Further discussion...

Reprinting Anjan's comment, regarding my thoughts on Harvard, which I think warrants further discussion:

I respectfully disagree. Harvard is unique among major national "circuit" tournaments because it does not cap its field and is attended by many programs whose only trip all year is to the tournament. Capping the field at 160, for example, would mean that 190 debaters last year would not be allowed to debate.

Am I saying that every tournament should be like Harvard and allow all comers? No. But, there is space for a tournament like this on the schedule -- a tournament that lets anyone enter.

Is there room for improvement in judging? Surely so (though there always will be). But then again, that will always be the case and Harvard surely has shown they are willing to listen to suggestions.

Well, yes and no. If you like the tournament, and can afford it, that is fine. One can go or not go as one chooses. I took this tournament off my team's list quite some time ago, and haven't felt the need to air any particular grievances against it as a result. There are plenty of tournaments I don't go to because I don't like them, for one reason or another. We all do. We organize our programs accordingly. Live and let live, eh?

Why comment now, then? Well, they're the ones who wrote the open letter to the community.

My points relative to Anjan's comments are two. First, I don't think they'll be able to seriously improve the judging without a cap (and a serious pool of good hireds). It is probably inherently impossible. It's hard enough running a tournament half this size and keeping the judging running well. Secondly, their judging has been a problem for many years. I simply cannot gather a lot of enthusiasm for their willingness to listen to suggestions if the tournament has been notoriously badly judged for as long as anyone can remember. I'm sure they're all fine people (I know a couple of them, and yes indeed, those ones I know are fine people) but that doesn't excuse a disconnect from the debate community by, literally, the community's biggest debate tournament.

I do hasten to point out that this does not suggest that debaters who succeed at the tournament are in any way less than excellent. The questionable nature of the judging probably makes it harder to succeed, not easier, and I applaud those who have done well there.