Thread: Potential Judging pool

Originally Posted by E_Pluribus_Venom

Unless there's a way for banned personnel to accept judging calls, not sure why we'd have to make allowances.

I dunno, EPV, seems like you might need to do some vetting before you give someone that much power over their fellow members. How 'bout... never been banned and have less than 3 infractions? After all, how can you trust the judgment of someone who's proved they're incapable of following the rules?

Heck, I couldn't qualify under those rules... but there oughta be some kinda reward for good behavior around here. Judgeship could be like a pat on the back.

Originally Posted by Smartmouthwoman

I dunno, EPV, seems like you might need to do some vetting before you give someone that much power over their fellow members. How 'bout... never been banned and have less than 3 infractions? After all, how can you trust the judgment of someone who's proved they're incapable of following the rules?

The best way to encourage better actions is to actually encourage it vs. excluding people for expired mistakes. Once we're completed the judging process layout, we'll post it for any volunteer judges to look over (so that they may ask questions, offer suggestions, etc.) and ensure we're on the same page before debates begin.

Originally Posted by Smartmouthwoman

Heck, I couldn't qualify under those rules... but there oughta be some kinda reward for good behavior around here.

How 'bout "not being banned" as a reward.

Originally Posted by E_Pluribus_Venom

The best way to encourage better actions is to actually encourage it vs. excluding people for expired mistakes. Once we're completed the judging process layout, we'll post if for any volunteer judges to look over (so that they may ask questions, offer suggestions, etc.) and ensure we're on the same page before debates begin.



The best reward is not being banned.

The quality of judges is more important than the quality of debaters. That's why they don't let ex-cons serve on juries.

Originally Posted by Smartmouthwoman

The quality of judges is more important than the quality of debaters.

and with a proper format to follow, it's our best way to ensure volunteers get what we're working toward. This won't be a "no, you're not good enough" idea... if people have a genuine interest, we won't turn our back to it. If there are questions when we post the judging process, we'll answer them.

Originally Posted by Smartmouthwoman

That's why they don't let ex-cons serve on juries.

I doubt our forum rules parallel the justifications for prison conviction. Participants even get to pick their judges if they're wary of those we choose at random.

Originally Posted by Shangrila

That's a great argument. How can you judge if you don't have a clue what the discussion is all about. So we are left with those who are experts on any given subject, and no, having the right skin color or sexual persuasion or gender doesn't make anyone an expert.

That's not really what I'm saying. the ability to tell if a kind of argument actually answers a charge is not dependent on knowing the specifics of the case. For example, no matter what the argument, "you're an idiot" is never a substantive rejoinder.

Some food for thought.
How about letting two posters go head to head, and those of us sitting on the sidelines report only insults and such, basically calling for mod intervention, if needed.
After X amount of posts, the thread will be closed, and the two posters come up with a poll to let us vote, all of us interested parties.
No judge needed, or you could call all of us judges.
Creates more interest for the average poster to read along, because I'm thinking that the posters who aren't actually involved with the subject, posters/judge, could care less about a discussion even taking place.

I like this idea in general. The format should include elements that in themslves can generate interest, such as a closing poll.

Originally Posted by E_Pluribus_Venom

and with a proper format to follow, it's our best way to ensure volunteers get what we're working toward. This won't be a "no, you're not good enough" idea... if people have a genuine interest, we won't turn our back to it. If there are questions when we post the judging process, we'll answer them.



I doubt our forum rules parallel the justifications for prison conviction. Participants even get to pick their judges if they're wary of those we choose at random.

Suggestion for judging:

Each debator chooses a judge. That judge then assigns a point value (1-100) on various criteria (let's say 3 - don't ask me what the criteria is at this point; I'm just forming this thought). The judge then must post rationale for the value assigned to each criteria. Mods/whoever then judge the validity of the rationale posted for assigning the number, and then - based upon the credibility of the rationale/explanation - adjust that assigned number up or down.

The total points determines the winner.

It would be pretty hard to screw with that sort of judging process. Obviously, judges who assign '100' to every category would be quickly winnowed out of the judging pool, unless their rationale/explanation was extremely compelling.

Originally Posted by Subdermal

Suggestion for judging:

Each debator chooses a judge. That judge then assigns a point value (1-100) on various criteria (let's say 3 - don't ask me what the criteria is at this point; I'm just forming this thought). The judge then must post rationale for the value assigned to each criteria. Mods/whoever then judge the validity of the rationale posted for assigning the number, and then - based upon the credibility of the rationale/explanation - adjust that assigned number up or down.

The total points determines the winner.

10 steps ahead of you, my friend. We're in the process of forming a point system that involves specific criteria to look for that would require judges to choose and explain reasons for their choices (with different point values assigned based on performance). Though not exactly like this one, it will resemble it in some form.

Originally Posted by E_Pluribus_Venom

10 steps ahead of you, my friend. We're in the process of forming a point system that involves specific criteria to look for that would require judges to choose and explain reasons for their choices (with different point values assigned based on performance). Though not exactly like this one, it will resemble it in some form.

Perhaps a system similar to this could be a basis for some points.

http://www.critical-thinking-tutoria...onal-argument/