The following comes up now and then—I’m recalling a policy contretemps last weekend, which is why I bring it up now—and our stance in tab should be explained: A judge will come in and want to change a ballot after it’s been handed in and recorded, and we won’t do it (although we could). Why not?
Let me start first with an analogy. Imagine a jury trial. Both sides present their cases, after which the jury deliberates for as long as it takes to arrive at a decision. Once that decision is reached, it is handed down to the court. But what happens if a juror goes home that night and changes his or her mind? If something suddenly occurs to that person that turns their thinking upside down? The answer is, nothing. It is too late. The decision has been handed down. This is similarly true in non-jury situations. With SCOTUS, for example, cases are presented. The judges deliberate, then they announce their decision. The lawyers in the case do not, as the decision is read, start interrupting the judge and arguing further to advance their positions. It’s over. The decision has been reached.
We operate similarly in tab rooms. The belief is that the round is a certain length of time, beginning with the 1AR and ending with the 2AR. Once the last words of the 2AR are spoken, the debaters should shut their traps. Practically speaking, a judge should listen to the round, think, write a ballot and then critique. Most judges do operate this way. From tab’s point of view, what matters is the decision that is officially handed down. Once we have that ballot, that is the law.
What happens once in a while is that the judge has a change of heart, in effect going home after the jury deliberation and seeing things differently. They want to change their ballot. Sure, this sounds okay in some regards, but why do they want to change their ballot? Have they talked about the case to some other people, been further persuaded by a debater from the round in a conversation in the cafeteria, or do they now simply see things differently? We don’t know, which is why we say, when the ballot it handed in, that’s it. (We’re not talking about actual ballot-signing mistakes, of course, where low point wins are incorrectly marked or not marked, which we do doublecheck with the judges.) The thing is, there has to be some point where it’s official, and this is that logical point. If a line is not drawn, then no round is ever over. A week from now a judge can have a change of heart: what do we do then?
Do judges make adjudication mistakes? Of course. Good judges and bad make bad decisions. It is far from unusual for both debaters to be startled by a decision, even from a panel, even when the judges are highly preferred. It happens. The good news is, it’s a debate round, not a life imprisonment term for a crime you didn’t commit. Most debaters are equally on both ends of bad decisions over the stretch of their careers, winning about the same number of rounds they shouldn’t as they lost ones they should have won. But the point is, from the tab room point of view, we give out a ballot and trust that everything is fair and aboveboard in the round. The judge has a certain amount of time to make a decision, and once that ballot it handed in, the decision is official. We have seen ballots where judges have changed their minds before handing in the ballot, and we don’t question that (although we do hope it is not because of out-of-round arguing*, but simply a result of deeper thinking on the judge’s part during the deliberation process). It is what is submitted to us as final that we consider final. If not at that point, then how do you bracket future rounds? How do you ever conclude the tournament?
Fair? Probably. Unfortunate? Occasionally. Would you do it any differently? Unlikely.
* There is no 3NR or 3AR, and no rules concerning such. If a judge were to ask a question of a debater after the conclusion of the round, and the debater starts furthering a position, this would be outside the boundaries of the round, in that no-rules area. A judge must not be swayed by out-of-round arguments, and it is considered worse than bad form for a debater to attempt to make such arguments. When a debater is attempting to sway a judge after a decision is made, and a judge allows that to happen, it is a bad business that is often reported to tab as just that. Our hands are tied by the official ballot submitted, but that judge and that debater will usually be reprimanded.
No comments:
Post a Comment