Wisconsin Forensics Daily

My concerns:
—you can still have a bad judge with 500 points or an excellent judge with 25 points.
—how is the WFCA going to verify the points? Especially for each round judged?
—Will you have to submit a copy of your diploma to show your status?
—it’s also potentially worrying in that we may be setting up a hierarchy of judges
—The point value for a year of teaching is a little higher. I’d say judging 25 rounds is a lot more valuable than a year of teaching in the classroom.
—By giving 75 points for those types of degrees. Sure someone with a theatre degree is probably better qualified at judging Solo Humorous. But is that degree equally valuable in Oratory? Special Occasion? Radio? At the same time, someone with a Law degree isn’t going to be as much an “expert” at judging Play Acting as they are for Oratory, Public Address etc.

All in all, this system will be an administrative nightmare that no one will be able to verify. Let’s make this whole system a lot easier: The WFCA offers judge training workshops at the beginning and end of the seasons. Judges who attend these sessions and get “accredited” or “certified” can say get paid an extra $5 (or X amount of $) per tournament. That gives us an easy way of training judges in a standardized way, and if say they get 3 demerits or 4 complaints or whatever they lose their certification and must re-pass the course, and they must take it say once every 2 or 3 years.

And maybe we should do what some national tournaments do and say you have to pick speech, interp, or debate judging that way judges who have no idea how to judge a prose are never put in that position.

By Shawn Matson on Aug 22, 2007

I’m very concerned because apparently after five years of forensics and debate involvement, I’m not a master.

Here’s how I’d score:

* 75 pts: undergraduate degree in Communications, theatre, social studies, English, education, law, language arts
* 25 pts: undergraduate degree
- I have them both. One of my undergrad majors is in Rhetoric.

* 1 pt: every 25 rounds of judging
five years of judging, attending seven tournaments a year, judging three rounds a tournament is approximately 1 point a year. (Not including debate, which should push this to about 3 points a year bc debate does more rounds than forensics).

5 (or 15 points)

* 5 pts: every 10 rounds of judging at national/national circuit judging

If we ignore the national circuit debate judging I’ve done, then this is only 5 points for me… otherwise it’d be a lot higher. (CFL in Milwaukee, CFL in Chicago, CFL in Houston, Glenbrooks for four years, Valley once)

* 10 pts: each year of full-time coaching
* 5 pts: each year of assistant coaching
* 15 pts each year head coach coaching

I don’t know what these definitions mean. If full time = 40 hours, then I want to know who meets that definition. I’d assume that coaching ten hours every week, not counting hours spent at tournaments, then I’m probably a full time coach. And that doesn’t count outside administrative work.

So lets conservatively say 55 points. (I didn’t do 10 hours all five years).

* 3 pts: per year related coaching (i.e. debate) 15 points

* 2 pts: each year experience as a high school competitor - 8 points

* 20 pts: each tournament directed -
This is zero if its exclusive to forensics. But I’ve done this once for debate.

* 10 pts: each tournament acted as assistant tournament director
50 points.

* 10 pts: per year mentor coach - I guess you could say that I did this one year. So 10.

* 25 pts: each Teaching or coaching award - Does being nominated for debate count? Probably not.

* 2 pts: each forensics workshop

* 5 pts: related speech experience, i.e. toastmasters, college speech
* 2 pts: training by individual school - 2 points.

* 2 pts: attendance at each WFCA meeting - I’ve gone to like five or six meetings, so let’s say 12 points
* 5 pts: each year member of WFCA committee
* 10 pts: Each year chair WFCA meeting
* 10 pts: Each year leadership position in sister organizations, i.e. NFL, CFL, WHSFA - Does the WDCA count? Then I get 10.

Total is: 278

I like the idea of establishing a system to figure out who is and is not a qualified judge and use them for semis and finals (or even - the whole tournament). However, I think that the point totals desperately need to be adjusted. If folks like me fail to meet the master judge status, then there’s a serious discrepancy. I almost have a diamond in the National forensics league and I helped coach several state champion teams and individuals. To say that I’m not qualified to judge a semi or final round is silly.

As the proposal stands there are probably only ten to twenty people in the state of Wisconsin who meet this criteria. That’s substantially under the number of people needed to run the Semi’s and finals at the WFCA State tournament. If we are serious about this proposal, we need to tweak the levels such that Chris doesn’t completely have a heart attack.

I also think that there needs to be a lot more work done acknowledging the importance of debate. Lets not ignore the important work that debate coaches do in teaching the forensics arts. Excluded from above are my many more rounds of debate judging - both local and national, the four tournaments I’ve been an assistant director for debate (Madison West, Madison Memorial, Capital City Challenge 1 and 2), my own debate tournament I’ve directed, and the countless others I’ve helped in the tab room (Alverno, Rufus King twice, Appleton East, and the WSDT - among probably more). Teaching at a summer institute (which I’ve done twice), is also excluded. Outside service, like say - this webpage - is similarly excluded. All of that work is rewarded with zero points.

By Nick Bubb on Aug 23, 2007

Apparently I’ve been corrected. I can’t double count degrees, so I’d only be at 258. Which I think makes my point about the standard being set too high, more important.

If young coaches like myself are excluded from judging, our state is going to have a hard time surviving when the current crop of excellent coaches retires.

Perhaps we should also include some points for coaching success. This proposal doesn’t differentiate between a coach who has eight years of experience and has won a state championship (or had a student win a state championship) and a coach who has coached for the same amount of time, but does not have the same kind of success.

By Nick Bubb on Aug 23, 2007

With 10 years judging or coaching in some capacity I managed to score a 384. With seven years my wife scored 129. I will spare the detailed report unless someone is really interested in it.

By Tim Scheffler on Aug 23, 2007

I was waiting for some intrepid soul to add up their points. I did a quick count in my head and it’s no where near “journeyman.”

I think that some oversight of judges can be really helpful to the students we judge. But the total needed for levels seems high. Recognizing the commitment of judges with a label of “master” is wonderful. Looking for highly qualified judges for the final rounds at state is also wonderful. But my question is this: why aren’t schools bringing great judges to begin with? (I’m not saying they aren’t, just posing a question)

I’ve judged in semi and final rounds of the State tournament the last 4 years. I think I did a good job each time, judging label or not.

By John Knetzger on Aug 23, 2007

With 5 years of judging at least 7-8 tournaments a year, 4 years of competing in high school, a college degree, and regularly writing speeches as part of my carreer, I have 52 points.

I’m only 448 points from judging a state semifinal under this proposal.

Apprentice Judge Status…and likely will be for about another 40 years, unless I get a day job that will allow schedule flexibility to start coaching.

By Mike Wagner on Aug 23, 2007

Nick, I am glad you have brought this forward to discuss.

First and foremost, I believe Lynda Luce’s proposal is not to set a standard that judges need to meet, but a system to acknowledge judges that have varying levels of experience and expertise. It is not being proposed as a requirement for judging at the State tournament, but more so an even spread of experience. For example, if there are say 20 judges that have been acknowledged as “Master Judge” when registrations are in for the tournament, then Chris could try to have one master judge on each final panel.

I think you make a mistake in assuming that all master judges are great judges and all great judges should be master judges. We can all probably agree that a great judge can hit a crest and begin to lose their quality edge. (probably more so in debate than speech) but probably still applicable.

Second, this is a proposal that is just a working idea… if you feel that the points (for accomplishments or to reach the levels of acknowledgment) need adjustment or altering, please let Lyn Luce know, as she is looking for feedback on the proposal. (If no one comments, it will be assumed that everyone is happy with the point levels) so please let your voice be heard.

Third, you could also look at this as an honor system, similar to that of the NFL’s diamond coaches system.

I believe this is an idea that has merit, but maybe needs a bit more tweaking of the points.

Please make sure your voice is heard.

Traas

By Michael Traas on Aug 23, 2007

Thank you, Nick, for bringing this to a public dialogue online. As long as I’ve been involved with the WFCA (merely ten of its 35+ years), we have had the same discussions about judging standards. I know that it has been a point of contention long prior to that, and I suspect, throughout the WHSFA’s 110+ years of existence, an issue there. To that end, I offer some observations:

1). As alluded to above, we have two forensic organizations that offer speech activities in the state of Wisconsin. The WHSFA — which has an office and staff supporting its membership — offers judge training. My observations of staunch coaches in both organizations is they are so used to the two being contrary philosophies and having separate identities, they see no room for compromise. In a sense, they are projecting their perception of their favored organization as an identity unto themselves. Until we shed those egos and reach out, we will have to create proposals like this, that quite frankly, reinvent the wheel.

2). The WFCA is a volunteer-run organization, meaning that often, the officers doing the lion’s share of the work are classroom teachers who often also direct plays and are deeply involved in our own schools. I do share concerns already expressed, regarding tracking this information. Not to mention the fact that we are now asking our already overstretched constituency of coaches — including several newer coaches — to complete yet more paperwork, and to try and solicit that paperwork from their judges.

3). One of the core values of the WFCA mission statement is to prepare our young people for a lifetime of participation in a democratic society. So — in that “real world” spirit, if I invite a professional radio news announcer (who is not affiliated with any school) to serve as a “blue ribbon” judge, would they be worthy of judging finals of Radio?

4). This entire proposal uses experience as its hallmark. While experience plays a huge role in someone’s efficacy judging, I caution against dismissing a senior in college who only judges, but conscientiously writes thorough critiques, while a judge of 20+ years may write less and not justify their evaluation. I believe one of the whole reasons this proposal as a solution came about is because the problem of judges not justifying their comments and using personal reasons for their critiques. While the WHSFA training system doesn’t ensure judges will follow-through with thorough critiques, it at least addresses those issues, as well as the ethics of judging, which is quite important.

I conclude by offering the disclaimer that I lead WHSFA adjudication workshops, so I come from the biased perspective of believing that they are a great feature. Moreover, while I don’t participate in the WHSFA speech festival series, I do have deep respect for what the WHSFA does, which is why I pushed to require all MPS (Milwaukee Public Schools) judges to take the training, even if their school participated primarily in the WFCA. Interestingly, through my travels in leading such workshops, I have learned that many areas of the state of small, regional TOURNAMENTS, which use WHSFA rules. There is a sizable constituency within the WHSFA that prefers competition to the festival format. I think there is room for compromise and cooperation. Considering the judging workshops would certainly be a starting point. If nothing else, reward a chunk of points for WHSFA judge certification!

By Adam Jacobi on Aug 24, 2007

I believe that this is a good idea but needs to be tweaked a lot. Here are some initial concerns.

1. By having such a high standard for Master Judge, you will probably have just coaches of 10+ years on the panel. However, these coaches also need to make sure that their students are behaved, they have to console students, among other things.

2. More so than not, when an individual judges year after year, the better he or she will become at it. Thus, I think that more points should be earned after judging more than 100 rounds, then 200 rounds and so on. So after judging more than 100 rounds, you should earn two points for every 25 rounds and then after 200 rounds you should earn 3 points for every 25 rounds.

3. What about college debate and speech competition? There should be some points for that as well.

By Steven Finch on Aug 24, 2007

I’ve been asked by Lyn to indicate if you are WFCA Member or not, as well as to send concerns directly to her. Y’all can do that through the email that is published above.

By Nick Bubb on Aug 27, 2007

I will always encourage discussion of how to get higher quality judging in this state and around the nation. Good judges are harder and harder to come by and are critical to the long term success of this activity. Here is my problem with a proposal like this.

Lets say we have 100 possible judges in this state. A policy like this is a restriction on participation. Even if you just use this information as a guideline and don’t actually require the use of certain levels of judges at certain points in a tournament or in certain divisions. If you label people as the “lowest level” of judge the implication is people will feel “bad” (even if that is not your intention) and you will lose judges. I think this thread shows that, the minuet people like myself or Nick Bubb start to review their career and get sorted into a category people will have reactions. If those are negative then we have created a less then positive atmosphere and harmed our purpose.

Correct me if I am wrong the goal is MORE qualified judges. I think restrictions are looking at the problem from the wrong point of view. The focus should be on encouraging good judges and helping people become BETTER judges. I don’t think a policy like this would do that.

I would be in support of requiring judges take a course but 2 problems with that come to mind:

1) What do you do with out of state judges?
2) I bet the tournament director still would have final say, in which case most tournament directors will be so desperate for good judges they will always hire alma or college debaters etc.

I think a policy like this only works if it encourages people to get better and if the total makeup would support enough judges to cover the more advanced debate where more comprehensive knowledge of all aspects of the activity are beneficial. I believe coaches are self policing in that they are trying not placing unqualified judges in VSS. I think removing the restriction on schools who hire judges cannot then be judge by them even if they lack affiliation would help. I think getting together a list of past debaters who currently reside in this state and thus taping the resource that is the UW campuses where many debaters from across the nation come for college and would love to get plugged into judging for money.

The WFCA can use its resources and centralized nature to help link available judges to tournaments. Help organize carpools for people leaving Madison or Milwaukee to tournaments. Maybe have a website where judges can register, fill out some info and indicate the tournaments they are available for and if they need a ride. Then directors can tap that shared resource. We could use that site as a location where judge paradigms can be required to be maintained.

Personally I am ok with a “bus driver” (sorry for the term but it has become a part of our vernacular in the community) if I know that up front. Maybe with more questions then our standard form, like “ If a team runs an affirmative that is performance based how would you evaluate fiat and or the Prima Facia issues?”

Also we could have information on these question which explain these issues in depth and therefore provide an educational resources which helps elevate the level of judging.

As for out rounds at the Varsity level I will admit I prefer my teams have a judge with more a “national circuit VSS style” or be a coach of a team. I think tournament directors can help with this process and the WFCA could consider tapping head coaches who often are available in late rounds because they prefer not to judge. I know as a coach of a team I consider it an honor to be chosen to be on the panel for state finals.

I think we need to encourage and teach not categorize. Any categories we create will fail to capture the truth anyway. A 2 year out judge can be great or terrible just as much as a 40 year veteran. We need to identify the real differences in what makes a good and fair judge, then encourage and teach those things.

By Paul Hager on Aug 27, 2007

Paul, all of your comments seem to be under the assumption that this is about debate judges. It is not. This is a proposal for WFCA, not WDCA and does not apply to judging debate whatsoever.

Additionally, the proposal makes NO restrictions or even expectations. Only acknowledges those that wish to apple for master judge status in WFCA.

No such proposal for WDCA has been proposed.

By Mike Traas on Aug 27, 2007

First and foremost, I am glad that Lyn Luce put forth the Master Proposal. It has prompted so much dialogue which is the only way we as an organization can get better and improve ourselves. I like her idea, but when I took the test, I only qualified for Journeyman status and I’ve been coaching for seven years and competed in six. Maybe instead of just three areas to qualify in that there be 5 or 6 since there is still so much in between the three status given. Also, I think that there should be WAY more points given to those alumni that have done forensics in high school in WISCONSIN. One thing that I noticed is that a lot of coaches would probably fall into the MAster Status, but also a lot of coaches were also alumni of WI forensics. Thus, who better to judge semis and finals at State than the students who were once a part of it. There are a lot of students who do come back and judge, and they would have more of an interest in the rounds because they went through the same thing than a judge who hadn’t had any experience in forensics at all. Of course, there would be exceptions to the rule, but from my experience, the judges that were once students seem more interested and excited about judging than judges who were not, with some exceptions.

By Ernest Chomicki on Aug 28, 2007

I’ve judged and coached forensics since 1992 and am at Journeyman status. And I judged through the finals in 2005 for the WFCA at their state meet.
This is an admirable start at attempting to quantify the skills needed to be an outstanding judge. I question, though, how many people will reach the Master level and if those who do are those who want to be judging.

By Chris Bennett on Sep 4, 2007

Good day, all.

I have NOT read ALL the comments above. I am Dist. 9 Director of WHSFA. We have our board meeting this Wednesday in Madison! Annually, as the past coach from Fond du Lac High, we have hosted a WHSFA Adjudicator workshop. I’m delighted to hear:

1. that WFCA is looking into helping adjudicators to become even better at their skills of judging! Thanks, Lynn & ALL for your efforts, creative ideas and comments above! This is the good way to see the “question” from many angles! ;-)

(to hear…)

2. whenever that WFCA & WHSFA are working together. I DO NOT see each organization as competitors but , rather, as 2 GENERALS leading an army of those who want to get better at their communication skills! Adults and students are in this army! :-)

Both WFCA & WHSFA have unique & similar goals and activities. Fondy High was a member of both, as many of Dist. 9’s schools are. I encourage all to join BOTH! :-) We all can site example of where students have been encouraged & DIScouraged at BOTH contests by a judge’s comment! ANYTHING WE , as adults, can do to help adjudicators make beneficial comments & give constructive criticism is a bold step forward, I believe! ;-)

Yes, together, let us do all we can for the novice & the veteran adjudicator to make sure s/he makes comments to help the student learn, grow & excel! ;-) Much success to you all!

God Bless! Orin (orinm@fastbytes.com)

By Orin L. Mueller on Sep 8, 2007

I think that there should be WAY more points given to those alumni that have done forensics in high school in WISCONSIN

I like the Chinese-style English and the 2008 Beijing Olympics have ties, the Chinglish Chinese-English language arts very interesting.

By Chingarts on Sep 9, 2007

I thought judging was already taken care of at state by the inner-circle of coaches in the tab. I mean this as a joke, although, there is a little truth to every joke, no?

If this designation doesn’t assure you of getting a “good” judge, then what good is it? It is like a “participation” award for a judge.

Let’s be honest judging (in IEs more so than in Debate) is largely subjective. How can you make a statement about anyone’s skills as a judge based on this list of criteria? If anything their subjective considerations (good and bad) become more set in stone over time, I guess that makes them predictable, but how many Forensics coaches are coaching judge adaptation?

You’re better off instituting a system of preferencing in Forensics. Granted, there is no way you could do that manually, but it would help ensure that you get the best judges for the best rounds, which seems to be what most people care about.

Also, you might do well to start assembling a judge database where judges can list their preferences and where judge ballots could be posted with student names redacted. That would help you figure out who needs to be trained, which is a nice segue to my main suggestion.

Instead of earning points, which clearly ends up favoring longevity over proficiency, why not focus on the training aspect of this? You should produce judge training programs. They should be comprehensive and by category. They should identify appropriate comments to use, how to evaluate aspects of a performance, how to rank people systematically instead of purely subjectively, and how to write a useful critique. There should be recordings of actual performances at both ends of the scale and the judges should produce a critique for review by the judging committee.

I took that judge training a while back and it may have changed dramatically, but I would venture a guess that it still is not comprehensive enough. You just can’t do that in a lecture-driven, one-day “workshop”.

By Cory Puuri on Sep 14, 2007