The PJ Problem

PJ brings up the problem of MJP that we haven’t satisfactorily solved, to wit, the atrophying of judges who are not highly ranked.

Here’s what happens. Rounds one and two are random, but the judges are the best ranks possible. We barely even touch the computer, to tell you the truth. This means that all your high ranks are working both these rounds, and your lower ranks aren’t (unless your judge numbers = your judge needs, in which case you shouldn’t be using MJP, which we’ve theoretically agreed only make sense at big, national-draw tournaments with plenty of judges). Assuming that your top judges go to down-twos, round 3 will use all the best judges because the bubble is its biggest. Once someone is down-three, they are less likely to get a highly ranked judge, and the lower ranks finally get some back-of-the-room time.

That’s the standard.

The flip side of the PJ Problem is that highly ranked judges never get a round off. We began solving this at last year’s Big Jake (which didn’t use MJP, btw, but that’s beside the point because any ranked system of tabbing will still have this issue) by going through all the judges and giving them a round off, thus: First judge on list, off round 1, second judge, off round 2, etc. This meant that everyone got at least one chance to go climb a coconut tree, and it also meant that, in a pinch, we could find a substitute (who could go climb said coconut tree some other time). No one complained about having a round off, to my recollection. It’s nice to have a break.

On the other hand, one doesn’t want a break for the whole weekend. Assuming a trained but new and unknown judge, you’re going to see someone sitting around for, most likely, at least three rounds. And on top of that, when they do see a round, it will seldom have top debaters, and it can be discouraging to watch a lot of mediocre debate. What can you do?

Well, the good new is, you can use a judge to fill a requirement in one division while working in another division. The thing is, this issue will only arise in Varsity LD. So say you need to cover two VLD judges, and one of them is inevitably going to be a lowly ranked newbie. You could request that while they cover your VLD slot, they actually work in JVLD or PF. The first option will probably make the judge happier anyhow, although the second option might scare them if they haven’t been trained for it. But, realistically, this would all happen before the tournament, and thus you would have a chance to do that training. You would request the switch/coverage, and either get it or not. Now, this may or may not work, and it would have to be on a case by case basis. First of all, the team has to not need a person on-site, if the divisions are geographically (or chronologically) far apart, as can happen at a college. Second, the tournament needs to have enough judges to be able to manipulate and fulfill the request. But if both sides are happy with such a deal, such a deal should be struck. (The tabroom.com software even has this built in as a possible scenario.)

Of course, this will only work at big, complex tournaments. At most high school regional venues, there usually are a few extra judges, but not enough for a director to get profligate. My own is a good example, and I would say that I could (and do) occasionally fulfill such a request. Others should do likewise if they can. As for the colleges, well, given that CP and I and the other usual suspects run most of them around here, I’m sure we can try to work out something. There are limits, but we would have nothing against it. I would certainly want to see any judge I brought to a tournament being used, given that I am paying them either in cash or in commitment, and I hate to see either wasted. I know that I often bring judges in one division who are perfectly ok in that division, but who would be much better in a different division (for me that’s usually LD judges who would prefer to judge PF, but I usually don’t have any PF teams for them to cover).

The PJ Problem, in other words, can perhaps be solved to some degree. But it does require enlightened tournament direction, and honest coaches. This may be where it falls down. The teams who we were talking about penalizing with MJP suspension are the ones whose coaches simply always (as in all times, every time, inevitably, invariably) tell you one thing and do something else, as if it doesn’t matter to you when you’re trying to run a big, complex event. These are the least likely to consult you early on to work out a good plan for both sides with their judging. But for teams like PJ’s, and mine, for that matter, it is a workable solution. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.