally, speaker points across a whole field should describe a bell curve.

 

Reasonable humanity means that it will be a distorted bell curve, because no one with a modicum of grace wants to make fine distinctions between "not clearing" and "bottom of the bracket" - they get it, they need to get better, no need to pile on.

 

That said - bell curve with a peak BELOW the clearing level is really what this is supposed to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×