Thursday Thing to Read: What is Judges Preference
February 1, 2007 – 12:13 pm by: Nick BubbDuring awards ceremonies of forensic tournaments throughout the season, places in final rounds are often announced as being determined by judge’s preference. This announcement is usually followed by a series of boos or ooh or some other misunderstanding that attributes judge’s preference as something nefarious. In today’s Thursday Thing to Read I explain why Judges Preference is nothing to fear.
Judges Preference is not Judge’s Bias
by Nick Bubb
Judge’s preference is simply a method of breaking ties. The Tab room is not asking the judges, “who would you like to see win the competition?” Judges Preference is merely a method of calculation. The calculation is objective and logical based on the ranks that judges submit. There’s no subjectivity.
For example, if during the final round of Oratory two speakers have the following ranks, how can we tell the difference?
Speaker A: 1, 3, 1
Speaker B: 2, 1, 2
Normally we evaluate who wins the round with the lowest rank total, but each of these speakers are tied in their total ranks at 5. How then can we evaluate who receives first place and who does not? The first tie breaker at any tournament is judges preference.
Since each judge ranks all of the speakers in the round, we look to an agreement among TWO judges among the ranked ballot they submitted. This is not an agreement upon a rank, although, from the example that I have used above that is certainly the case. The agreement we are seeking, is one based on rank. If two judges rank one speaker above another, then that speaker is said to be preferred over the other.
In the example above, Speaker A should win on judges preference because the first judge and the third judge preferred (ranked) speaker A above speaker B. This is what we look for when establishing judges preference, that two judges clearly prefer one competitor over another.
Judges Preference can be used to break ties among many speakers. For example, consider the following situation.
Speaker A: 3, 3, 5 = 11
Speaker B: 1, 4, 6 = 11
Speaker C: 4, 6, 1 = 11
Speaker A is preferred over Speaker B (3 over 4, 5 over 6) and Speaker A is preferred over Speaker C (3 over 4, 3 over 6). Thus, Speaker A should win the tie-breaker. After, we break the three-way tie, then we still have to break the tie between Speaker B and Speaker C.
Seemingly, this tie is unbreakable. Each of the speakers have received identical ranks, shouldn’t they end up being completely tied? The answer is no. We have to look closely. Speaker B should win the tie-break with Speaker C (1 over 4, 4 over 6).
There are some instances where judge’s preference cannot break ties. Consider the following situation:
Speaker A: 1, 2, 3
Speaker B: 2, 3, 1
Speaker C: 3, 1, 2
This is an example of an unbreakable tie. Speaker A is preferred to Speaker B (1 over 2, 2 over 3), but is not preferred to Speaker C. Speaker C is preferred to Speaker A, (1 over 2, 2 over 3). And Speaker B is preferred over speaker C (1 over 2, 2 over 3).
There are other methods of breaking a tie. They are reciprocals and preliminary ranks. Often though, these methods are rarely used. The reason for this is that judges preference is quite a powerful method of breaking ties.
This initial explanation started with the statement that Judges Preference is a method of breaking ties. This prompts the question - do ties need to be broken? For our average weekly tournament - the question is yes and no. Breaking ties between 6th, and 7th place seems pointless. Both places receive the same awards. On the other hand, breaking ties between 4th and 3rd, often the difference between receiving an award and not, does seem to make sense. At other, more special tournaments, the situation is a bit different. At the state tournament, where we award all of the places in the final round, clearly the answer is yes.
Hopefully, this explanation has alleviated some misunderstandings of tournament tabulation and can silence some boos.
8 Responses to “Thursday Thing to Read: What is Judges Preference”
Good post, Nick. I think that most competitors imagine we’re sitting in the judges’ lounge and picking favorites instetad of this objective process. Although, I think hammering it out among the judges would be desirable over using preliminary round rankings. That one always bothers me because those aren’t always direct comparisons (i.e. Speaker A and B may never have been in the same room during the preliminaries).
By Mike on Feb 1, 2007
Um, I think most people who “ooh” at judge’s preference is that it’s a tradition. No one I know misunderstands what judge’s preference is. Now reciprocals, that’s another matter. (BTW, I know what that is. I explain it to my students. It’s math, and therefore it’s HARD.)
In short, the noisemaking meant all in fun. I would consider it a tradition along with standing ovations for champions (and since when shouldn’t everyone in a final get a standing O now, really?)
Is there anyone who really misunderstands this concept? None of my forensics students ever has.
By Ed Falkner on Feb 1, 2007
The first sentence of my post should read “Um, I think most peophe who “ooh” at judge’s preference DO SO BECAUSE it’s a tradition.”
Otherwise, carry on.
By Ed Falkner on Feb 1, 2007
i prefer to cheer
By shawn on Feb 1, 2007
I always boo judges preference. Who do those judges think they are anyway!? Now reciprocals, that’s another matter. I never met a reciprocal I didn’t like.
By Paul Miller on Feb 2, 2007
Two years ago at Sheb. South three duos went 1,2,3 in the finals. There was no way to break it the way the ranks landed, so they went back to prelims.
By Ben Tully on Feb 2, 2007
Ben you’re right, the 1,2,3 three-way tie can only be broken on previous ranks. The reason for this is that reciprocals also fails, because the ranks are the same, each speaker ends up with 1.833 total.
By Nick Bubb on Feb 3, 2007
Nick, thanks for the explanation, but a 3-way tie is not broken on judges’ preference. Reciprocals is the standard tie break for a 3-way tie. In your example above, speaker A would NOT be the winner, but would come in 3rd behind speaker B and C, whose tied reciprocals would be better.
By Mary Wacker on Sep 24, 2007