Potential Judging pool

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by E_Pluribus_Venom, Jul 5, 2011.

  1. Smartmouthwoman

    Smartmouthwoman Bless your heart Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    55,852
    Likes Received:
    24,682
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I dunno, EPV, seems like you might need to do some vetting before you give someone that much power over their fellow members. How 'bout... never been banned and have less than 3 infractions? After all, how can you trust the judgment of someone who's proved they're incapable of following the rules?

    Heck, I couldn't qualify under those rules... but there oughta be some kinda reward for good behavior around here. Judgeship could be like a pat on the back. ;)
     
  2. E_Pluribus_Venom

    E_Pluribus_Venom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    15,688
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The best way to encourage better actions is to actually encourage it vs. excluding people for expired mistakes. Once we're completed the judging process layout, we'll post it for any volunteer judges to look over (so that they may ask questions, offer suggestions, etc.) and ensure we're on the same page before debates begin.

    How 'bout "not being banned" as a reward.
     
  3. Smartmouthwoman

    Smartmouthwoman Bless your heart Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    55,852
    Likes Received:
    24,682
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The quality of judges is more important than the quality of debaters. That's why they don't let ex-cons serve on juries.
     
  4. E_Pluribus_Venom

    E_Pluribus_Venom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    15,688
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    and with a proper format to follow, it's our best way to ensure volunteers get what we're working toward. This won't be a "no, you're not good enough" idea... if people have a genuine interest, we won't turn our back to it. If there are questions when we post the judging process, we'll answer them.

    I doubt our forum rules parallel the justifications for prison conviction. Participants even get to pick their judges if they're wary of those we choose at random.
     
  5. kmisho

    kmisho New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,259
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's not really what I'm saying. the ability to tell if a kind of argument actually answers a charge is not dependent on knowing the specifics of the case. For example, no matter what the argument, "you're an idiot" is never a substantive rejoinder.

    I like this idea in general. The format should include elements that in themslves can generate interest, such as a closing poll.
     
  6. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Suggestion for judging:

    Each debator chooses a judge. That judge then assigns a point value (1-100) on various criteria (let's say 3 - don't ask me what the criteria is at this point; I'm just forming this thought). The judge then must post rationale for the value assigned to each criteria. Mods/whoever then judge the validity of the rationale posted for assigning the number, and then - based upon the credibility of the rationale/explanation - adjust that assigned number up or down.

    The total points determines the winner.

    It would be pretty hard to screw with that sort of judging process. Obviously, judges who assign '100' to every category would be quickly winnowed out of the judging pool, unless their rationale/explanation was extremely compelling.
     
  7. E_Pluribus_Venom

    E_Pluribus_Venom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    15,688
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    10 steps ahead of you, my friend. We're in the process of forming a point system that involves specific criteria to look for that would require judges to choose and explain reasons for their choices (with different point values assigned based on performance). Though not exactly like this one, it will resemble it in some form.
     
  8. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Perhaps a system similar to this could be a basis for some points.

    http://www.critical-thinking-tutorials.com/checkpoints-of-a-rational-argument/
     
  9. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,462
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    the link is dead, but I'm interested in participating. I assume the judging criteria would be based on which side argued best, not which side I agree with? Otherwise there's little point. :)
     
  10. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is one of the few threads for which I have an active subscription, so I got a notification that someone responded.

    This idea looks dead, no? I have a suggestion: if a one v one debate format cannot be agreed upon, how about a 3 v 3 debate format?
     
  11. E_Pluribus_Venom

    E_Pluribus_Venom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    15,688
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There was a great deal of open & behind the scenes debate about this idea, and it was determined that it wouldn't be a good idea. I no longer mod here, so any ideas for the future should be forwarded to the appropriate mod team members.
     
  12. Csareo

    Csareo New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2014
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am willing to be a judge. I promise to justify my decision with a minimum 2000 character explanation. I will divide my bids into sub voting decisions, in hopes of voter clarity.
     
  13. saspatz

    saspatz Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2015
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
  14. saspatz

    saspatz Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2015
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
  15. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't even remember what I linked to. That post was from almost 4 years ago, lol.
     
  16. GrayMatter

    GrayMatter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2016
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    the url indicates a critical thinking tutorial... find it. Sounds interesting.
     
  17. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,401
    Likes Received:
    2,767
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think a good format would be:
    1. Both posters get to share their opening statements which should be no longer than x words.
    2. Posters have time to address each others opening posts.
    3. Both posters get a to share closing statement limited to x words.
    4. The judges have a shorter discussion and crown a winner. (Alternative is other forum members vote for a winner in a poll).
     

Share This Page