tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post6299309018564035808..comments2023-09-23T10:21:15.319+01:00Comments on world debating website: Proposal to expand WUDC break to 64 teamsCchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02308771027417054757noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-13786422815649909532010-01-07T14:51:25.470+00:002010-01-07T14:51:25.470+00:00As to your first statement no, a room on -2 is far...As to your first statement no, a room on -2 is far more likely to be easier than a room on straights. Even if I did buy they were equally as good, no, the logical consequence of this would be to break about 100-200 teams, since if you held 10/11 rounds there would be even more teams who could potentially leapfrog Auckland A. <br /><br />The point is this is a competition, and in all competitions, some people have bad luck and some people have good luck. It sucks when you get pulled up, but that's a fact of debating. If in the World Cup, an unseeded team has a good run into 2nd in the group and then gets slaughtered by Brazil in the knock outs, then they had bad luck being drawn into the group that put them there.<br /><br />We already put vast effort into trying to "control" for bad judging (though all judging is somewhat subjective), sensible limits exist and expanding the break in no way changes a bad call in round 9, it now means the team in 65th rather than 35th feels aggrieved by it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-50159023432954235552010-01-07T09:45:33.761+00:002010-01-07T09:45:33.761+00:00Anon@1:47, quite true. From your comment, you basi...Anon@1:47, quite true. From your comment, you basically admit that Auckland A and ANU D are potentially as good. If so, wouldn't it be better then to give ANU D a good chance of proving themselves by expanding the break?<br /><br />Lets set aside racism as a motivating factor in judging. The fact is, bubble matches require excellent judging, more so than top matches. Given that break judges are necessarily better than prelims judges, wouldn't that be enough of a motivating factor to not simply accept the swings that you talked about and instead worry about ensuring that those swings do not affect potentially good teams in the prelims?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-33913984321378724252010-01-07T01:47:49.480+00:002010-01-07T01:47:49.480+00:00On ESL/EFL bias:
It seems to me that claims of ES...On ESL/EFL bias:<br /><br />It seems to me that claims of ESL/EFL bias should be obvious in the sense that, not being native or highly experienced english speakers, they, on average, have more of an issue producing the same quantity of matter, whilst retaining fluency, in technical language under pressure. The inbuilt disadvantage is that Worlds is in English, combine that with the fact that in Asia, the predominant style is Australs, and this would suggest an even harder job.<br /><br />What would be the purpose of ESL/EFL breaks if we did not believe there was an inbuilt disadvantage?<br /><br />Are there judges who are racist/biased? Yes, and they are largely found out as bad judges. Is the main reason that ESL teams do, on average, worse than their ENL counterparts (say Sydney A vs Tel Aviv A from this years world) that they are discriminated against by judges? No <br /><br />On the break:<br />Why consistency is not a valid arguement. It has been mentioned above that much of the top 32 looks different after rounds 8-11, but after about 5 rounds that is true regardless, you don't get any more consistency after 11 rounds. For example, on the Koc tab, take the team who came 32nd, Auckland A, If they were to lose round 10 (and at least 4 teams on 18 are guarenteed to lose round 10), and the lowest team on 16, ANU D in 108th, were to win round 10 then ANU would finish higher than Auckland. This is as true if you take the break to be 16, 32, 48, 64 teams and if you hold 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 rounds, it's just the nature of BP. Teams at the top might not move much, but lots of teams on tab bounce up and down wildly.<br /><br />As to why I don't think we should expand the break to 64, I refer you to the rest of Alex Worsnip's comments somewhere far aboveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-34713047440910587012010-01-05T18:13:02.675+00:002010-01-05T18:13:02.675+00:00I don't think we can simply assume Worlds will...I don't think we can simply assume Worlds will be 360+ for ever amen, if for no other reason that it will reduce the pool of institutions that will ever host - especially since the US will probably be waiting a looong time before their security level drops to the point where they could win a Council vote from countries who, let's just say, aren't part of the Visa Waiver Program.<br /><br />Even if it isn't as fine grained as my proposal above, I think the Council should at minimum retain the options of 32, 48 and 64 depending on tab size. The only upside I can think of for a permanent 64 team break would be that for Worlds that are more difficult/expensive to get to, a large break might tip the balance for institutions hesitating over the larger than usual $$$ required.Mark Dowlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01399115211805036553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-27138019968778643162010-01-02T22:24:42.139+00:002010-01-02T22:24:42.139+00:002) INCREASED RISK OF LOSING OUT GOOD TEAMS DUE TO ...2) INCREASED RISK OF LOSING OUT GOOD TEAMS DUE TO FREAK PERFORMANCES: "Anyone can have one bad debate"<br /><br /><br />i) I'm not sure how this would work, given that one bad debate in round 8 or 9 would have pretty much the same effect of kicking a team out of the break. To add to their woes, being a prelim round, the judging would also be of lower calibre. Thus one freak low performance in a prelims debate with 32 break would probably affect teams far more than the same rounds with 64 break. The rounds 8 & 9 effectively become break rounds.<br /><br />ii) The pressure would be immense, & given that its closed rounds, judges too would not be accountable to teams for a decision that they may not be able to justify strongly, & this might reduce their incentive to think it through carefully. Just my opinion, & I hope I'm wrong.<br /><br />iii) In case of double-octos, we would definitely be able to find 50 good judges (since we anyway break 100). Their calibre being higher, we can definitely expect better judging. The pressure being lower, a slip up becomes less costly on teams.<br /><br />iv) The same can be said of the wing judges in, who'd probably be under less pressure to conform with a break of 64. With the break of 32, they'd be wary of a slip-up or disagreement in rounds 8 or 9, lest they lose a chance to break because they disagreed with the chair. While this may not be the case, that caution might itself lead to unconscious problems with the fairness of judging. Again hypothetical from my side.<br /><br />v) If there is indeed such a huge gap in quality, then the top 32 teams should have no problems beating bottom 32 teams. We cant simultaneously argue that the bottom 32 teams suck, while worrying that they'll also be able to beat the teams in the top 32.<br /><br />In fact, if there are cribbings about break rounds being tough & stressful, etc, the double octos would provide top teams with a perfect opportunity to get rid of some of that tension by chewing on something soft before getting down to "serious business" in the octos.<br /><br />Just my two cents. I'm pretty sure i'm wrong on many counts & would be grateful for any correction of my perception.Skanda Prasadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-86108633541120199782010-01-02T22:24:03.340+00:002010-01-02T22:24:03.340+00:00Without firsthand experience of WUDC, I can't ...Without firsthand experience of WUDC, I can't really be a fair judge of this issue, but from the comments above, setting aside ESL arguments, I see a few common strains of reasoning against an increase:<br /> <br />1) DILUTION IN QUALITY:<br /><br />i) Wouldnt the same have been true when the break was 32 of 200 teams? I find it hard to believe that in spite of the number of teams ballooning there are only 32 good teams across the world. Thats like saying Princeton or Harvard should cut their acceptance rate down to 5%, because the other 15% they would want to select will bring down quality.<br /><br />ii) The argument has been made vaguely that the large number of new teams are less experienced, & don't deserve to break.<br /><br />If so, given that some of them have participated at WUDC for a decade now, there should definitely be enough improvement to see them at break level. Even if not, mathematically, we'd expect to see at least more 20 teams of break-level caliber, out of the 200 more teams now. That itself would call for an increase from 32 to 50+.<br /><br />iii) Also, after watching the adj briefing from Koc, if speaker scoring is with respect to the average of that tournament, in a larger tournament with less experienced teams, wouldn't that push down the average level, thus artificially inflating the perceived score of the more conventional teams?<br /><br />I'm guessing that, in concert with the slightly conservative judging (my perception), would give the traditional teams a bigger speaker score than they'd have gotten, say 10 years ago and thus give them an advantage in breaking.<br /><br />iv) The difference between the 32nd & 64th team based on Cork tabs is 2 pts (16 vs 18) & 33 speaks (thats an avg of less than 2 pts difference in speaker scores). To my mind, that doesn't sound like too much of a reduction in quality. Indeed, the top ranked 16 pt team, based on speaks, would stand 24th.Skanda Prasadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-69954206242443346312010-01-02T20:35:51.093+00:002010-01-02T20:35:51.093+00:00You can't prove a negative, and show there was...You can't prove a negative, and show there wasn't discrimination. That doesn't therefore mean there was. Debaters feel always feel hard done by sometimes, but personally I doubt Ateneo themselves are so self pitying. <br /><br />And I think Praba was from DSLU or somewhere originally, so probably not fair to brand him Malaysian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-55142827286668164262010-01-02T20:33:45.762+00:002010-01-02T20:33:45.762+00:00Fair enough. I just don't understand why you w...Fair enough. I just don't understand why you wouldn't just increase to 64. If you don't have enough decent adjudicators for that, you don't have enough for the break rooms...<br /><br />I'm sure you're right re the "top of the bell curve" point. Certainly my analysis so far shows that there are only ever a few (maybe 3-5) teams in any tournament who are positionally stable within the break at all times. Maybe Worlds should just break straight to final & be done with it!Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07293277553207684641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-52878860338290467702010-01-02T20:11:45.443+00:002010-01-02T20:11:45.443+00:00Mark
As I said I am not wedded to 48 but I dont a...Mark<br /><br />As I said I am not wedded to 48 but I dont accept that its any more arbitrary than 32 or 64. If we want to start talking bell curves you might actually find that the closer the break is to the top of the bell the more "interchangable" things become - the delta between teams 200 & 201 in a 400 team tab is likely to be MUCH less than that between 16 & 17, 32 & 33 & 63 & 64. <br /><br />Also I dont think that giving the top 16 a "bonus" by missing out on an extra round is in anyway unsound, they already get a "bonus" by having two lower ranked team in their octo room. It also increases the amount of meaningful round 8 and round 9 debates. Being in the top round 9 room is both obvious and an excuse to treat the debate as a training exercise, that wont be the case if picking up a third or last threatens an extra round. The only argument I can think of against 64 is that some teams will know they are breaking after day 2 - they might as well go sightseeing on day 3.<br /><br />Some of the best debates I have seen have been bubble rounds at worlds - so the more of them the better I say. 48 keeps everyone in the top half of the tab after day 2 interested.<br /><br />BAck to my central point though the competition is 4 times the size of when it started. When it started the break was at 16. 4 times 16 is ... err 64.Tommy Tonnernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-57008418668429946422010-01-02T18:46:30.426+00:002010-01-02T18:46:30.426+00:00By the way, apologies if the above is longwinded &...By the way, apologies if the above is longwinded & clear as mud - it may have helped if I had cracked open the beer after writing, rather than before...Mark Russellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-68643037573950435442010-01-02T18:43:41.168+00:002010-01-02T18:43:41.168+00:00Tommy
I should have been more clear why I referre...Tommy<br /><br />I should have been more clear why I referred to expansion to 48 as half baked. Firstly, I should clarify that what I said above was an assumption about how a break to 48 would work - based on the fact that I can't think of another way it could work.<br /><br />The pre & post break rounds do test different things, and even if some of the things that people perceive as problems (eg debating under much greater stress), are in fact features, the conditions are definitely different. Given that competing under stress has been set up as a prerequisite of winning the tournament, it must be thought worthwhile, otherwise the team top of the tab after x rounds would be the winner, and there would be no knockout phase..<br /><br />However, for the competition to be fair, all competitors must be exposed to the same conditions, unless a difference has already been shown between them. I don't think that can be done on the basis suggested. I understand your point about it being a 'bonus' for getting in the top 16, but the problem is that from a statistical point of view, positions 16 & 17 are interchangeable. In fact, there is still so much bounce after 9 rounds at worlds, that positions 10 and 22 are probably interchangeable. Take 2004; the 16th placed team had been 24th after the previous round, but the 17th placed team had been 7th after the 8th round.<br /><br />In summary, what I was trying to get at was that Andy was suggesting that by increasing the size of the break, arbitrariness would be decreased, but since a break at 48 would entail a sub-break at 16, the arbitrariness overall would paradoxically be increased.<br /><br />Anyway. It turns out there is enough data on this website to do a Monte Carlo Simulation to establish the what the truth here actually is. Hopefully by the end of the holidays.<br /><br />MarkMark Russellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-34010129507616267782010-01-02T18:15:29.904+00:002010-01-02T18:15:29.904+00:00For all this talk about bias against ESL teams and...For all this talk about bias against ESL teams and poor quality English speaking judges you should remember that the highest profile ban on a judge for bias and sexism and incorrect decisions was against an infamous Malaysian judge. Being a poor judge is not determined by race sex or language ability.<br /><br />The sweeping anti-English-speaking comments made by some on this discussion would be an equity violation if an English participant made them about the ESL/EFL community.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-7279734833706919482010-01-02T12:39:01.368+00:002010-01-02T12:39:01.368+00:00Quoting Anon @ 4:08 AM:
"So assuming that so...Quoting Anon @ 4:08 AM:<br /><br />"So assuming that some sort of bias against Asian teams exists in Worlds, this would be nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion, considering that the only example to back it up, doesn't appear to have been discriminated against at all at Worlds."<br /><br />Just because you can name a few instances of where they weren't discriminated against doesn't mean there are also instances, that ultimately impact their performance, where they also WERE.<br /><br />In fact, I'm sure if you ask Ateneo, they can and will name a number of instances wherein they DO feel they were discriminated against.<br /><br />And as per Andy's point, it's not like this is all overt discrimination. I think adjudicators in general are smart enough to avoid going the way of "this team is Asian/ESL/whatever, therefore they're just not as convincing." It's a subconscious, insidious kind of discrimination that's difficult to avoid. It's discrimination that we can reasonably expect breaking judges to be able to avoid better than other judges, though, so we can limit the effect of this discrimination by expanding the break to teams that just miss out on the top 32.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-56990552012685852502010-01-02T11:42:43.855+00:002010-01-02T11:42:43.855+00:00It's disappointing but should not be the end. ...It's disappointing but should not be the end. The logic behind the expansion is sound we just have to convince people. I am happy for this site to be used to keep the issue on the table.Cchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02308771027417054757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-27952033114589396132010-01-02T11:32:42.679+00:002010-01-02T11:32:42.679+00:00Well, we'll try not to let Kiera and Madeleine...Well, we'll try not to let Kiera and Madeleine smear all advocates of change with the same brush, but that's clearly what was being suggested.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-22253094556293070522010-01-02T10:35:07.993+00:002010-01-02T10:35:07.993+00:00Anon,
I think you're right, but the broader p...Anon,<br /><br />I think you're right, but the broader problem is that adjudicators have certain expectations of teams when they go into a round and that tends to colour their view. They expect Oxford B to be better than Borneo Art College C. 90% of the time, of course, Oxford B are better, and considerably so. But this means that Borneo C start with an inbuilt disadvantage that goes beyond manner, experience or knowledge. <br /><br />This isn't simple racism, though, because the same applies when Oxford B go up against Dundee B, or for that matter when Borneo C go up against Ateneo A. Expectations get calibrated according to your "knowledge" of a team's reputation. <br /><br />The problem is persuading judges to leave these preconceptions at the door. Stereotyping may be one element of that but it's a wider question of good judging. But, once again, I don't see this proposal - now defunct, at least for the time being - as being related to the quality of judging in any way.Andy Humenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-34667179280425048862010-01-02T05:46:49.715+00:002010-01-02T05:46:49.715+00:00Here here!Here here!Armchair Pundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06847697949645075544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-77164093078800020962010-01-02T04:08:33.695+00:002010-01-02T04:08:33.695+00:00I don't even think Ateneo are a good example t...I don't even think Ateneo are a good example to justify expanding the break at worlds on account of systematic bias against certain (predominantly Asian) teams. Check past results, they broke one team at Toronto (2002), one team at Stellenbosch (2003), one team at Singapore (2004), one team at Malaysia (2005), and two teams at Dublin (2006). They missed the break for 2 years after that, but just broke again this year at Turkey. <br /><br />Incidentally, when Ateneo broke at Singapore and Malaysia, they made the Quarters and the Semis of the main break, respectively. And if the anecdotal evidence I've gathered is correct, Malaysia was also the Worlds that the same Ateneo team that made the Semis beat Oxford A out of the break in Round 9, judged by an Australian, a Canadian and a Brit, including one of the DCA's. <br /><br />So assuming that some sort of bias against Asian teams exists in Worlds, this would be nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion, considering that the only example to back it up, doesn't appear to have been discriminated against at all at Worlds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-14146517117435516542010-01-02T02:02:49.599+00:002010-01-02T02:02:49.599+00:00Hang on Russel - 48 isn't a half baked idea. I...Hang on Russel - 48 isn't a half baked idea. It works on the principle of rewarding success, if you find yourslef in the top 5% of the tab you have to negotiate one round fewere to win the comp than if you finish in percentiles 6 to 15.<br /><br />That said I am not wedded to that number but taking a long view in the 80's when worlds was roughly a 100 team tournament they broke to 16 in the 90's when on average it got about 200 teams it broke to 32 now there are roughly 400 teams so doesnt make sense to increase again purely on that basis alone ? Do the math as the yanks say.<br /><br />All of this tosh about the 64th team being crap and likely to scupper the number 1 seed is supercillious nonsense. First the 64th team out of 400 is way above average, second a poor performance by any team in any debate can adversely impact things - that goes for no 1 seeds too, third you ask the no 1 seeds if they fancy taking on two teams ranked in the thirties and one in the sixites and see what they say.<br /><br />Tommy TonnerTommy Tonnernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-61063073786491537412010-01-01T22:16:31.754+00:002010-01-01T22:16:31.754+00:00One thing you can always rely on... the lethargy o...One thing you can always rely on... the lethargy of a debating body to bring results, and protect the status quo. In this case it's the friend of standards and common sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-16554105323004351682010-01-01T20:16:00.774+00:002010-01-01T20:16:00.774+00:00...yeah, and hopefully with a less half-baked solu......yeah, and hopefully with a less half-baked solution than expansion to 48. Given that the only way for that would work would be to create two castes - a top 16, who would go straight to octos, and a bottom 32, who would have to go through hexadecofinals (bit a mouthful, that) - I think as Andy says, the status quo is best for now.<br /><br />If I can get some relevant data from Colm & others, I will do some simulation around this issue. I'm sure my employers won't mind the computer time :)Mark Russellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-1809498123959449562010-01-01T16:17:10.475+00:002010-01-01T16:17:10.475+00:00That's a bit of a disappointment.
Look, this ...That's a bit of a disappointment.<br /><br />Look, this "problem" - if such it is - will wait. And Botswana next year may be a smaller competition, for simple reasons of geography, which will render this a tad academic.<br /><br />But if the competition continues to expand, even if at a modest and uneven pace, at some point I'd say the discussion will have to be had. I don't know what sort of team cap De La Salle will have, but there are going to be hundreds of Asian teams interested in showing up.<br /><br />Some day this war's gonna end...Andy Humenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-30581646920739469472010-01-01T16:14:04.593+00:002010-01-01T16:14:04.593+00:00I don't have time to do the maths on this just...I don't have time to do the maths on this just now, but Andy is undoubtedly correct - the probability of losing a potential final team from the break altogether is far higher with break to 32 than with break to 64.<br /><br />Really just a quick point though; does someone on Worlds council realise that 48 is not a power of 2? There is no way to get from a pool of 48 to a final of 4 with equal odds of progression in each room. I find it impossible to see what the advantage of 48 over 64 is.Mark Russellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-77168982184945242162010-01-01T16:07:20.960+00:002010-01-01T16:07:20.960+00:00Council decided to not do anything this year. The ...Council decided to not do anything this year. The discussion didn't get into any real depth - compared even to arguments made in this website.<br /><br />55-45 on actually having the discussion. Oh well, better things to spend time on at Worlds I suppose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11521363.post-56144368901019500992010-01-01T00:50:41.578+00:002010-01-01T00:50:41.578+00:00I understand that Abdila is indeed working on this...I understand that Abdila is indeed working on this as part of her "Future of Worlds" sub-committee. I have no info on her "Frantically holding meetings". I understand that there is a bit of an election campaign going on for Chair so people should bear that in mind when reading the tone of the Anonymous post aboveCchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02308771027417054757noreply@blogger.com