And so we bid a fond farewell to MJP

Somebody asked for the math. It wasn’t an easy pull, so this was just eyeballed, but let’s go back to the start.

Last year a lot of schools at the Pups entered no prefs, to my recollection about 40%. This year, it was about 20%. Those numbers are not precise, but close enough. All other factors remain roughly the same (including the tab staff’s ability to do the assignments).

Some of the assignments are terrible, because the assigned judge didn’t show up. Throw those out.

Assuming an “acceptance” of any 2-2 and less satisfaction with 3s or worse, I looked at them. In 2012, there was one 4 assigned in the first 5 rounds. In 2013 there were 11 4s (or worse) in the first 5 rounds. In 2012 there were 20 3-3 pairings in the first five rounds. In 2013 there were 27 3-3s. Add the numbers together, in 2012 there were 24 3-3 or worse assignments in 2012 and 38 3-3 or worse pairings in 2013.

Although totally unscientific and mathematically unsound, I absolutely believe that the situation underlying these numbers is what I have been talking about, my sense as I’ve been doing it, that as more people pref, the less likely you are to get your highest preffed judges. This certainly stands to reason, and, apparently, to some quick real number analysis.

Now granted, this is not hell in a handbasket by any means. There’s about 300 pairings in those five rounds, and we’re probably under 10% worse than 2-2, but it’s not statistically insignificant. Do the math: if you have 5 entries, at least one is virtually guaranteed to do worse than 2-2. (This could be in a non-competitive round, but a 4-4 is a 4-4.) Add to the the math of there being only so many mutual 1s in the pool, and we’re pretty much underlining what I’ve been saying this week.

Debaters are going to have to learn to debate in front of less than (what they perceive as) optimal adjudicators. We are nearing the end of the honeymoon where only the competitive circuit schools pref, meaning that their judges get precedence. Now everybody in the field sets precedence.

Impact —> Debaters are going to have to learn to adapt, if they want to pick up the most possible rounds.

There are other aspects to MJP that remain open to discussion. Of those open questions, I don’t think that throwing out mutality the minute you go below a 2 is acceptable, as that is a virtual strike of most of the judge pool. But aside from that, we set 6 categories, one of them a strike. Is that the best thing to do? If we had 3 categories—A, C, Strike— with a lot more As, are we better off if indeed we’re entering a world where the math is new because MJP is universal? There may be more ways to peel this banana that are similarly worth discussing.

In any case, I am very happy with what is happening. I have argued for a long time that universal MJP could have an effect on LD, to wit, acting to preserve multiple styles of debate as reasonably acceptable. And I can’t believe that the idea that judge adaptation becomes important again will be perceived as a negative by most educators in the activity.

I will continue my push to get EVERYONE to pref, until persuaded otherwise.