Rules, Part Four, or, Heah Come da Judge

It’s been a big day for me: I just changed the layout scheme of my Yahoo home page from Halloween to Thanksgiving. Most mere mortals would now take a break, would sit back for a while and recover from the exertion, but no mere mortal I. I soldier on.

Last night I attempted to back up Little Elvis to the firewire drive. Says I, let’s look at the legendary Apple disk utilities. Sure enough, there was a command there that looked to be just the one, as compared to simply dragging and dropping the whole magilla via my ftp program, which I love. Well, I hung and hung and hung, rebooted and rebooted and rebooted. What a nightmare. I figured I’d try a test first, and thank goodness, because I never got the test to work, much less the whole Little E persona. I have no idea why I was having these problems. I was simply trying to be cute, to have a full backup available when the inevitable crash occurs, but Little Elvis wasn’t having any of it. I think he’s going through his Aloha from Hawaii phase, and simply will not listen to reason. No one likes it when you plug in a new drive 4 times as big as you are; it’s like Phil Specter walking around surrounded by a phalanx of six foot six halfback bodyguards (and there’s a telling reference for you, agewise). Anyhow, I eventually calmed the storm, and got things back to normal, if not backed up. I’ll try again later, after Bump. The last thing I need at this point is for Little Elvis to fluffernutter himself into oblivion on me. He has work to do next week. Important work. Little E, don’t fail me now!

And on to notes from the underground, also known as the handout to the judges:

INTRODUCTION TO JUDGING LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE

Thank you for agreeing to judge a Lincoln Douglas debate round. Your service is especially important as this event is designed to bring judges and debaters together in an educational, productive, and encouraging experience. This activity is designed to teach excellent critical thinking and public presentation skills. Your role as a judge is to determine which debater did a better job of convincing you that his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

They really hammer home that “valid as a general principle” idea. That’s a good one, and easy to train new judges on. They also expect some measure of “public presentation skills.” That’s always problematic in an activity in which oratorical ability is not the primary consideration, but neither is it a non-consideration. Mostly that should keep people honest, and force them to make at least some attempt to speak well, i.e., at a reasonable rate of speed. Keeping speed down may be the number one way to keep LD manageable (or, as the teleologists AKA dialectic $ircuitists AKA progressives might put it, keep it from growing).

BEFORE THE ROUND:
Find out the exact wording of the debate resolution and write it down. I should hope so.

Read and follow the instructions on the judging ballot you will receive. Well, then, the burden is on people creating/distributing ballots, i.e. tournament directors, to have meaningful information on them, most especially regarding points.

Read any additional Lincoln Douglas instructions that are provided to you. In other words, don’t go in there totally ignorant. I make the same demand (perhaps futilely) at Bump, that teams bringing lay judges at least train them about the activity. Some of them do, although not necessarily in English.

Talk with debaters before the round starts if you wish, but the conversation should not demonstrate favoritism toward a debater. I think more often than not, when a judge knows one kid and not the other, the not-known kid feels disadvantaged. It’s not really the case, but the feeling will be there. It behooves judges to act as neutral as they are.

Debaters should always be respectful of one another and of you, and you should set a tone of decorum and professionalism. The tone of the round is set by the judge. Arrive with the earbuds in and showing absolutely no interest and not taking notes and not paying attention, and problems will ensue. Mostly this affects our MHL folk, where juniors, newly empowered as judges, for some reason decide to emulate the worst judges they’ve ever had rather than the best. Bad choice.

TO BEGIN THE ROUND:
You will be instructed as to which side the debaters have been assigned. The Affirmative debater should be listed on the left side of the ballot and you may ask the debater to sit on the left side of the room as you, the judge, look at the debaters. The Negative debater should be listed on the right side of the ballot and you may ask the debater to sit on the right side of the room as you, the judge, look at the debaters. Record each debater’s code and side. You can confirm this information with the debaters. When both debaters are ready, the Affirmative debater will stand in the front of the room to deliver the initial speech. Obviously a tad of totalitarianism struck the committee on this one. Do people actually sit aff left and neg right? I mean, I only actively judged about 2,399,372 rounds, and I never noticed it, and never cared. Can’t hurt, but can’t help. It’s the kind of thing I can see lay people getting hung up on, though, the sort of CFLish nonsense that loses ballots. Oh, well.

DURING THE ROUND:
While the debaters may keep track of their own time, judges need to monitor speaking times during the round. Speech times and order are listed on the ballot. Each debater has four minutes of preparation time (total) in each round which can be used prior to any of that debater’s speeches or cross-examination period. Judges need to monitor how much preparation time has elapsed for each debater. Clearly allowing debaters to time themselves, per the rules, should be a good thing. Four minutes is perfect; the Catholic three is too few, whereas five is too many (unless you’re a rank novice). I would imagine the only drive for more prep would be among those with positions so complicated no amount of time would ever make them understandable.

During the debate, you are encouraged to take notes of the arguments made by the debaters to assist you in making your decision at the end of the round. You should also keep track of what a debater says, if anything, in response to the other debater’s arguments. To ensure fairness, your notes should help you determine if a debater is improperly making brand new arguments in the final rebuttal speeches to which the opposing debater has no opportunity to respond. Judges should not ask questions during the round. Encouraged? I guess they really can’t say mandated, so this will probably suffice. There does seem to be an awful lot of mentions of new arguments in rebuttals; somebody obviously had this burr way up the old you-know-what. Nothing wrong with mentioning it, but we get the point.

AFTER THE ROUND:
Check your codes carefully. This is especially important when marking the winner of the debate. In your written comments, please be as constructive and educational as possible. Provide a detailed justification of your decision, referring to the central issues the debaters presented in the round. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments that you would have made. Please completely fill out the ballot and return it promptly to the designated location. Yep. Menick’s Law #281: The more experienced a judge is, the more likely that judge is to make a mistake on the ballot. Personally, I find it the worst at CatNats, where everyone is a number. Screw-up heaven, appropriately enough.

Next up, the ballot.