Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Let's do it

So here’s what I’m wondering: Why not just do MJP all the time?

At the last few tournaments I tabbed, I went with the predictable community rankings of the usual suspects. I mean, let’s face it. Everybody in the pool inevitably shows up week after week, and there are very few of them we don’t know. Almost by definition, someone new is someone inexperienced, which is fine (provided they’ve been given a clue or two by their teams, which may or may not happen, but that’s another issue altogether), and everyone else is the same old same old. There are people who are always highly ranked, except by You-Know-Who, who inevitably strikes them, and there are people who are always struck, except by, again, You-Know-Who. (Come to think of it, there are often a couple of YKWs in the field, making things something of a challenge.) Everybody wants to be judged by judges who allow them to perform at what they perceive is their best. I think it’s silly to assume that everybody wants to be judged by people who will always vote for them, because that just doesn’t happen. If you’re in a tough round with a good opponent and a good judge who usually picks you up, chances are that the judge also usually picks up your good opponent. You don’t select your judges for the their mythical “guaranteed” ballots, but for their legendary powers of adjudication, which are two different things entirely.

But here’s my point. While, granted, MJP at a smallish tournament is something of a mug’s game from a tab perspective, if you handle the numbers correctly, it will allow for a decent number of strikes, and conflicts, plus it puts the ranking entirely in the hands of the debaters rather than either tab or the community at large. At those smallish tournaments you might have to specify 40% or 50% 1s, for instance, but at least they’re your 1s and not somebody else’s. And too, you might have a few more 2-2 rounds than you might prefer, but then again, it’s mutual. Where’s the down side of this?

I would point out that I’m not entirely benevolent in this. Giving individual strikes means that I’ve got to enter them all, one at a time, and I’ll make a mistake or two, no doubt, although lately I’ve gone over to striking more rather than fewer when there’s any doubt. But even if this is conquered technologically and the strikes can go into TRPC automatically, is it so bad to offer MJP, period?

Talk me out of this, please, or else let’s just do it.

4 comments:

Unknown said...

I like this post.

Anonymous said...

I assume Palmer is working on an auto-import of prefs into TRPC. Joy has it. It makes life really easy.

This weekend I think I will be shadow-tabbing (while proper-tabbing) Berkeley with the new Bruschke tabulation software.

As I was digging around, I stumbled across this:

http://tournamentdirectors.wordpress.com/current-best-practices-document/

Palmer said...

I think the only barrier is TRPC. MJP adds a good half hour between rounds while we fiddle with it. Once we (ok, I) solve that, there's no reason why not.

At Scarsdale in particular it would have been fine; because you had the entire novice round to fiddle with it and make it happen; I doubt it would have cost us time until the elims.

Tabroom loads MJP but not strikes into TRPC; I haven't found the interface for it. Though I just had a flash of insight; maybe I"ll just have it download it via MJP and make strikes 6s and everyone else a 1...aha.

pjwexler said...

Speaking as a non-fan of MJP, I will still ask- if half of the judges are rankes as 1s, is that still a MJP? I suppose it is literally but...