I have this spiel that I riff on at the openings of some of
the local tournaments I run, most notably the CFL events. Given that the CFL
has unique rules (for instance, no flip in PF), it’s not a bad idea to run
through them briefly. Also, these sorts of tournaments tend to have a lot of
new or fairly new judges, and it’s nice to get them on the same page with
things like speaker points. I don’t address them as totally ignorant of the
activities, given that our rules demand that they get training before they
judge, and, in fact, we give training at these events. Mostly I just guide them
through the particulars of what to do on that day.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother.
We have a rule that there’s no low point wins. It makes
sense educationally that students in the first or second debates of their
career understand why they won or lost, and turning a victory into a LPW
beclouds that issue. (For that matter, it’s pretty cloudy in most cases,
regardless of venue, given that speaker points are defined by the person
applying them, varying from individual to individual with no objective criteria
in the known world, and therefore the idea that they’re inverted vis-à-vis the
win of a round is explicable only by sophistry that I, for one, would never
attempt, but which seems accepted by the general population, despite its
inherent subjectivism.[1])
Let’s make victories and losses clear, I say. After all, we’ve already
established an objective criterion for what the points should be in my opening
remarks (also reprinted on the ballots). Isn’t this better than telling
newbies: “Hey, you both won and lost, and there’s no understandable explanation I can offer except the inner workings of my unique brain that is too befuddled to have
listened to the opening remarks where they said no LPWs.” So the LPWs come in,
not a lot, but too many, given that we want precisely none. I can’t go chasing
all these people down, so we accept them. Great job, judge!
I also suggest that judges do not tie points. Again, this is
in aid of a clearly understood win/loss. We will chase them down for this at
Grands, but that has 20 teams in two divisions, as compared to 400 attendees
climbing the proverbial walls and we’re lucky if we can get out of their before
St. Swithin’s Day. I’m pretty clear about this in the opening remarks. Result?
PF and Policy rounds with all 4 debaters getting the same points. If equality
is justice we have finally attained it, if we’re okay with make-believe
equality and false justice. How do you win/lose a round where you’re all tied?
I’m sure the novices who got these ballots can explain it at length.
And then there’s 30s. Please don’t, I say. I beg your
pardon, they reply, but I’ll do what I damn well please. Sigh.
The thing is, judges are a bunch of arrogant bastids. It’s
as simple as that. No matter what you tell them, they’ll do what they damned
well please. Or at least some of them will. My key request to student judges in my opening remarks is
that they be the judges they wish they had had when they were novices. Which is
the perfect paradigm for a student judge. But plenty of them don’t even bother
to come to the opening meeting, or they don’t pay attention, and they already
know everything they need to know so will you please get on with it? There are
plenty of adult judges who similarly don’t follow instructions, but on their
part it’s not arrogance so much as ignorance, I think, despite the fact that we have trained them. Or confusion, if you
want to be nice about it. (I don’t.) To overcome the twin problems of arrogance
and ignorance, I give a pretty damned entertaining opening assembly. I give ‘em
a great performance. Half the time they applaud at the end.
And then half of them do what they damned well please, as if I had never said a word. What do they care about the rules of the league, or the education of the students?
Sometimes I wonder why I bother.
--
[1]
By the way, I might want to offer this as the most complicated sentence I’ve
ever attempted, which is only fitting, given the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment