Disclosure

[Eagle of Meaux]

By Andrew's request here's a thread to get all of those "more radical(reactionary?)" views expressed. Oh, and Andrew, my team and I were up on the balcony too, and while we did resort to rather raucous games of spades we didn't feel isolated in any way.
I’ll throw my first pro-disclosure statement up after I get back from Lab. Feel free to post before then though.

Keith

[stroblight]

Thanks Keith...I remember seeing that team playing spades and I'm glad you had a good time. I feel bad that my other post sounded like I was seeking a lot of sympathy (really, I'm not terribly upset by the separation...it was just interesting to me). Just for the record, nationals was a grand time even with the warm room :)

Ok, back on topic...

I'm really not opposed to disclosure in the sense some people are opposed to it (like not having it at all). I do have some concerns about it being practically implemented:

1) Time is an issue. I don't know how this area can be effectively addressed (besides just encouraging judges and competitors to keep their comments brief). As Patty mentioned in another thread, time is a serious matter at tournaments and it shouldn't be brushed aside. While this should be an area of concern, I don't think this alone should deter disclosure from being implemented.

2) There will be people who don't want to take part in disclosure (I know that's tough for some people to understand, but it's true). That's not a reason not to have disclosure, but it should spur responsible disclosure. Here's what I mean: If I choose not to take part in the disclosure right after a round, I have the option of leaving (like many have noted). Problems arise though when judges don't recognize that option. This doesn't happen because judges start disclosing before students leave the room. Rather, it happens when judges use disclosure as a replacement for explaining their reason for decision on the ballot. In most rounds I've been in when judges have disclosed, they usually make a statement that since they are disclosing, the ballot won't be as in depth. I just want us to be aware that disclosure shouldn't be a trade-off with thorough ballots.

3) It should be clear before the tournament begins whether the disclosure encouraged will include the actual decision. I know we all read into the comments to try and see who won (like...whichever side the judge talks to first lost :) ), but some teams might be more accepting of disclosure based on whether decisions are given to the teams right away or not. Again, this not a reason not to have disclosure...it's just something that should be considered before disclosure is widely implemented.

Well...now that I think about it, I'm not very radical with my views. I just want us to work through these concerns before disclosure is widely implemented (or used at nationals).

Looking for an issue I can agree with the rest of you on,

Andrew

[stroblight]

OK...I feel kind of silly...

On the third part of my previous post I meant to say: There should be a distinction between oral critiques being encouraged and disclosure being encouraged.

Sorry,

Andrew

[pattybar]

It seems to me that the most effective sort of post-round discussion happens when both parties have some perspective on the round.

About 5 years ago I started a practice of ending the round by thanking the competitors and telling them that, while I needed to consider my decision and comments, if they would like some additional feedback they could see me after breaks were posted. I then made a few notes on the round so I could remember it, wrote my ballot and went on my way.

This year I generally told competitors that I didn't like crowds, so I'd be outside with the smokers and if they wanted to chat after they'd seen the decision I would be happy to discuss the round with them. Many debaters found me (almost 100% of them the winners) and we had some good discussions about the round and debate in general.

This tactic has some advantages.

First, I am not directly telling them that they won or lost, so if that news makes the debater a bit angry they don't need to try to hide it from me in order to have a civil conversation.

Second, it gives me some perspective on the round and promotes a more relaxed, teaching oriented environment.

Third, those who didn't want to discuss the round didn't have to hear anything... they'd just smile and wave as they went by.

Fourth, I am not forced to critique a team in front of their competition... so I can give some different kinds of comments than I would normally without hurting their chances if the two teams meet again.

Perhaps if you are a competitor who would like additional feedback but is wary of immediate post-round discussions you could try asking the judge if you can find them later to discuss the round. You can blame a time-crunch, mention the upcomming lunch break or whatever you'd like to get out of the room ASAP and then have the discussion when you are in a learning mode. The other thing that would help is to minimize the stuff you have out of your bag during the round, thus making for a fast get-away...

Patty

[Eagle of Meaux]

Well, it seems that there’s more general agreement than I had expected. Andrew, I agree that the points you mention certainly ought be considered when implementing disclosure. Patty, your system seems like an excellent one for you, I just as a bit skeptical in terms of its utility for others. I have had many judges whom my partner and I have spoken to after rounds who remember little of the round, or don't have their flows, or put all of their comments on the ballot and thus don't remember them, etc. It seems much more likely for me to get better feedback immediately following the round when it’s still fresh in the judge's mind.
I have found the oral critiques that I have received (especially when paired with disclosure) to be some of the more educational parts of the debate activity for me. I would hope that it could be more fully implemented. Does anyone know of the substantive objections to it? Direct feedback just seems like such a natural part of the debate experience to me (especially after doing CEDA) that I have difficulty thinking of them. The ones I have heard thus far all deal with judges feeling uncomfortable or competitors harassing them. Neither of these seems incredibly likely or significant to me, perhaps I’m viewing them wrong.

Keith

[truthisjust]

I forget a lot about a round soon after I turn in my ballot. I also find that it is difficult to write a comprhensive RFD on a ballot if the round is close. I know this leaves the debaters:

A. with a lot of questions
B. angry with my decision

Thus, the only way for me to communicate my decision effectivley is to disclose in round.

[Eagle of Meaux]

sounds good to me.

Keith

[pattybar]

Keith,

To catch you up on some of the main arguments against disclosure, in no particular order:

1) Student/judge uncomfortable. Not as trivial as some would think. The problem is two fold, first the debaters are sometimes very emotionally tied to the outcome of the round and are afraid of their own negative reaction. Since immediate disclosure is not easily avoided, debaters feel uncomfortable before they are familiar with the activity.

Impact, we lose some good, young, debaters who have not had the time to develop the maturity to divorce themselves from the round. It takes some level of maturity and experience to see that a decision on a round does not equal a judgment on a person.

Second, inexperienced judges, especially, may need time to think about the round. They may also feel that the immediate disclosure of a decision would prompt debaters, who are much more experienced in debate than the judge, to challenge the legitimacy of the decision. At this point the judge must defend their decision.

Impact: the pool of judges becomes narrowed to only those with debate experience who feel comfortable verbally defending their decisions. I often think that this very problem could easily have discouraged me from continuing as a judge.

2) Immediate disclosure tends to put time pressure on decisions that could change the results of the round... or debaters may have additional reasons for getting the ballot not presented within the round. Either way, the decision with disclosure could easily be different than that without.

3) Immediate disclosure = knowing records. See arguments against this in the warm room discussions.

4) Immediate disclosure = bad ballots and loss of valuable input tool for coaches. Many judges will just write 'oral'. Also, a significant amount of debate research is done with ballot comments and 'oral' does not allow for this....except in counting 'orals', which someone should do....

5) Immediate disclosure with a critique could lead to conflicting advise for competitors and the responsiblity for coaches to coach students not their own. In the first, it may either confuse the student, lead them to question etc... and/or the coach would have no idea about what was said. In the second, writing a ballot is quicker and coaches are able to do the between-round coaching duties that help their own students compete. Additionally, the coach may give advise that is used against their own students.

6) Immediate disclosure can lead to the judge 'holding court' forcing debaters to listen to them re-hash the round and tell how they would have done it in their time. While this may be interesting and possibly useful info, it is also a huge time issue. When tournaments end late, people can be hurt... when competitors run late they may be required to forfit rounds and/or impact IEs.

I'm sure there are more, but here are the issues in a nut-shell.

This doesn't mean that I completely disagree with disclosures/critiques etc... just that these are the arguments against them.

Patty

[stroblight]

Does anyone else think that oral critiques/disclosure are more justified in policy than in parli? The reason I say that is because of the obvious difference: debating the same resolution each round compared to debating different resolutions. Personally, I am more likely to favor oral critiques in a policy setting. The reason being that the immediate information shared in regards to the specific arguments is more applicable to the rest of the rounds at that tournament. At least in LD this year, I appreciated the input I received regarding specific arguments I ran a great deal. I really want to know if the judge doesn't buy the brink card on my favorite DA or if I should focus more on extending a certain part of my aff. case (note: that doesn't mean I like it when they disclose...you can give and receive great oral critiques without disclosure...there is more skill involved in doing so on the judge's part, but it can happen). With parli though, I really don't get those same benefits. Since I'm not going to be debating that same resolution probably ever again, I don't need that advice on specific arguments right away(for the most part). Of course the comments about overall strategy, style, time allocation, etc. are educational and important, but parli is still lacking the weight of having to debate the same resolution later that day. This isn't to say that oral critiques shouldn't be done in parli, but I'm just not sure if they are as justified here as they are in policy.

Also, I agree with all of Patty's points...especially the first one about the experience of debaters and judges. I know this will spur some discussion because one of the pro-disclosure arguments is that inexperienced debaters are the ones that benefit most from the immediate information shared right after a round. In regards to inexperienced judges, I would also be concerned that an inexperienced judge would be upset or insulted if a team left before they had the chance to give an oral critique (and I'd probably be on one of those teams if disclosure were to occur). Reason being that they might feel that a team is leaving because they don't respect what the judge has to say instead of them just wanting to wait for the ballot.

Hiding from the pro-disclosure predators ;) ,

Andrew

[Dan6814]

See, I think that we often do debate the same issues over and over. I only debated for a semester this year, but debated campaign finance three times, each time forced by the resolution (it would have been four if we had to debate the quads round at Nats). If my constitutional analysis is spotty, I want to hear that from the judge. Heck, more generally, I make a much bigger deal out of the Constitution than most people do. If judges don't think I'm impacting that well, or if it's just not appealing to let thousands die or live in squalor in order to preserve a piece of parchment, then I should know that, as it affects future rounds.

We may not be sure that we'll debate the same issues in the next round (although it happens occasionally), but I can be pretty sure that many issues will come up again in the future.

Dan P.

[stroblight]

Dan,

I'm not trying to say that we won't debate the same issues again, but rather that we won't debate those issues later that tournament (most likely). That's why I think it might be more justified to have an oral critique in policy than in parli.

Andrew

[Eagle of Meaux]

Patty, you raise some interesting points. Unfortunately I'm afraid I don't quite agree.
::takes a deep breath and raises one finger above his head::

Off the number 1:
1)_ _ _ _ there’s no reason that novice judges can’t be paired with novice rounds.
A._ _ _ _ this eliminates the harm due to the experience skew.
B._ _ _ _ Turn. This helps overall because it keeps novice judges out of rounds that are more likely to be highly theoretical and harder to effectively judge without some debate experience.
2)_ _ _ _ It’s claimed that this may make inexperienced debaters uncomfortable. I have several responces.
A._ _ _ _ Turn. Actual communication with the judge can place the student/judge relationship on a much more personal level making competitors more comfortable.
B._ _ _ _ Turn. It allows the judge to give immediate positive reinforcement also increasing comfortibility (I don’t think that’s a word..) for the student
C._ _ _ _ Turn. Stylistic feedback is very important early on. The sooner this feedback is given, the sooner the competitor can improve. This makes the entire tournament more valuable. Increasing education and making the activity more valuable.
3)_ _ _ _ It’s claimed that “we lose some good, young, debaters who have not had the time to develop the maturity to divorce themselves from the round. It takes some level of maturity and experience to see that a decision on a round does not equal a judgment on a person. “
A._ _ _ _ Cross-apply the 2A, better judge student relations check this back, judges will be more sensitive.
B._ _ _ _ Perhaps some briefing to judges should accompany implementation of disclosure that explains some of these issues. That would check back most of these harms, then all that remain are bad judges which will be a problem in any system.
4)_ _ _ _ It is claimed that “inexperienced judges, especially, may need time to think about the round.” There is nothing that prohibits a judge from taking this time. My partner and I have waited for judges on multiple occasions when they were willing to disclose but needed time to work on their ballot first.
5)_ _ _ _ It is further claimed that “At this point the judge must defend their decision.”
::Stands up and applauds loudly::
A._ _ _ _ Turn. the requirement that a judge justify her or his decision leads to more thoughtful and deliberate decisions.
B._ _ _ _ Turn. This requirement decreases incidents of judge intervention. This is universally good.
C._ _ _ _ Turn. This increases the argumentative ability of judges. Education for everyone! :)
D._ _ _ _ Competitors will respect judges’ decisions even when they disagree with them. The vast majority of the CEDA community empirically proves this.
E._ _ _ _ Competitors will not become belligerent if not out of respect then out of fear of offending someone who will judge them again.
6)_ _ _ _ It is claimed that “the pool of judges becomes narrowed to only those with debate experience who feel comfortable verbally defending their decisions.” What I think is more appropriate here is to say that the field of * open * judges will be narrowed to people with experience. Thus inexperienced judges gain experience judging novice and JV and watching open, when they choose, and then begin to judge open once they have the experience they feel is necessary to defend their decisions to debaters. Once again I think this solution is beneficial all around.
Off the number 2: It is claimed that “Immediate disclosure tends to put time pressure on decisions that could change the results of the round... or debaters may have additional reasons for getting the ballot not presented within the round. Either way, the decision with disclosure could easily be different than that without.”
I think the time issue is answered above in the number 4 off number 1. I don’t understand what is meant by “or debaters may have additional reasons for getting the ballot not presented within the round.” It kinda sounds like a claim that due to time constraints judge intervention will increase. I think all of the argumentation above on the number 5 checks this back. Furthermore, can you give me some warrants please?

Off the number 3: “Immediate disclosure = knowing records. See arguments against this in the warm room discussions.”
1._ _ _ _ teams can walkout. This moots any harm on this, but furthermore
2._ _ _ _ turn. This eliminates a need for a warm room, which eliminates ALL of the harms mentioned on that thread.
3._ _ _ _ turn. if one team knows their record they can act as a check on the tab room. This is not to disparage the tab staff in the slightest, but more checks on a large and complicated process can be helpful in correcting errors. This makes the tournament run more accurately which lends more credibility to the activity.
Off the number 4: “Immediate disclosure = bad ballots and loss of valuable input tool for coaches. Many judges will just write 'oral'. Also, a significant amount of debate research is done with ballot comments and 'oral' does not allow for this....except in counting 'orals', which someone should do....”
1.This is not unique to rounds in which disclosure occurs. I’ve had many nearly empty ballots where there was no disclosure
2.Turn. ballots that are actually filled out will be better because decisions will be more carefully thought out. Quality over quantity.
3.CEDA debates tend to have very detailed ballots. This proves no necessary trade off between the two.
4._ _ _ _ Turn. Those who just write “oral” on their ballots probably won’t write tremendous amounts absent an oral critique then you have a nearly empty ballot and nothing to back it up, this is even less feed back.
5._ _ _ _ I will argue oral critiques are more valuable than written ballots because
a._ _ _ _ A disclosure allows for a discussion. A ballot is only one way communication. This is almost always inferior to a dialectic.
b._ _ _ _ Some people have * terrible * handwriting (I’m one of them) There are some ballots which are rendered completely worthless due to this. Oral critiques do not have this problem.
c._ _ _ _ Your argument regarding coaches while important has (in my opinion) a lot less weight on the college circuit as opposed to the highschool. I see people as a lot more responsible for their own improvement on the college circuit. I would value informing the competitor over informing the coach. Regardless, the turns above easily swamp this argument’s potential implications.
Off the number 5: there are 2 major points here, the coach not having the info needed and being forced to coach other students.
1._ _ _ _ I’ll grant out a mitigated version of the info point, though I think the students will inform the coach fairly well, I do concede some things may be missed, and some spun if different ways. I think the impacts to this are outweighed because
A._ _ _ _ more info is generally given in an oral critique than on a ballot so there should be no net loss
B._ _ _ _ diversity of opinions on debate is more valuable than a single focused opinion (in my opinion) This ascribes more agency to the competitor.
2._ _ _ _ coaching other students
A._ _ _ _ I think that this community coming together to teach as well as compete is really important. I know Paul and I would never have gotten to where we are absent the help of the community, Phil Sharp from WW helped us out a lot at the start and we have hit his own debaters and probably debated better because of his critiques. Likewise I imagine Shelby’s critiques may have helped Amy and Dan against us. The bottom line is that this cross coaching made for better debates which increases our education and enjoyment of the activity. That outweighs just about everything for me.
B._ _ _ _ Claiming this argument also reveals an underlying assumption: oral critiques are more effective than ballots in terms of improving students. The double bind here is clear. Either
1._ _ _ _ Oral critiques do not increase debater education more than balots do, making this entire line of argumentation completly non-unique, or
2._ _ _ _ Oral critiques do increase debater education which means they ought be implemented via all of the analysis above.
Off the number 6: This is an excellent point. I think some compromise work must be done to come to a solution. I favor either runners to return ballots or the competitors and judges walking and talking with the ballot back to the table, or even meeting at a prearranged place to discuss after the ballots are turned in. In the end though this is a logistical issue, not an argument against disclosure as a concept.

…It seems the CEDA fairy came to visit me today. My apologies for the format of the post, I do think the arguments and structure are fairly clear however.


Keith

[ML]

I don't have time to get into every one of your points, but I have to respond to a few rather important issues, Mr. West....

1) there’s no reason that novice judges can’t be paired with novice rounds.
A. this eliminates the harm due to the experience skew.
B. Turn. This helps overall because it keeps novice judges out of rounds that are more likely to be highly theoretical and harder to effectively judge without some debate experience.

How does one define a novice? Why do we automatically assume experience = competance? I've seen many inexperienced judges with a great deal of knowledge, critical insight, and teaching experience render just as, if not more, balanced, justifiable, and educationally valuable decisions than "experienced" judges. Certainly, the inverse is true but my point is this: Just because a round deals with some highly advanced theory doesn't mean only a certain elite group of experienced debate folk get the priviledge of judging those rounds. How else will new critics come to understand the theory? Who determines when a person has "done their time in the trenches" to get boosted up to junior or senior division? The tournament director? God? My Mom? Who keeps track over the course of a given year's worth of tournaments across any regions a given school may travel to?

Intelligent, thoughtful people should be able to determine a ballot and justify their decision adequately in the manner they feel most comfortable (oral, written, or both) regardless of number of rounds judged. The greater problem I see is judges who consider themselves "experienced" who drop teams or make decisions based on "rules" that don't exist and personal judging paradigms that are never clearly articulated. Anyone who has dealt with ballots making mention of requiring POI's in the form of questions only (Uh hello, are we on Jeoprady? Where's my parting gift?) or other arcane silliness knows what I'm talking about. Lots of experienced judges intervene; much of the time it's their experience that seems to provide their justification for such.

Furthermore, if your assumption is true about less experience=less articulate fair decisions and therefore less willingness to disclose, that's kind of unfair to the novice debaters who have to deal with "novice" critics. They're deserving of good educational experiences too, perhaps more so, precisely because they have had less experience. So according to your rationale, they are also deserving of experienced, articulate critics. A diverse judging pool is just as important as a diverse competitor pool for the health of this activity. Stratification based on an as-yet-arbitrary set of criteria labeled "experience" won't solve the problems disclosure advocates set out to address.

2) It’s claimed that this may make inexperienced debaters uncomfortable. I have several responces.
A. Turn. Actual communication with the judge can place the student/judge relationship on a much more personal level making competitors more comfortable.
B. Turn. It allows the judge to give immediate positive reinforcement also increasing comfortibility (I don’t think that’s a word..) for the student....

It's not a word, but I'm sure you'll get the credit if it catches on...
On this, I think that in theory you are correct. However, it can be rather confusing, and downright frustrating, to have so much feedback all at once. (Wait until you have to write a thesis; at a certain point, diverse and plentiful feedback can actually have diminishing returns) Critics can and do contradict each other. It's great to get feedback, but it's hard to separate what's worth incorporating in the future and what is worth only incorporating in front of that critic in the course of a 4-6 round day. That's why it's really nice to have good ballots to review with your coaches/team members at the end of the tournament, in addition to helpful oral critiques. And though this touches on another argument made later, I know from eight years of separating CEDA ballots from NPDA ballots after tournaments that oral disclosure does have a pretty profound impact on the quality of written ballots. With some notable exceptions, most policy ballots have at most "oral", some time markings, and occasionally some cryptic comments or drawings. (Someone made a lovely leaf etching once at U of O) Not a lot to get your arms around if you weren't there, which makes it really difficult as a coach to figure out what the heck went on.

B. Perhaps some briefing to judges should accompany implementation of disclosure that explains some of these issues. That would check back most of these harms, then all that remain are bad judges which will be a problem in any system.

I'd be tickled to see more forums for judges to ask questions and educate themselves--in fact if L&C continues its early October tournament next year, I'd like to propose incorporating a clinic into the schedule. It's hard to do with most full service tournaments, however, and even harder to come up with a concise format that cures all perceived ills. (Though if you'd like to help me try Keith, I'd welcome the assistence)

Generally speaking, my opinion is that disclosure will evolve as a more standard practice as the community becomes more accepting of it, but mandating it only makes people on both sides feel uncomfortable. It brings to mind the silliness of the "Third-Date-Sex-Rule"; people will only do it when they're ready, and forcing it only makes them awkward and resentful toward each other....<img src=http://www-scf.usc.edu/~link/netbenefits/emoticons/snicker.gif ALT=":snicker">

Waiting for the hounds to be released....and please put your finger down, it's rude to point....heh heh
ML

[Eagle of Meaux]

I do cry havoc ML. I'm more than happy to get to discuss this with you. You have some excellent points, which I will concede, and a few others the dogs will growl at a bit more.
Regarding the first point. My number one: your mom. My number two… ok well I guess all I’ve go there is the first one. You raise a good point about what’s considered a novice and why judges and competitors of lower experience levels ought be put together. I think I’m going to concede this to you for the most part. The thing I do want out of this is an understanding regarding what it is and is not legitimate to say regarding novice judges. Just as it is probably illegitimate to attempted to classify these judges as to any degree incompetent (which was not my intention, that’s why I singled out debate theory as the reason why some rounds may be more difficult for those without debate experience to judge, I tried to avoid making a generally disparaging statement regarding them. Perhaps I failed.) I believe it is also illegitimate to classify them as, to any degree, unable or unwilling to defend their decisions. The degree to which the assumption of the original argument is valid is the degree to which the assumption of my response is valid. I would say both should be dropped.
On the second issue: I think your position is predicated upon the assumption that there will be decent and legible (I know you’ll agree with me on that one) ballots to review. I still have yet to see a demonstrable and trade off between thorough ballots and disclosure.
Beyond that however I think that the overload issue is an important point to raise but I don’t think it answers back the fact that this allows for positive feedback from judges, or that it makes competitors more secure talking to their judges. I think its something to consider, but I don’t think getting comments from 4 or 5 judges over the span of 12 hours is going to fry to many people. Besides, people can always choose to leave before disclosure if they wish to avoid this problem.
ML, I’m all about the judge briefing thingie. Let me know when where and how and I’ll be there to help.
“third-date-sex-rule?” I’ve never heard of…. That would explain…. …. shit.

I’m not entirely sure on my stance on mandating disclosure, but I think its something the community should definitely start to support and encourage.

Keith

[pattybar]

First off, please understand that there are good answers and turns to your turns, and all of it has been hashed out on the parli-L... but with the time pressures at this time of year I just can't do them.... ask me in July and we'll do it one-by-one... (right now I have 2 sets of papers and 1 set of mid-terms to grade and lectures to prep on Rawls' theory of international relations for ethics and utilitarianism for intro to phil... as well as a study guide for Critical Reasoning....).

Second, I didn't say that I was proposing those arguments, only that those are what the arguments ARE. As a philosopher I try to see all sides of the issue... hmmmmm.

From my skimming the answers above, nothing seems to mitigate the overall problem that some people are inherently uncomfortable with immediate post-round disclosure and if it were a requirement and/or an overall norm in parli we would lose them. One of the best things about parli is its accesability, so anything we do to reduce that is an issue.

My actual concerns about disclosure are in the areas of time and coaching control.

As I begin to know the judge pool at another level, I am uncomfortable with the concept that my students would take seriously and act upon the advise of some of the critics out there OR that they would misinterpret that advise and see that advise as reinforcement of the bad habit I am trying to break. If the comments are written on a ballot, I can explain them and more importantly I KNOW about them.

As for time, since the judge doesn't wear a shock collar with the remote control in tab to force return of the ballot promptly, some judges will allow their egos to run-wild and hold up the whole thing. When I am driving back to campus late into the night because one judge in each round decided to give a dissertation rather than a short critique and disclosure of the decision I will decide that I'm not in favor of the practice when I am not busy being scared of falling asleep and rolling the van.

Patty

[truthisjust]

Maybe I differ from most when I say that I am glad if a critic feels uncomfortable. My hope is that if a critic knows she/he has to justify their decision at the end of the round, they will make a better decision. THis maybe somewhat idealistic but I always wanted the bad critic to tell me their RFD with a straight face.

[ML]

Yo,

You respond:
On the second issue: I think your position is predicated upon the assumption that there will be decent and legible (I know you’ll agree with me on that one) ballots to review. I still have yet to see a demonstrable and trade off between thorough ballots and disclosure.

Please see my reference in previous post to years of sorting CEDA (a community in which disclosure is the unofficial standard) and NPDA (where it has not been) ballots after tournaments. It is a rare treat to see a CEDA ballot with more than prep time count-down and random inside jokes to read. At most you get: "I vote on solvency; oral crit". And no, I have no valid test to prove that the increased presence of oral disclosure led to the decrease of legible comprehensive written summaries of decisions. But I can make an educated observation based on what I've seen over the years as the CEDA/NDT merger has become reified and NPDA has grown.....backed up by my own experience in rounds; I take the time to make my decision, give comments orally, AND write something comprehensive on the ballot-I hold up the tournament-I bear the brunt of abuse from Jil, Brian, or worse yet, Steve Hunt. (Do you really want to be on that man's bad side? I didn't think so.) I like Patty's system of writing the important stuff of the round down in addition to keeping your flow, then discussing the round after the ballot has been filled out in full and turned in. But perhaps I'm an idealist to think that everyone will be so conscientious.

To your other point:
Beyond that however I think that the overload issue is an important point to raise but I don’t think it answers back the fact that this allows for positive feedback from judges, or that it makes competitors more secure talking to their judges. I think its something to consider, but I don’t think getting comments from 4 or 5 judges over the span of 12 hours is going to fry to many people. Besides, people can always choose to leave before disclosure if they wish to avoid this problem.

I'd like you to turn to Patty's response here....it's not so much the overload as it is just trying to figure out what's going to really work and what won't in the context of relatively little interaction with your coach to provide a filter. It likely won't "fry" anyone; but it will confuse them and perhaps detract from the more enjoyable elements of the tournament, which may make a lot of people not so hot on attending them. Maybe....

I really think that as much as we yak about the benefits of disclosure here, it's not going to give less experienced critics the tools they need to get better at, and therefore more comfortable with, the idea of disclosing AND making clear written decisions. Judge briefing is so important, but until we find a way to alter our tournament formats, it's gonna be hard to do....it's one more thing to put on the pile of overworked, harried tournament administrators. Hmmm...maybe we should start hiring consultants....

third-date-sex-rule?” I’ve never heard of…. That would explain…. …. shit.

I am told my the receptionist at my office that if you watched more Ally McBeal, Girlfriends, and movies starring Jennifer Aniston and Julia Roberts (pre-Soderbergh) you would know this. Jeez, get a clue.

Tongue firmly in Cheek,
ML

[Western Amy]

ML--I have always been happy with your oral critiques AND your ballots. :)

Now about this consultant job. . . . .

[ML]

Hey if you're willing to work bro-bono...(of course, L&C is fully committed to providing any partner with their weight in the mind-altering substance of your choice as compensation) then we may just have ourselves a deal..

Luvies,
ML