Jump to content

Carpe Noctem

Member
  • Content Count

    345
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

134 Excellent

About Carpe Noctem

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1980
  1. Just clicking "share by email" counts an extra vote even if you don't want to send an email, too. It's going to be a close finish - the WDI has been first or second for awhile now, and they came into today short just a few votes. Every single vote matters a ton, so take ten seconds from your day and vote!
  2. Carpe Noctem

    State Results?

    4A FINALS Wichita-Trinity def. McPherson 5A QUARTERS Kapaun Scott/Cornejo def. BVSW Hegna/Fry BVSW Foulon/Kathol def. Shawnee Heights Guyle/Langer Lansing AF def. Kapaun Smith/Starks BVSW Divelbiss/Ghekas def. Newton Beemer/Young SEMIS Kapaun Scott/Cornejo def. BVSW Foulon/Kathol BVSW Divelbiss/Ghekas def. Lansing AF FINALS BVSW Divelbiss/Ghekas def. Kapaun Scott/Cornejo 6A DOUBLES (with names where I know; sorry - I'm operating on the tweeted bracket and memory - names I'm guessing on are in parens, and a lot of these names and results is deductive reasoning) 1) SME Dastjerdi/Walter def. 32) Campus 16) SMW v. 17) Hutch 8) SME (Mehta/Dinakar) def. 25) Blue Valley 24) Blue Valley Kats/Nicol def. 9) Washburn Rural Cobb/Shipley 28) Manhattan Erdwien/Beer def. 5) Washburn Rural 12) Wichita East Bye/Kamath def. 21) Olathe Northwest Brabec/Larson 13) Wichita East Ochoa/Lankarani def. 20) Garden City 4) SME (Mitchell/Werner) def. 29) Free State Prescher/Lawrence 3) BVN Lindsey/Ramasamy def. Garden City 14) Topeka High v. 19) SMNW 27) Hutch Huxman/Schartz def. 6) SME Mitchell/Bledsoe 22) BVN (Khalif/Sivakumar) def. 10) Washburn Rural 26) WEast def. 7) Washburn Rural 11) BVN Kiersznowski/Ross v. 23) Hutch 15) Free State Liu/Swanson def. 18) Olathe North 2) Free State Cottrell/Hopkins def. 31) Olathe Northwest Michie/Smith OCTOS I don't know much: 1) SME Dastjerdi/Walter def. 15) Free State Liu/Swanson 12) WEast Bye/Kamath def. 28) Manhattan Erdwien/Beer 27) Hutch Huxman/Schartz def. 4) SME Mitchell/Werner QUARTERS SME Dastjerdi/Walter def. WEast Bye/Kamath SME Mehta/Dinakar def. WEast Ochoa/Lankarani Hutch Huxman/Schartz def. BVN Lindsey/Ramasamy Free State Cottrell/Hopkins def. Hutch Crane/Sain SEMIS SME Dastjerdi/Walter def. Hutch Huxman/Schartz SME Mehta/Dinakar def. Free State Cottrell/Hopkins FINALS SME CLOSES OUT - Ali Dastjerdi/Henry Walter/Shrushti Mehta/Bhavish Dinakar. Of those four, Shrushti Mehta and Ali Dastjerdi repeat the state title, though with different partners.
  3. Carpe Noctem

    Waru

    As best I can piece together: FInals: SME Dastjerdi/Walter d. Manhattan Bashaw/Zhu (6-1) Sems: SME Dasterjerdi/Walter d. Hutch (Crane/Sain?) Manhattan Bashaw/Zhu d. SME Mehta/Dinakar Quarters: Manhattan Bashaw/Zhu d. Hutch (Huxman/Schartz?) Also dropping in quarters: BVN Jerwick/Lindsey, Wichita East Bye/Kamath, BVW Sharma/Melookaran. Don't know the quarters bracket due to 4/5 both being Hutch, so the bracket was broken. Assuming 3/5, 4/6, that would mean SME DW > BVW SM; SME MD > WEast BK; Manh BZ > Hutch SH; Hutch CS > BVN JL. Nonbreaking bids: SME Werner/Mitchell BVW Bajwa/Birzer ONW Michie/Smith BVN Khalif/Ramasamy Kapaun Scott/Cornejo Free State Prescher/Liu Newton Cassil/McCloud BV Prakash/Gunnar
  4. I believe debaters from ONW, BV, BVNW, BVN, BVW, and SME have indicated they will be there.
  5. Students representing the State of Kansas in the final round: MAIN EVENTS FX: Allison McKibban, El Dorado, representing the Sunflower District - 4th DI: Elijah Burton Beery, Salina Central, representing the West Kansas District - 4th SENATE: Taylor Ruisch, St. Thomas Aquinas, representing the Three Trails District - 13th; had a #1 vote from one judge HOUSE: Josh Karimi, Topeka West, representing the Flint Hills District - 20th SUPPLEMENTAL/CONSOLATION Prose: Susanna Weller, Salina Central, representing the West Kansas District - 3rd Edited to add results. Congrats!
  6. Extend my last comment responding to all of this.
  7. Your offense: Well, if we're going to call this offense as if it's a debate round...guess I'll number some responses! 1. You never articulate why that's good. 2. In reality, that can be awful - who wants to judge a 1-5 bracket round where one team decides to run performative anarchic ocularcentrism and the other team runs 8 minutes of inherency? 3. There's no situation where a team who wants to win strategizes differently for a round because they're 4-2 instead of 5-1. Your premise is flawed. 4. DCI is a tournament with some ceremonial intent, intending to recognize the very best of Kansas debate. Not knowing the results prior to the awards ceremony puts everyone in the same boat in terms of anticipating results. This preserves the awards ceremony. In addition, I echo Kelly above.
  8. I would oppose this change. 1. There are already infinite metrics. You say that it's disappointing to say "we lost in quarters at state," why not say "we placed 5th at state," or use one of the other metrics ("won three tournaments," etc) to emphasize. There's zero benefit from this. 2. A coach from Three Trails is less likely to accurately be able to evaluate a team from, say, Hays, because they'll almost certainly never see them, even on the rare times where they'd be present at the same tournament. Coaches would be basing their votes on hearsay 95% of the time, resulting in your proposed metric becoming nothing more than "(Metrics already in existence) + (gossip) + (personal bias)." 3. Your change will never have popular support in Kansas. Kansas debate is split into two groups (though not cleanly - plenty of overlap exists) -- those who prefer an open, communicative style and those who prefer the high-flow, varsity/champ style. Take for example, the old DCI system, where coaches ranked teams for admission to the tournament. There were two divisions: traditional and contemporary. Whether you agree with it or not, there are those who believe that one style is superior to the other and will incorporate that into their voting, beyond the sheer skill of teams. There are other reasons, but I think that's probably sufficient for now.
  9. Re: dilution. Interesting; I didn't know all DCI tournaments met the 48-team requirement. Would the following system(s) address the issue, in your mind? Sliding scale, fully proportional. 48 teams in the division = top 16 receive bids. The top 1/3 of the pool (with some rounding calculation) receives bids, with a floor at 8 bids (24 teams) and a ceiling at 16 bids. Sliding scale, adjusted proportional: Alternatively, the sliding scale could adjust proportionality, and decrease bids on a sliding scale between 48 and 32 teams (48 teams receiving 16 bids, 32 teams receiving 8 bids, and a sliding scale in between depending on the number of final entries). This would result in larger divisions giving bids to 1/3 of all teams and the smallest divisions giving bids to 1/4 of teams - a system that may make sense. (between 32 and 48 teams, every two teams added results in one extra bid, so 40 teams for example would result in 12 teams receiving bids) There's little motivation to dilute, here. Dilution is largely motivated by the severe jump from 16 bids to 8 when one team drops. Instead, it's a loss of one bid at most. In the case of a fully-proportional system, it seems that the opposite motivation could exist - that teams would want to create and seek out smaller divisions. However, this motivation (if it occurred) would result in those smaller divisions becoming larger anyway, addressing its own issue. In the adjusted-proportional system (which would probably be my preference of the two), the motivation may be minimized since it's a loss of one bid rather than 8. EDIT: I recognize that some teams may believe "more bids = good" and still believe that a full 48-team division is the best case for them. However, this can be rectified simply by informing about the new system. It's an economy problem of imperfect information, is all. Adjusted proportional does not eliminate this motivation, but it seems to be minimized somewhat. Maybe teams would still drop novices (for example) into the field to increase bids - maybe the only solution is entirely removing the motivation through the system the coaches voted on and accepted this year. I'm not sure. Just throwing ideas out there.
  10. Right, yes, of course. I shouldn't type long posts over lunch when I'm tired. Thanks; fixed.
  11. Organizing the discussion. Bolded is any action/vote taken by the coaches. Sub-lettered points are either votes by the coaches or opinions posted by someone other than me. 1. General: Reforms to shrink the pool 1a. Various proposals to shrink the pool considered and rejected by the coaches. 1b. Inclusive tournament is better. See: 2nd place team made it to DCI on two octos bids. 1c. I think that it seemed the majority of coaches seemed to hesitant to limit the size of the field. I think many of us are firmly on the fence about whether it ought to be smaller...I know I am. On any given day I feel like I might be compelled to make 3 bids the standard, or leave it alone (the two most diverse settings discussed I think)...or use some metric in between (4 wins @ tournaments gets a bid, 2 bids + 60% w/l record, etc.)...or just to set the size of the field and then limit entries based on a tiebreaker (Mr. Dubois' + system, w/l, etc.)... 2.All DCI divisions award bids to top 16 teams; 48-team requirement eliminated by the coaches. Must have .500 or better record to receive a bid. 3. Standardize MPJ 3a. We do need a consistent way to use MPJ, provided we're going to continue offering it. I might be more in favor of offering a set number of strikes, and letting everything else happen as it will in terms of computer assigned judging. But, I could also be pursuaded to vote for a full MPJ system. I think (could be wrong) that Tom's idea of using an MPJ like the KCK tournament was used last year - it didn't work either, from what I remember. But, I'm a firm believer that adaptation is important - if everyone is bringing experienced judges who flow, I think I'm happy to have judges be pretty random. (And this year, I must say, that I think every judge in the pool that I recall met that criteria). 4. Open tab room 4a. Having everyone in the dark about how they are doing makes this a special tournament. Teams that have 2 wins are still debating as if they had 6 because the competition is good and you just never know. While I agree a coach wants to coach, let this be the one tournament where the kids walk in the room and just debate their hearts out against whoever they are facing. 4b. I don't think the tab room should be open. I like it the way it is - even though it drives me bananas throughout the tournament. It does make it something different, and I think not knowing is valuable. 5. Break to Octos 5a. Don't make it an elimination tournament. I've voiced before that DCI is special because at the end everyone is still there. Everyone is hoping they won it (because of the closed tab). Everyone is there to congratulate the winners of the tournament, not just the team who took second. This makes for a much better celebration of the best of Kansas. Don't make it just another invitational in which everyone goes home without knowing who did well. 5b. I don't want elims. I like that everyone gets 7 debates. I think power matching ought to be different, though. I don't like that every round is High-High. I think a combination of H/L and H/H rounds is more ideal. I don't think we ought to be punishing teams for good performances throughout the tournament. Tom does a good job of isolating this. When 5 v. 6, 7 v. 8, etc. happen in round 7...teams get eliminated who have been in the top 10 most (or all) of the tournament. At the very least I think round 7 ought to be H/L w/ in brackets. But I think 2-3 H/L w/ in bracket rounds would be better. 6. All 5-2 teams should medal 6a. The placing is what matters. 6b. All teams already medal. But I think Tom meant (and I agree) that all 5-2's ought to place - at least be announced @ the awards. This was a concern of mine heading in to this year. With the addition of an extra powermatched round in the future, I think it lowers the chance of a 5-2 not being in the top 10...but you never know what might happen and we ought to have a contingency in place for that. I don't think its necessary that the medals be engraved w/ an 11th place or whatever - but I think its nice at a tournament this competitive that we ensure all 5-2's get recognized/placed. 7. Round 7 should be high-low instead of high-high. "I find it odd that the matchup between the 5 and 6 seed in round 7 is pretty much guaranteed to eliminate one team." 7a. I think that the current power matching works best, but if there is a bunch of people who are deadset on creating hidden brackets, then high-low for round 7 would be fine. Again, lets not make this the same as all other tournaments. 8. Opp record should be used as a tiebreaker before ranks. 8a. I believe opp record is better than speaker points, but ranks are the most important. Perhaps the tie breakers need to be different for power matching and final placings. opp record after round 2 is pretty meaningless. 8b. Determining final placings - I think Tom definitely means for final placings here and not for brackets. I think power matching ought to be based no quality points (not speaker points), but that final placings' tiebreakers need to be visited. Teams with lower opp records that are in the top 10 ought to have better speaker points - that's the nature of the game. But, teams who have tougher schedules ought not be punished in final placings for winning a bunch of rounds on 5's. I think if we found a way to normalize quality points (better this year in terms of consistency, still a little short), that'd be the ideal tiebreaker for placings. But, in light of that, I agree that opp record is a better tiebreaking barometer than ranks. Its possible that I field test this idea @ the Tom Kelly Debates next September. My various disconnected thoughts: 1-2. I think that the pool is well-created in the current system. I don't think I support the Committee's choice to make all DCI divisions extend bids to the top 16 teams; it seems to me that the need for a "must be 50% or better" standard indicates that this rule may be taking inclusiveness a bit too far. I do not know if DCI divisions farther west have had trouble meeting the 48-team requirement or if they have trouble (either logistically or financially) traveling to the majority of DCI bid tournaments that occur farther east, towards KC. I also do not know if those eastern tournaments are generally over the 48-team requirement anyway. If the above is true, the rationale might be seeking statewide equity in availability of bids - a movement which I would support. If the primary motivating factor is inclusiveness, I would tend to oppose it. I suspect the former is true. Either way, we will see the effects of the new tweak next year. 3. I don't know if there's an argument to be had against standardizing MPJ, when it is used. I tend to think the real debate is whether MPJ should be used, as per Kelly's post above mine. I support MPJ at DCI, since teams should be able to play to their strengths a bit at a tournament intended to highlight the strengths of Kansas debate. I do not think the judge pool is as homogeneous as some believe. That said, it's not like I'd lose any sleep at night over losing MPJ at DCI, as long as the judge pool continues to be as excellent as it has been. 4-5. I agree with the above two responses re: keeping tab closed and no outrounds. 6. I think all 5-2 teams should be recognized separately. It's a hell of an achievement to survive the DCI gauntlet with only two losses, regardless of where your speaker ranks or other tiebreakers end up. 7. I think high-low within brackets in Round 7 would be a welcome change. Teams at the top of each bracket would experience marginal reward, rather than marginal penalty. 8. While I go back and forth on opp record versus ranks, I tend to think that opp record is much less in the control of the teams debating than ranks. If Team A hits Team B in round 1, and Team B has a terrible tournament, sure, Team A likely had an easier round than others had - but there was nothing at all that Team A could do about that. A counterargument, of course, is that Team A may have received a W3 when they might have won on a 5 against another team, but a dropped speaker point or two may be corrected as the tournament continues (by a W5 in the next round, or potentially even a loss, as teams are paired high-high), while a 0-7 opp record is likely difficult to overcome by no fault of the team in any tiebreaker.
  12. Updated; thanks for the replies! As more start rolling in, I'll organize it with a table of contents and whatnot.
  13. Information compiled from this thread will be available HERE: https://docs.google....0P2_qDUYJ4/edit There's a lot of information out there on debate camps. A lot. It's not organized terribly well, to put it mildly. We can look all day through camps and decipher which amazing debaters went to which camps, but at the end of the day I think it's reasonable to say that a majority of decisions about where to go to camp are based on testimonials. Even if not, I hope this can become at least a semi-helpful resource for high school debaters making the choice to attend a camp. In addition to the testimonial information all of you provide, I intend to pull together all of the basic information on any camp I can find information on so it is compiled in one place. For any/all camp(s) that you attended, please provide as much of the following as possible. It's not necessary that you provide everything if you can't or don't want to, but in particular please provide at least one con (if you can think of any at all), even if it's minor. Most people like their camp experiences, but identifying weaknesses would significantly help debaters make these decisions. Also, please tell me if you can think of something I don't identify below that would be helpful. Camp attended: Program and Session: Year: General description of the format and how the session operated: Things the session did particularly well/pros: Anything the session did not do particularly well/cons: Any other comments you have about the camp, and/or any advice you have for someone considering the camp: Thanks!
  14. In defense of Kansas debate, I think a few things need to be recognized. Other people have mentioned the current success of some teams, so I won't talk about that. Kansas' policy debate season begins in mid-September and ends with State in January. From January through the end of second semester, all other events are done. This includes even other debate events like LD, and "debate" events like PFD (sorry, Missouri). The effect of this split season is that Kansas has huge participation in debate. The state has 2.8 million people living there; we have qualified 18+ policy debate teams to nationals every year for quite some time. Eighteen. That's six districts (East Kansas, Three Trails, West Kansas, South Kansas, Sunflower, and Flint Hills), each putting forth 30+ teams at the qualifier. In sum, that's an absolute minimum of 180 teams debating at the NFL qualifiers every year, and teams are rather limited in how many teams each school can send. Kansas has some of the largest programs in the nation. In terms of degrees, we boast the 2nd-largest program and 5 of the largest 25. The level of participation per capita is likely beyond any measure of comparison as a result of this split season, and is probably exceedingly high compared to many other states. In terms of new degrees, Kansas has 7 of the top 22 programs as well. In addition, many of those debaters compete at 8 policy debate tournaments during the season, not including the NFL qualifier or state. During forensics season, these debaters often compete in up to 8 forensics tournaments. With this extremely high number of people debating compared to a low state population, hosting many tournaments across the state each week is no simple task. It is impossible to have an experienced judge in every single round, especially in more rural areas outside of Kansas City, Lawrence, Topeka, and Wichita. Parents and other lay judges are a necessity to support this high level of participation, and we're extremely thankful for their help. Each week, we have varsity divisions where many experienced judges and teams congregate, resulting in a well-developed varsity division. Mentioning Kansas in this thread makes even less sense when you consider the success of Kansas debaters. Off the top of my head, Kansas has had two top speakers at NFL in the last 5 years, including a team in finals. We've also had great showings at CFL. A conflict between the ToC and the state's high school activity association makes competing at circuit tournaments difficult, and yet the few teams Kansas has been able to send have been successful this year. tl;dr: I'm proud of the debate community in which and for which I competed, and for which I now coach. Our level of participation and success is continually understated or unknown throughout the nation, and frankly, there's no reason that should be the case. Other states are great as well, but it makes absolutely no sense to single Kansas out as the state with "the worst policy debaters as a whole." That's ignorant, at best.
×
×
  • Create New...