Tuesday, September 21, 2010
MJP in the tabroom
The Five Marx Brothers (including Gummo Vaughan as well as Menick, Bietz, Cruz and Palmer) talk about how, exactly one can do mutual judge preferences, and how, exactly, they will do it at Yale and, it would seem, at the New York City Invitational. If you're not subscribing to the podcast on iTunes, you'll have no choice but to click here to get it. Unless you don't want it. But admit it. You know you do. (The Seaver memo referred to is a couple of entries down from this one.)
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Episode 27 - Case Disclosure after Greenhill
The Four Gabbers of the Apocalypse—Menick, Cruz, Bietz and Palmer—tackle disclosure in the light of Greenhill last weekend, plus they propose a change to the system. Resistance is futile, so you might as well listen to it. Episode 27.
MJP at Greenhill
The following is the document from Aaron Timmons and Frank Seaver, in aid of next week's discussion..
MPJ: The Perspective from the Tab Room
The goal of this document is to enhance the transparency regarding how decisions are made in the tab room when it comes to assigning judges. It is my belief that the primary responsibility of the individual assigning judges into debates is to do so in a way that is both equitable while trying to meet the competitive interests for all the competitors. We continually try to make changes and improvements to our system with that vision in mind. I believe that the more decisions that a coach/team can make before the tournament to communicate their wishes and intent, the better the tab room can then provide a positive and rewarding experience. To that end, if you have any specific questions, please feel free to email me at fseaver@aol.com. Of course, since I will be taking care of finishing the Round Robin Friday evening, my ability to answer questions may be limited as the MPJ deadline approaches. I will try.
FILLING OUT THE MPJ FORM
I think there are two basic strategies to ranking judges. Some coaches like to rank the judges from most preferred to least preferred – and then assign their categories in a hierarchal fashion from that list. A second approach is to rank judges based on who they would prefer to have judge their team relative to the other teams in the tournament. For example, you may think (it is 1992 and) that Aaron Timmons is the best judge in the pool and rank him as a #1. However, if you also felt that – for whatever reason – that Timmons was a better (ie: more strategic) judge for most of your competition in the pool, then this second approach would rank Timmons lower (and may even strike him). Neither approach is “right” or “wrong.” The second approach can be riskier. However, the second approach can also pay off with nice strategic dividends in the elimination debates by producing better panels given the norms we will use in assigning judges. Coaches that adopt this approach frequently wish to strike all supplemental judges that are offered once the tournament starts with the goal being to preserve their 1 category to be as small as possible knowing that the tab room will do everything they can to ensure all 1s in elimination debates (and sometimes that can backfire). I am sure this may be self-evident to some/most. But I do want to expose the way these competing philosophies play out in some not-so obvious ways given my vantage point behind the computer. There are times when the person at the computer has to make subjective decisions. I would prefer to have guidance from each school (like the MPJ system is trying to do to begin with) regarding how to handle these situations.
THE HIGHEST-RATED CATEGORY: TO EXCEED OR TO JUST MEET THE MINIMUM
Some coaches may desire to have as many “true” 1s in their first category as possible. That may mean that they assign more judge units to the first category than is required. Of course, this decreases the amount of units required for the second category (e.g. for this year’s allocation requirements, at least 12.5% of the judge units must be 1s, 25% must be 2 or higher; 37.5% must be 3 or higher, 50% must be 4 or higher). Here is something important given the new way we will be pairing prelim debates. If you exceed the number of units in a category, while that will increase the likelihood of having that judge in a mismatched debate (meaning: the judge is a 1 for you and a 2 for the opposition), it also means that in mutually preferred judging situations (1 and 1), the discrepancy in mutuality could be larger than normal. Example: lets say only ten judges are needed to meet your 1 category – but you decide to place Timmons in that group as your 11th judge.
There may be times where the fairest pairing is a 1-2 situation, which could mean you get your very top #1 judge in the pool who happens to be a 2 for the opposition. Great! However, that also means that a mutual 1-1 debate could result in Timmons being the judge who is technically your 11th most preferred by your opponents very top #1 judge. Not so good because that discrepancy is larger than what the categories try to allow for. Also important for our changes this year: because we are purposely matching lower-ranked but mutual judges for some of the prelims, smaller allocations in lower categories may actually put you in disadvantageous 2-1 situations. This is something to think about regarding the strategy of your allocations.
WHICH DO YOU PREFER: MUTUALITY OR YOUR HIGHER RANKED JUDGE?
Tab rooms face this question often. What do we do in situations where, for example, there are no available mutual 1s or 2s. Do we put in a mutual 3 (or 4) or do we place a judge that is a 2 for one team but a 1 for another team. This goes back to philosophy and strategy. Some coaches just want the best judge available. Other coaches want the judge where there seems to be the level-est of playing fields relative to their competition. Our default for this tournament is to privilege mutuality when faced with this problem. However, we appreciate that when faced with either a 3-3 (or 4-4) situation versus a 2-1 (or 3-2) option, some coaches would prefer the mismatched judge that the other team prefers even more. IF THIS IS THE DEFAULT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO ASSIGN FOR YOUR TEAM(S) – EMAIL ME AND I WILL MAKE IT HAPPEN. I need to have this email sent to me by the MPJ deadline, I will not allow coaches to tinker after the tournament starts.
TRANSPARENCY: OUR HIERARCHY FOR ASSIGNING JUDGES
This is the formula we will use to assign judges. However, there is one unpredictable intangible that plays a role, which has to be implemented at the discretion of the tab room relating to deciding when to complete a judge’s commitment to the tournament. In theory, the tab room wants to delay as long as possible the fulfillment of judges who are not committed for every preliminary debate. The more judges that are available as the tournament moves on, the better the statistical probability of producing the most highly mutually preferred debates. There may be times where the tab room bypasses these rules (by opting for the next option if no other options are available) in some situations to keep judges available for later prelim debates. Example: Lets say you are 3-0 and the only mutual 3-3 with your opponent is Timmons – but he only has one more round of commitment left. If no other 3-3s are available, then we might choose to place an available mutual 2-2 judge to ensure that Timmons is available for a later debate (where he may be a 1-1 and more valuable to the tournament).
Round 1-2
3-3; 4-4; 2-2; 1-1; 3-4; 2-3; 1-2; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
Round 3
0-2: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
1-1: 2-2; 1-1; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
2-0: 3-3; 4-4; 2-2; 1-1; 3-4; 2-3; 1-2; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
Round 4
1-2: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
2-1: 2-2; 1-1; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
3-0: 3-3; 4-4; 2-2; 1-1; 3-4; 2-3; 1-2; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
0-4: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
Round 5
2-2: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
3-1: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
4-0: 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-1; 2-3; 1-2; 3-4; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
1-3: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
0-4: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
Round 6
3-2: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
4-1: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
5-0: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
2-3: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
1-4: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
0-5: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
MPJ: The Perspective from the Tab Room
The goal of this document is to enhance the transparency regarding how decisions are made in the tab room when it comes to assigning judges. It is my belief that the primary responsibility of the individual assigning judges into debates is to do so in a way that is both equitable while trying to meet the competitive interests for all the competitors. We continually try to make changes and improvements to our system with that vision in mind. I believe that the more decisions that a coach/team can make before the tournament to communicate their wishes and intent, the better the tab room can then provide a positive and rewarding experience. To that end, if you have any specific questions, please feel free to email me at fseaver@aol.com. Of course, since I will be taking care of finishing the Round Robin Friday evening, my ability to answer questions may be limited as the MPJ deadline approaches. I will try.
FILLING OUT THE MPJ FORM
I think there are two basic strategies to ranking judges. Some coaches like to rank the judges from most preferred to least preferred – and then assign their categories in a hierarchal fashion from that list. A second approach is to rank judges based on who they would prefer to have judge their team relative to the other teams in the tournament. For example, you may think (it is 1992 and) that Aaron Timmons is the best judge in the pool and rank him as a #1. However, if you also felt that – for whatever reason – that Timmons was a better (ie: more strategic) judge for most of your competition in the pool, then this second approach would rank Timmons lower (and may even strike him). Neither approach is “right” or “wrong.” The second approach can be riskier. However, the second approach can also pay off with nice strategic dividends in the elimination debates by producing better panels given the norms we will use in assigning judges. Coaches that adopt this approach frequently wish to strike all supplemental judges that are offered once the tournament starts with the goal being to preserve their 1 category to be as small as possible knowing that the tab room will do everything they can to ensure all 1s in elimination debates (and sometimes that can backfire). I am sure this may be self-evident to some/most. But I do want to expose the way these competing philosophies play out in some not-so obvious ways given my vantage point behind the computer. There are times when the person at the computer has to make subjective decisions. I would prefer to have guidance from each school (like the MPJ system is trying to do to begin with) regarding how to handle these situations.
THE HIGHEST-RATED CATEGORY: TO EXCEED OR TO JUST MEET THE MINIMUM
Some coaches may desire to have as many “true” 1s in their first category as possible. That may mean that they assign more judge units to the first category than is required. Of course, this decreases the amount of units required for the second category (e.g. for this year’s allocation requirements, at least 12.5% of the judge units must be 1s, 25% must be 2 or higher; 37.5% must be 3 or higher, 50% must be 4 or higher). Here is something important given the new way we will be pairing prelim debates. If you exceed the number of units in a category, while that will increase the likelihood of having that judge in a mismatched debate (meaning: the judge is a 1 for you and a 2 for the opposition), it also means that in mutually preferred judging situations (1 and 1), the discrepancy in mutuality could be larger than normal. Example: lets say only ten judges are needed to meet your 1 category – but you decide to place Timmons in that group as your 11th judge.
There may be times where the fairest pairing is a 1-2 situation, which could mean you get your very top #1 judge in the pool who happens to be a 2 for the opposition. Great! However, that also means that a mutual 1-1 debate could result in Timmons being the judge who is technically your 11th most preferred by your opponents very top #1 judge. Not so good because that discrepancy is larger than what the categories try to allow for. Also important for our changes this year: because we are purposely matching lower-ranked but mutual judges for some of the prelims, smaller allocations in lower categories may actually put you in disadvantageous 2-1 situations. This is something to think about regarding the strategy of your allocations.
WHICH DO YOU PREFER: MUTUALITY OR YOUR HIGHER RANKED JUDGE?
Tab rooms face this question often. What do we do in situations where, for example, there are no available mutual 1s or 2s. Do we put in a mutual 3 (or 4) or do we place a judge that is a 2 for one team but a 1 for another team. This goes back to philosophy and strategy. Some coaches just want the best judge available. Other coaches want the judge where there seems to be the level-est of playing fields relative to their competition. Our default for this tournament is to privilege mutuality when faced with this problem. However, we appreciate that when faced with either a 3-3 (or 4-4) situation versus a 2-1 (or 3-2) option, some coaches would prefer the mismatched judge that the other team prefers even more. IF THIS IS THE DEFAULT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO ASSIGN FOR YOUR TEAM(S) – EMAIL ME AND I WILL MAKE IT HAPPEN. I need to have this email sent to me by the MPJ deadline, I will not allow coaches to tinker after the tournament starts.
TRANSPARENCY: OUR HIERARCHY FOR ASSIGNING JUDGES
This is the formula we will use to assign judges. However, there is one unpredictable intangible that plays a role, which has to be implemented at the discretion of the tab room relating to deciding when to complete a judge’s commitment to the tournament. In theory, the tab room wants to delay as long as possible the fulfillment of judges who are not committed for every preliminary debate. The more judges that are available as the tournament moves on, the better the statistical probability of producing the most highly mutually preferred debates. There may be times where the tab room bypasses these rules (by opting for the next option if no other options are available) in some situations to keep judges available for later prelim debates. Example: Lets say you are 3-0 and the only mutual 3-3 with your opponent is Timmons – but he only has one more round of commitment left. If no other 3-3s are available, then we might choose to place an available mutual 2-2 judge to ensure that Timmons is available for a later debate (where he may be a 1-1 and more valuable to the tournament).
Round 1-2
3-3; 4-4; 2-2; 1-1; 3-4; 2-3; 1-2; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
Round 3
0-2: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
1-1: 2-2; 1-1; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
2-0: 3-3; 4-4; 2-2; 1-1; 3-4; 2-3; 1-2; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
Round 4
1-2: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
2-1: 2-2; 1-1; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
3-0: 3-3; 4-4; 2-2; 1-1; 3-4; 2-3; 1-2; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
0-4: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
Round 5
2-2: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
3-1: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
4-0: 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-1; 2-3; 1-2; 3-4; 2-4; 1-3; 1-4; 5-5.
1-3: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
0-4: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
Round 6
3-2: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
4-1: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
5-0: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
2-3: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
1-4: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
0-5: 1-1; 2-2; 3-3; 4-4; 1-2; 2-3; 3-4; 1-3; 2-4; 1-4; 5-5.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Disclosure Q&A
On 9/7 we hope to resume recording, and our first show will be about disclosure. (I know. You're shocked—shocked!—to hear it.) If you have any questions for us, post them here as comments. We are hoping CP will be on the show, and that, soon after, we'll have AT, so if you have questions for them, post them as well.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Sausage-making
I will not put this into the RSS feed, but if you're the sort of person who actually comes here to grab the episodes, you are either in for a treat or for the dumbest waste of 10 minutes in your life so far. Prior to starting episode 26 (and, by the way, as far as I'm concerned, any "very special episode" should include a wedding of Joanie and Chachi), Adam and I waited while Fred tried to get Skype to work. We could hear him, he couldn't hear us. We tried texting him, but that took a while to click. Anyhow, I mentioned this in 26, and here it is.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Episode 26 - Robertson Sells CatNats and Torson Sells DNA
In a very special episode—I know, you thought we were done for the year; so did I—Bietz and Menick interview Fred R on the plans for Omaha's CatNats this weekend, while Torson chimes in when we get to DNA and the NatNats topic. If you're going to either one, you should give it a listen.
And where's Cruz? I don't know. He wandered off somewhere...
And where's Cruz? I don't know. He wandered off somewhere...
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Episode 25 (including show notes)
The three and only wind up the season (as Cruz insists it be called) with, mostly, discussion of TOC 2010 here. (Those who go the distance will, as occasionally in the past, get a special treat.)
As discussed on the show, first, the link to my news feed.
Second, the conflict material from TOC:
The Lincoln Douglas advisory committee has instituted a policy which requests directors, coaches, and judges of programs to provide information about potential conflicts. The document or statement below should help guide persons in determining whether or not they ought to be conflicted or blocked from judging certain debaters at the tournament. Please read the document carefully and then follow the instructions at the end of the document to provide the tabulation staff with accurate information so that these conflicts may be recorded. We thank you in advance for your cooperation.
We would ask that you enter your conflicts there even though they may have been entered on the Joy of Tournaments site or sent to Dave Huston. We will have verification of your conflicts and mutual preference sheets at registration.
TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS JUDGE CONFLICT DOCUMENT
Fair competition requires not merely the absence of impropriety but also AVOIDING the appearance of impropriety. A conflict of interest is a relationship that might reasonably be thought to bias a judge toward or against a competitor. Such relationships may themselves be quite innocent, but they could reasonably be thought to compromise a judge’s impartiality. The Lincoln Douglas TOC Advisory Committee has drafted these guidelines to be implemented at this year’s Tournament of Champions.
A judge can’t judge a school they attended.
A judge can’t judge a program (whether one school or a collection of schools) for which they coached, consulted, or judged until four years after they stopped. This applies even if the judge only worked with some (or one) of the program’s students. It applies whether or not the judge was paid for the work.
A judge can’t judge a program if there are plans for the judge to work with that program in the future as a coach, consultant, or judge.
A judge can’t judge a program if the judge has done exclusive pre-round prep for one or more of the students from that program, whether electronically, verbally, or through the transfer of resources. Judges can share information without creating a conflict, but if the judge engages in “coaching behavior” such as discussing strategies, arguments, evidence, etc., with a program for the purposes of helping them win a debate, then they shouldn’t judge that program. If a judge does this in the middle of a tournament, they should inform the tab room and recuse themselves.
A judge can’t judge a program if they attend practice rounds with students from that program prior to tournaments.
Judges can’t judge students who are members of their family, who they have dated or had a close physical or emotional relationship, who they regularly chat with either in person, over the phone, or over the computer, and judges can’t judge debaters with whom they socialize outside of the realm of debate.
A judge can’t judge a student if the judge thinks that they would be unable to fairly judge them for reasons not stated in other parts of this document, but for which the judge feels some personal bias.
A judge may choose to recuse him or herself from judging students if they regularly share transportation and/or lodging with the student’s team, if they have a close relationship with the student’s coach or a member of the student’s family, or if the judge works for a debate camp or other forensics business for which the student is planning to work.
NOTE: This doesn’t mean judges can’t judge students who were in their lab at camp, but if the judge maintains regular contact with those students or has a personal relationship with them, they shouldn't judge them.
NOTE: Any time these rules talk about a “program” that means any student from that program. If a judge is hired by one or two students from a program and never meets the other students, they are still a judge for the program.
NOTE: A program is any school or collection of schools that prepares together as a unit, even if they don’t always compete under the same name. If two or more schools share coaching, transportation, lodging, and practices, then they’re a single program.
Judges, coaches, and students all have the responsibility to reveal conflicts. If a coach or student fails to disclose a conflict, all students from that program will lose their mutual preferences. No decisions will be modified as a result of disclosed information. The TOC Advisory Committee or a quorum thereof will adjudicate any disputes and its decision will be final, with appeal to Dr. J.W. Patterson or his tournament staff at the discretion of Dr. Patterson.
THE HEAD COACH OF THE SCHOOL ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ALL OF THEIR JUDGES. IT IS A HEAD COACH'S AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO MAKE SURE THAT CONFLICT INFORMATION FOR ALL JUDGES IS ACCURATE. THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO STATE CONFLICTS OR OVERSTATING CONFLICTS WILL BE LOSS OF MJP FOR THE ENTIRE SCHOOL'S ENTRY.
As discussed on the show, first, the link to my news feed.
Second, the conflict material from TOC:
The Lincoln Douglas advisory committee has instituted a policy which requests directors, coaches, and judges of programs to provide information about potential conflicts. The document or statement below should help guide persons in determining whether or not they ought to be conflicted or blocked from judging certain debaters at the tournament. Please read the document carefully and then follow the instructions at the end of the document to provide the tabulation staff with accurate information so that these conflicts may be recorded. We thank you in advance for your cooperation.
We would ask that you enter your conflicts there even though they may have been entered on the Joy of Tournaments site or sent to Dave Huston. We will have verification of your conflicts and mutual preference sheets at registration.
TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS JUDGE CONFLICT DOCUMENT
Fair competition requires not merely the absence of impropriety but also AVOIDING the appearance of impropriety. A conflict of interest is a relationship that might reasonably be thought to bias a judge toward or against a competitor. Such relationships may themselves be quite innocent, but they could reasonably be thought to compromise a judge’s impartiality. The Lincoln Douglas TOC Advisory Committee has drafted these guidelines to be implemented at this year’s Tournament of Champions.
A judge can’t judge a school they attended.
A judge can’t judge a program (whether one school or a collection of schools) for which they coached, consulted, or judged until four years after they stopped. This applies even if the judge only worked with some (or one) of the program’s students. It applies whether or not the judge was paid for the work.
A judge can’t judge a program if there are plans for the judge to work with that program in the future as a coach, consultant, or judge.
A judge can’t judge a program if the judge has done exclusive pre-round prep for one or more of the students from that program, whether electronically, verbally, or through the transfer of resources. Judges can share information without creating a conflict, but if the judge engages in “coaching behavior” such as discussing strategies, arguments, evidence, etc., with a program for the purposes of helping them win a debate, then they shouldn’t judge that program. If a judge does this in the middle of a tournament, they should inform the tab room and recuse themselves.
A judge can’t judge a program if they attend practice rounds with students from that program prior to tournaments.
Judges can’t judge students who are members of their family, who they have dated or had a close physical or emotional relationship, who they regularly chat with either in person, over the phone, or over the computer, and judges can’t judge debaters with whom they socialize outside of the realm of debate.
A judge can’t judge a student if the judge thinks that they would be unable to fairly judge them for reasons not stated in other parts of this document, but for which the judge feels some personal bias.
A judge may choose to recuse him or herself from judging students if they regularly share transportation and/or lodging with the student’s team, if they have a close relationship with the student’s coach or a member of the student’s family, or if the judge works for a debate camp or other forensics business for which the student is planning to work.
NOTE: This doesn’t mean judges can’t judge students who were in their lab at camp, but if the judge maintains regular contact with those students or has a personal relationship with them, they shouldn't judge them.
NOTE: Any time these rules talk about a “program” that means any student from that program. If a judge is hired by one or two students from a program and never meets the other students, they are still a judge for the program.
NOTE: A program is any school or collection of schools that prepares together as a unit, even if they don’t always compete under the same name. If two or more schools share coaching, transportation, lodging, and practices, then they’re a single program.
Judges, coaches, and students all have the responsibility to reveal conflicts. If a coach or student fails to disclose a conflict, all students from that program will lose their mutual preferences. No decisions will be modified as a result of disclosed information. The TOC Advisory Committee or a quorum thereof will adjudicate any disputes and its decision will be final, with appeal to Dr. J.W. Patterson or his tournament staff at the discretion of Dr. Patterson.
THE HEAD COACH OF THE SCHOOL ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ALL OF THEIR JUDGES. IT IS A HEAD COACH'S AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO MAKE SURE THAT CONFLICT INFORMATION FOR ALL JUDGES IS ACCURATE. THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO STATE CONFLICTS OR OVERSTATING CONFLICTS WILL BE LOSS OF MJP FOR THE ENTIRE SCHOOL'S ENTRY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)