Judging Philosophy Books

[NonEcdicus]

Margesson's comments at the end of the current "Strikes . . ." discussion inspired another NPDA Nationals Reform issue on which I'm genuinely curious to generate input. RJM wrote:

"Honestly, the judging philosophy book is not a ton of help either. Other than the few folks that gave pretty clear indications of their inexperience or their unshakable biases most of the philosophies read the exact same way. I am glad I had the book to scout out the freaks but after that it was 100+ people claiming to be the ideal judge."

So, what are the implications? How could the Judging Philosophy Books be made more valuable? Should they be abandonned entirely? Should they even be mandatory as they are now? Or, does the fact that 100+ people were forced to write something up just before Nationals defining the "ideal judge" mean that the books actually do something good the way they are now?

-Brian

P.S. And, still hoping for ideas on the CEDA Awards subject, too . . .

[Eagle of Meaux]

while the book was frustrating from time to time, it was also very helpful in some situations. I don't see any harm from it. Perhaps giving the form more structure might be helpful. have people rate on a 1-9 scale how much they like types of arguments (critiques, couterplans, theory arguments). Perhaps the same could be done with rating on how much people value content vs. presentation. Also some yes no questions may be useful. Ex: “if a new argument is made in a rebuttal is the other team required to call a point of order for it to be considered new?” It might make things more useful and prevent "make it good" from being considered a judging philosophy as it was by one critic this year.

Keith

[Dan6814]

I definitely think we need to preserve them; maybe everyone's definition of 'wacko' is the same, but I think what I consider flat-out inappropriate judging is another team's perfect judge. A voluntary system isn't going to help (although it's de facto voluntary at the moment, apparently); there's no reason to believe that the people I fear judging me won't believe that they are mainstream enough not to bother with the judging philosophy.

Maybe this would be different with 5-7 strikes -- and I think there's merit to that idea -- but with the current amount of strikes, I certainly want to see everyone's philosophy. In fact, I think timely submission of judging philosophies at a point substantially before the tournament has to become a real requirement, the same way letters of good standing and payment are. It is a competitive advantage to not send in judging philosophies, as your team has a better idea of the pool than everyone else. It is also unfair to all teams in that they are not given the information promised in the tournament invitation.

Dan P.

[truthisjust]

I think massey sent out a list of questions a couple of years ago that he thought should be included in every judging philosophy. I don't remember all of them but I think it was pretty good. I think there should be a list of questions that require answers. I am not sure about the ranking system because it wouldn't give you an explanation of when the critic would like to see those types of arguments. I think we do need some changes made. I happen to disagree with rob though. I found the philosophies pretty helpful about 50 percent of the time. MOst of the time you can infer which types of arguments a judge is going to buy based on the other types of arguments a judge is going to buy or key words like "parli purist."

I also like the idea of having awards similar to CEDA. I like the way that AFA has it set-up. I think the awards should be similar to how the irish debaters are chosen insofar as it is mostly based on community service and academics. I think critics of the year should be voted on by a committee of students.

[Eagle of Meaux]

perhaps the ranking sheet with a section for comments below? I'm just try to avoid answer like "I look at this issue fairly, the way you'd expect a reasonable judge to." Whenthe question deals with weather or not a judge buys critiques.

Keith

[truthisjust]

good point... agreed...

[RJM]

My problem with the philosophies is the fact that so many of them said the exact same thing. What they said was what everybody would expect a judge to say to appear legitimate. Honestly, somebody go through those things and count how many critics said they were "on the flow" or consider themself a "flow judge." Those terms have been so bastardized that they have lost all meaning. How many judging philosophies made the bold statement that the critic won't, "consider new arguments in the rebuttals"? Wow! My point is I that so many of the philosophies offer little insight into the mind of the critic. People just weighed in on the few big name issues that might come up in a debate and said what they were supposed to say.

I agree with a series of questions. With the event changing rapidly (too rapidly for its own good in some ways) and different districts clinging to different approaches to the event a lot of critics are unaware of some of the strategies that are popping up and are unable to directly reference them in their philosophies. Issues like Kritiks/Critiques should be addressed. Topicality is a must. Link is a must. Res o' fact/value/policy distinctions are a must. I'm sure there are more but I'll stop there.

I never said scrap it. I said it helped me scout out the flakes. Its just that after those people were pegged the rest were rather redundant.

RJM

BTW, Rodriguez's philosophy was the best in the book. It said (I'm paraphrasing here) , "I'm a bit loony." I appreciated the insight.

[NonEcdicus]

Yeah, my favorites this year were Kinnaman and Rodriquez (although, I was disappointed to learn that after being originally named in Scott's, I was later removed--I'd been a point of reference as a judge with whom he'd frequently been on a panel, but with whom he'd always ended up squirrelling). :(

The question I know that we've struggled with in the past, though, is what questions would we ask? RJM starts to get at this, but, given the tremendous diversity of opinions on debate theory and the "nature of parliamentary debate" as having few actual rules as to conduct, wouldn't any questions posed on the "official" JP form seem to provide guidance as to what is and isn't legitimate in round? If I were the one writing the JP form (and who knows if I might be?), how could I remain absolutely neutral, but yet select a set of questions that were helpful?

-Brian

[Tutakai]

The "what questions do we ask" issue is precisely the problem I had with Michelin's proposed list. Basically, the list was a series of the "pet issues" that concerned Michelin and a few others who also thought alike about things like disclosure, the objectivity of "the flow" etc, but was NOT so useful to those who have other concerns such as debate ethics (i.e. lying about points of fact or the existence/nature of the other team's arguments -- an increasingly common problem).

Almost any conceivable list will be both incomplete and biased towards the interests and concerns of the person(s) making the list. Additionally, the current problem of everything reading the same is likely to continue even with a list of questions. Most all the judges know the way they are SUPPOSED to sound on the philosophies and they know all the "politically correct" answers. I mean, who would answer "no" to "Do you vote on the flow? in invite all the derision and ridicule that would result? Indeed, most judges that do intervene do so while believing themselves to BE "voting on the flow".

The problems that people encounter with judges are generally not resolvable through judge philosophy books, strikes, or even MPJ. The problems lie in biases that judges are not willing to admit or are even unaware of. Trying to force it out of them only results in more philosophies that say all the right empty phrases and give no insight.

Additionally, many problems lie in the fact that we do NOT, as a community, have a shared set of perceptions about what Parli is and how it "should" be done or judged. The strident demands and disrespectful references of self-styled "judge the judges" types have had the effect of driving public disagreement underground but also had the perverse effect of entrenching erroneous notions and practices that cannot be civilly discussed in public any longer. Thus, we continue to have the APPEARANCE of near-unanimity in public fora and in the judge philosophy books, but we continue to have huge diversity in actual practice.

This last year, I tried very hard to write my philosophy in a way that emphacized something outside of the usual empty phrases (i.e. ethics in debate regarding facts about the world as well as what is happening in the round) AND I tried very hard to focus on those things in the rounds so that my decisions would reflect those things upon which "fair notice" had been given.

Nonetheless, my views about judge philosophies are now more mixed than in previous years. I found most of the philosophies in the books to be empty of useful content -- mere regurgitations of what the judges KNEW they were EXPECTED to say to pay homage to "required thought" on various issues. I saw some bizarre decisions come out of judges who had boilerplate philosophies. Additionally, I find teams frequently ignore or misinterpret a philosophy or, on the other extreme, over-adapt to something they THINK they saw there.

[truthisjust]

Jason writes "(IT) was NOT so useful to those who have other concerns such as debate ethics (i.e. lying about points of fact or the existence/nature of the other team's arguments -- an increasingly common problem)."

Hmmm... it seems to me that there should be UNIVERSAL agreement on this being bad. I don't see why a judge would have to tell me what they think about this. If a judge tells me they are okay with it, does that mean I am going to start lying? I don't think this is signifigant in judge adaptation.

I think Jason makes a good point that we are likely to get the same problems with a list of questions. I think this is true only if the wording of the questions allows for this. I think Keith has a good point (now that I think about it) about having both questions and rankings. Even if the list just included the following, my teams would have been much better off:

1. I use the flow as the sole determinate for my decision
2. I will vote on topicality
3. I will not vote on kritiks
4. I believe in value/fact/policy distinctions
5. Style plays a role in my decision


and then the judge ranks on a scale of 1-5 or something like that followed by a comment section after each question. Then at the end have a space for any additional information that the critic wants to provide.

You are right that the list will be bias but I don't see a problem with that. At the very least it is MORE helpful.

You are also right that SOME critics may say "I vote on the flow," when they really don't. But not all will. And not all issue are as agreed upon as the flow. So it, once again, will be MORE helpful.

[NonEcdicus]

Jason has some really good points. And Justin probably has a good point too in that something could be done to make the JP form at least "more" valuable than it is right now. Jason's right, though, that questions like Justin's or Michelin's are problematic to the extent that they express a bias with regard to debate theory, or I would add give an opportunity for judges to feel OK about violating what rules are actually there.

For instance, making it so easy for a judge to say that he or she uses the flow as the "sole determinate of my decision" or that "No, style plays no role in my decision" seems to let the judge ignore the NPDA Constitution's statement that "The purpose of the National Parliamentary Debate Association is to promote limited preparation debate that emphasizes both content and delivery." (Not to mention that we have no idea how "well" the person really keeps a flow nor what that even means to the person.)

Likewise, making it easy for a person to say "No, I don't vote on topicality" allows the judge again to ignore what the Bylaws/rules say they are supposed to be evaluating in the debate: "If, at the end of the debate, the judge believes that the proposition team has supported and successfully defended the resolution, they will be declared the winner, otherwise the opposition will be declared the winner."

I could keep going, but figured this might add another concern about using a list of questions to guide JP statements, ratings or not.

I do like the idea of making more of an effort to assure that judges and debaters have read the rules closely just before starting Nationals. NIET has judges sign a copy of the entry form attesting to abide by the rules for the events when judging (kind of like John Meany's proposal for judge certification in NPDA).

Another thought I had was that the way we currently have done the JP form is to have a paragraph (not sure anyone reads it, though) just before it in the invitation--that Skip wrote, I think, back when the system was first started for NPDA--that gives judges some ideas for the kinds of issues they might discuss in their JP. Perhaps we could revisit what that paragraph says through a more democratic and student/coach oriented process. We could base it on submissions solicited by the Tournament Director from the district reps and district student reps on what they would like to see to make JP's most useful based on their experience. Just a thought. Also, I think it should contain a reminder to judges that they are expected to judge consistent with what they have publicized through their JP (CEDA does this, I know).

-Brian

[Tutakai]

I confess I still have ambivelence about this concept. Previous versions of this proposal have suggested judge "education" seminars which begs MANY questions about what would be taught and who would do the teaching. The current version backs away from these problems merely by having DoF's "certify" in the entry that the judges have all been educated in the rules and norms of parliamentary debate. All that does, however, is mask the problem -- the same people who are "certifying" are the ones who are the source of so many of the current misconceptions about the rules. And the suggestion that enforcement would be done by charging teams associated with judges that break the rules is not credible given the extremely conflict-averse nature of the community.

Until the community is willing to take a FIRM stand against those who try to change rules they don't like by ignoring them and/or encouraging/requiring debaters to ignore them (and that includes several on the extreme opposite the much-maligned "performance judge" and "parli purist" judges -- it includes judges that demand evidence citations and judges that impose their biases under the mask of a farcical and disingenuous "I vote on the flow" claim), we aren't going to get anywhere.

[thedancingbear]

The best philosophy in the book was easily Mathey's.

Would that all judges had that degree of honesty and clarity.

-tdb

[pattybar]

I loved Mathey's philosophy, but y'all should also read Chris Stewart's.... the sarcasm at the end should not be overlooked...

Patty