In which we are thinking out loud

I used to work with a marketing guy who always said, “I’m just talking out loud here.” I don’t think he understood the concept.

 

Anyhow…

 

The single versus double flight debate continues. 

 

The advantages of single flights seem to be mostly procedural, to wit, no need to move judges from room to room for the second flight, and straightforward tabbing and scheduling. In some cases, it can also mean more rounds, which can be a really good thing. The benefits, in other words, are solid.

 

The disadvantages seem to be harder to pin down. Single flights obviously means more judges, which can be hard to get. although, as pointed out earlier, there are those who believe that judges will fall from the trees next season like ripe coconuts. I question that; I am fine with likening debate judges to ripe coconuts, but not because of their ready availability. The presence of more judges, it is then argued in reply, will mean pool degradation and resultingly tougher prefs. That is, if you need all that many judges, the percentage of those in the pool who suck will be higher than normal. And finally, single flights are harder than doubles on both judges and debaters. Perhaps, but 6 single flights of LD is no different than 3 single flights of CX in terms of hardness, and no one is protesting that we should only run 2 rounds of CX in a given day. 

 

My leaning is that the harder the goal, the stiffer the rules. TOC bid at Qs or Os? Tough field caps, most rounds possible, probably single flights, MJP and obligations by the round. Otherwise, double flights, no caps, strikes and 1-3 judge ratio.

 

We’re meeting Monday to hash these things out for PPC (Princeton, Penn and Columbia). At first blush the three look alike, but digging into their pasts, one sees very broad differences. I’ve been collecting data on the three of them for the last 3 years, and that data is starting to talk.

 

I’ll keep you posted.