Adj Evaluation

In reaction to our post on RVDT 2012 and Nalsar IV 3, we have received response on the issue of Adj Evaluation at BP tournaments. So we'll sort this out for you as much as we can...

The two kinds of Adj Evalutaion systems are numeric and adj core discretion. The names explain it all, but nevertheless we'll spell it out for the bright ones and thereon indulge in the particular nuances in how these systems work in the BP format.

The numeric system basically works on adjes being scored from round to round and those scores cumulatively deciding the adje's standing in terms of breaks and the best adj spot(s). In the BP format, the teams get feedback from the chair of the round and in turn score the chair based on the quality of his or her feedback. The verdict is arrived upon by a process of conferring, where the chair engages the panelists in a discussion on the debate they just adjudicated and the team rankings for the round are determined by achieving consensus. The chair then marks the panelists based on his or her evaluation of their adjudication. 

In short, the chair gives feedback to the teams and gets marked by them and the panelists give feedback to the chair and get marked by the chair.

Now in a purely numeric system, these scores alone would be considered to determine the best adj. But this poses issues in terms of the ability of chairs to mark down their panelists to better their own chances at the tournament. Furthermore, in the eventuality that the chair is unable to hold a fair discussion, the panelist fails to get a fair chance at exhibiting his or her adjudication of the debate.

Now coming to the Adj Core evaluation system and its set of problems. The numeric scoring proceeds as in the previous case through the rounds and the Adj Core refers to these scores (in theory and in practice[mostly]) and reaches a decision on the the list of breaking adjes. This eliminates scenarios of worthy adjes getting screwed over by their chairs or vengeful teams, but introduces the presumed neutrality of the Adj Core as a variable in the equation. The adj core members take up promising adjes on their panels and observe them over the rounds to ensure that they have greater clarity in the decision making process.

Now I can tell you from my experience that this works without a glitch with any half decent adj core in terms of deciding breaks. But it's in the case of handing out the best adj that I foresee issues. Although at the tournaments in which I was a part of the process, it had become quite clear by the end of things as to who should be entitled to the gold; I can imagine things getting tricky if there are multiple contenders running neck and neck.

Given that both RVDT and NALSAR will be offering major loot for best adj, contentions regarding the Adj Core's pick for best adj might turn into a bit of a fireball. Some people prefer results of greater arbitrariness from an objective process over the slightest possibility of a biased result at the hands of a subjective process. As far as which one is preferable, the jury is still out...