Joseph Miller is Harker’s Champion
posted by Jennie Savage on March 3rd, 2007
SAN JOSE, CA – Congratulations to Highland Park High School’s Joseph Miller for winning the 2007 Harker Invitational. Joseph defeated Lynbrook High School’s Narayan Subramanian on a 2-1 decision. (Ryan Lawrence, Alex Smith, and Ashan Peiris adjudicated.) Both debaters will receive bids to the Tournament of Champions.
Joseph is coached by Loren Eastlund. Narayan is coached by Dave McGinnis and Corbin Cass.
Kudos also to Harker’s tournament director, Dr. Matthew Brandstetter and his crew — Rick Brundage, AJ Merton, Carol Green, Anthony Berryhill, and incredibly helpful team of parents and Harker debaters — for putting on a wonderful tournament for everyone involved.
Popularity: 16% [?]
no more tag found, sorry
Posted from: 68.175.61.249
February 27th, 2007 16:52
I understand the tournament is using paperless (electronic) ballots. I’m interested to know more about how that system is set up.
Posted from: 198.135.224.110
February 27th, 2007 17:21
ouch what an intense field for a finals bid.
Posted from: 71.139.26.245
February 27th, 2007 17:38
Last year they also used electronic ballots for varsity. Judges with laptops were able to submit them over the school’s wireless system. Harker students with school laptops also roamed from room to room to help those who didn’t have laptops of their own. Although there were some problems, it was pretty nice and allowed us to see our ballots in a more organized fashion than the typical packet.
Posted from: 71.139.26.245
February 27th, 2007 17:39
Also, I believe that the deadline is 5:00 PM today, not 6:00.
Posted from: 71.139.26.245
February 27th, 2007 17:51
My mistake. It has been moved up an hour to 6:00.
Posted from: 24.12.175.184
February 27th, 2007 20:26
hmm, participants from 7 states this year. hopefully harker gets a semis bid status by next year. It’s judging is probably the best out of any circuit tourney. I’m just said that i have nat quals this weekend, so i can’t go =(
good luck to everybody who is competing though!
Posted from: 24.12.175.184
February 27th, 2007 20:27
wow, **sad not said**
Posted from: 24.6.65.253
February 27th, 2007 22:30
best food ever.
Posted from: 70.247.119.72
February 27th, 2007 22:44
With all the competition at TFA State… we need our own field report :P
Posted from: 70.170.6.20
February 27th, 2007 23:12
The paperless system worked really well last year. It’s much as DM described above. I know that judges did everything from typing notes in a word processor as the round went on and copy/pasted to figuring out a way to attach (or somehow) include their flow as part of their ballot. I loved the system. It’s an innovation that any tournament with the appropriate infrastructure ought to look in to.
Posted from: 67.164.109.188
February 27th, 2007 23:19
A couple of words about the Howard and Diana Nichols Invitational:
We will be using the paperless ballot system again this year. Daniel’s description of how it works is accurate. Many of the student volunteers at Harker bring their laptops around to rooms, so that judges that did not bring them are able to use the system. Judges pick up passwords for their rounds and head to their rooms. It makes tab much much easier as results are instanteous, which is one reason we are able to be on time or early for every single round. It also eliminates the need for frantic ballot running for results, as well as entering the flight A results before flight B starts. As technology spreads through high schools, I think that this would be a viable system for many tournaments.
The round robin (for which the pods will be released in a couple of hours) will also be trying a 10 point speaker point scale. I think that this has the potential to help reduce the wide range of speaker point varaition between all types of judges. We’ll see how it works for circuit competitors/judges, and see if it is feasible.
I’d also like to thank people for their kind words about the tournament. It makes the hard work finding judges and logistic work really rewarding. This year, Anthony Berryhill will be helping me in tab, and we look forward to running a really competitive tournament. I think that the number of competitors, schools, and states is tremendously impressive, especially given the number of state/district tournaments this weekend.
Posted from: 70.149.33.166
February 27th, 2007 23:42
electronic ballots sound awesome.
pam ftw
Posted from: 76.170.37.59
February 28th, 2007 00:08
Rick says: The round robin (for which the pods will be released in a couple of hours) will also be trying a 10 point speaker point scale. I think that this has the potential to help reduce the wide range of speaker point varaition between all types of judges. We’ll see how it works for circuit competitors/judges, and see if it is feasible.
–
Is the problem really that people don’t use a wide-enough range? Most speaker points bunch between 28 and 30. I think I’m criticized for a having a wide range — 25-29.5
Posted from: 68.175.61.249
February 28th, 2007 05:05
“With all the competition at TFA State… we need our own field report :P”
If someone can send one to me, I will post it. We’re doing live coverage, thanks to Chris Castillo and Greg Jeffers. :o)
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
February 28th, 2007 07:18
Not to derail this thread (go SLP!), but re: speaker points, I cannot begun to understand the rationale for a 30-point scale that basically considers 20 (or something in the low or mid-20s) as zero. In the little judging I’ve done (almost all novice), I’ve basically used a scale of 26-30, considering 27 sort of low average and 28 high average. That’s based on what I generally see on ballots.
Was it ever really a 30-point scale?
I think a 10-point scale sounds sensible.
Posted from: 75.80.139.173
February 28th, 2007 09:39
Great food and cool ballot system.
Too bad my district’s state quals are at the same time.
Posted from: 75.73.206.15
February 28th, 2007 15:29
Juli: I think the 30 point system has a big foundation in policy debate, where it is much more common than in LD to see people have gotten 0-5 speaker points for pulling in-round hijinks (usually the stories that come with the point total are pretty humorous).
I don’t know, some judges may feel that one of the people is being so rude/abusive/whatever that they’d prefer to make a seriously fatal dent in the speaker points of the offender.
If anyone has a better explanation, I’d like to know the better rationale too. I don’t hold myself to be an expert on this. At all.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 28th, 2007 15:43
jordan, youre actually way, way, way wrong about the basis of the 30 point system. its a carryover from old ballots (i believe AFA ballots, we have some in our squad room so i can check) when you got rated 1-5 in 6 different categories, making the highest possible point total a 30. however, as someone who has gotten a 10 before (and not just at the mba rr where the full scale is encouraged), i can say that sometimes people do use the full scale.
Posted from: 71.139.26.245
February 28th, 2007 16:02
Michael fails to mention that he has given 0′s as well…
Posted from: 66.240.48.106
February 28th, 2007 16:35
The round robin will be starting tomorrow morning. The competitors ranked everyone in the field to determine the pods.
Beak Pod:
Pam Brown – Pine Crest
Patrick Diehl – Lynbrook
Walt Johnson – Montgomery Academy
Mike Spiritos – Meadows
Eric Sporkin – Syosset
Catherine Tarsney – St. Louis Park
Talon Pod:
Jon Kwan – Lynbrook
Joseph Miller – Highland Park
Daniel Moerner – Los Altos
Deepa Ramakrishnan – Harker
Byron Ruby – Menlo Atherton
Nick Tourville – St. Louis Park
I’m sure that you’ll hear more from competitors and judges as the round robin progresses, especially regarding the 10 point scale.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 28th, 2007 16:44
i think i gave a 0 for lying about ev or something, i dont remember
Posted from: 66.127.54.232
February 28th, 2007 23:43
Harker has the best food. EVER. EVER EVER EVER.
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
March 1st, 2007 20:37
I’ve given a couple 20s in my day. Don’t lie about extensions, especially if I flow better than you!
Posted from: 76.211.240.82
March 1st, 2007 21:35
oh i found a ballot with the following 6 criteria on it for calculating speaks analysis/evidence/organization/refutation/courtesy/delivery
i guess that might be the original criteria for determining a 30 (i may be wrong..)
my AFA one didn’t really say anything, it just has score ranges.
Posted from: 67.164.109.188
March 2nd, 2007 00:54
The 10 point scale worked fine at the RR. There was still enough variation that the speaker awards were decided by at least one high-low point. This limited evidence suggests that the 10 point scale is feasible on the circuit level. We may decide to try it out in novice to see if it works well with judges that have less experience. I’ll be talking to coaches and judges from the RR later this weekend.
Posted from: 71.139.26.245
March 2nd, 2007 23:50
Records:
Los Altos DM 3-0
Lynbrook JK 3-0
Lynbrook PD 3-0
Palo Alto NG 3-0
Palo Alto RR 3-0
SLP NT 2-1
SLP CT 2-1
SLP JS 2-1
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
March 3rd, 2007 07:29
Because the tournament uses an entirely electronic system, you can find all varsity pairings at this site at the very same time that they are announced at Harker:
http://postings.incharta.com/
Thia sounds great – but where is it on the site? In one of the galleries? Please provide directions or a direct link – thanks!
Posted from: 66.240.48.106
March 3rd, 2007 11:05
Juli — not sure what you mean. When I go to the site, it gets me directly to the schems in varsity LD with options to look at each round’s pairings. Is anyone besides Juli having trouble accessing the page?
Jennie
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
March 3rd, 2007 15:00
For some reason that link was taking me somewhere completely different this morning; now it’s fine. Thanks.
Posted from: 205.134.251.132
March 3rd, 2007 16:01
[...] LIVE COVERAGE: Harker | Lakeland | Harker RR — [...]
Posted from: 66.240.48.106
March 3rd, 2007 16:05
Hi,
Thanks to everyone for your kind comments about the InCharta Paperless Ballot system. I am the former Harker student who wrote the program and have administered it at the Harker Tournament for the past 3 years. We had a great run with it this year, and finally have all the bugs worked out.
I’d love to work with other schools to implement this system at their tournaments. I am really a technologist at heart and love applying technology to make debate an easier, more enjoyable experience for everyone involved. Please feel free to shoot me an email at seturner@usc.edu if you’d like more information, you can read an article I published in the Rostrum at: http://www.nflonline.org/uploads/Rostrum/0206_047_050.pdf
Thanks so much,
Sean
Posted from: 66.240.48.106
March 3rd, 2007 18:29
Regarding the postings link going down:
At the request of the tab, the site was disabled overnight and during the awards ceremony. Sorry guys.
Posted from: 66.65.153.65
March 3rd, 2007 18:58
novice division!
oh my god lynbrook.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
March 3rd, 2007 19:03
What are the chances of having octafinals with eight from one school, four from a second, and four from a third – and having none of the schools hit each other?
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
March 3rd, 2007 19:06
and having none of the schools hit each other?
Oops, that didn’t come out right – I meant having none of the debaters hit their own school.
Posted from: 66.240.48.106
March 3rd, 2007 21:39
Alex Ackroyd def. Daniel Garber, 2-1 (McGinnis, Lawrence, *Peiris)
Soojee Hahn def. Catherine Tarsney
Posted from: 74.225.125.127
March 3rd, 2007 22:25
i love pam… gl julian
Posted from: 66.127.54.232
March 3rd, 2007 23:15
to my knowledge:
pali alex A over Garber
Pali Nina G. over Julian Switala
Joeseph miller over the guy he hit.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 3rd, 2007 23:16
My round w/ Diehl was funny. I like winning off RVI’s.
-Khalessi
Posted from: 68.175.60.62
March 3rd, 2007 23:22
Congratulations to all who cleared!
For now, as I await results, I just want to second the comment about Lynbrook and the novice division.
a) What were the chances of not having a single close out? Wow.
But more importantly….
b) A debater in every single outround? That’s intense. Congratulations!
Posted from: 68.164.86.211
March 4th, 2007 00:56
sporkin won his dubs round.
congrats to dfk for being a warrior.
also high five to conan and oaf for both getting struck by lightening. hearts
Posted from: 72.254.35.185
March 4th, 2007 01:50
to answer cruz’s question about novice ld… b/c we broke to octos, and bc lynbrook had most (almost all) of the top 8 seeds, they didnt have to hit each other in the first elim.
ok, back to bed for me…for another long,long day of tabbing
–bhill
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
March 4th, 2007 07:02
Congrats to Catherine, Julian, and Nick for clearing and to Julian and Nick on the speaker awards!
Choose well today, Nick!
Posted from: 71.135.46.79
March 4th, 2007 08:54
congrats to jkwan, diehl, and my man narayan on the beasting.
SOOJEE for breaking and winning a hard dubs round.
last, but certainly not least, lynbrook novii rock.
Posted from: 66.87.88.5
March 4th, 2007 10:59
octos (from postings.incharta.com)
los altos dm v palo alto rr
pine crest pb v montgomery academy wj
palo alto aa v slp nt
meadows ms v highland park jm
menlo atherton br v palo alto ng
lynbrook pd v syosett es
mountain view dk v lynbrook ns
lynbrook jk v lynbrook sh
Posted from: 66.166.238.220
March 4th, 2007 12:34
Spirit dropped in octos
DFK dropped in octos
pdiehl picks up against sporkin on a 3-0
Posted from: 75.7.16.170
March 4th, 2007 13:13
from looking at postings – looks like
los altos dm def palo alto rr
pine crest pb def montgomery academy wj
slp nt def palo alto aa
highland park jm def meadows ms
menlo atherton br def palo alto ng
lynbrook pd def syosett es
lynbrook ns def mountain view dk
lynbrook jk v lynbrook sh
and quarters look like
los altos DM vs m-a BR
lynbrook PD vs st louis park NT
pinecrest PB vs highland park JM
lynbrook NS vs lynbrook JK or SH (no debate)
Posted from: 76.17.154.147
March 4th, 2007 13:17
Go nick and joseph! MN represent!
Posted from: 72.254.35.185
March 4th, 2007 14:01
Lynbrook NS advances over Lynbrook JK
Posted from: 71.135.137.148
March 4th, 2007 14:20
So which is correct: the posting that says Lynbrook NS over JK or the reportage in the article that says the opposite?
Posted from: 72.254.35.185
March 4th, 2007 14:24
CPS vs. Meadows CS in finals varsity policy.
Posted from: 72.254.35.185
March 4th, 2007 14:25
CPS HY*
Posted from: 66.127.54.232
March 4th, 2007 14:48
narayan over diehl in sems
Joeseph miller v. Moerner on other side.
Posted from: 72.254.34.98
March 4th, 2007 16:04
Narayan gets a bid for winning his octas round
=P
Though hella good team effort on Lynbrook’s part for coordinating that.
Posted from: 75.7.18.5
March 4th, 2007 16:07
Sorry about the temporary mistake reporting on the Lynbrook walkover, and a huge congratulations to Narayan on what I’m sure will be the first of many TOC bids.
Posted from: 69.107.70.144
March 4th, 2007 16:10
oh wow it actually happened!
i like how we were talking last night about the possibility of narayan walking over ppl to get to finals. congrats, team lynbrook
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 16:17
Moerner wins
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 16:17
Your welcome Narayan. JK props though. Congrats.
Posted from: 64.12.117.8
March 4th, 2007 16:23
Well done team lynbrook!
Someone above asked what the chances were that all 8 lynbrook novices would not hit in octas. I was thinking about that…here’s my solution below. If there’s a flaw, let me know…
First off, the second condition becomes irrelevant (that the other 2 teams not hit each other) because meting the first condition (no lynbrook coachovers) inherently meets the second as this would force a lynbrook into each octa.
Let’s assuming a lynbrook kid is 1st seed, the chances of her NOT hitting a lynbrook kid is 8/15th. For the second lynbrook kid, there are now 13 potential opponents, 6 of whom are lynbrook (assuming the first one did not hit lynbrook) meaning there is a 7/13th chance of not hitting another lynbrook…and so on, 6/11th, 5/9th, 4/7th, 3/5th 2/3rd, 1. These are the chances of each successive lynbrook NOT to hit the remaining Lynbrooks.
You multiply all of these probabilities together (since the conditions are all simultaneous with a non-replacing set of options) and you get:
128/6435 = 1.99%
This seems high to me since it would seem a more difficult thing to do but the math looks right.
Once again, more importantly, well done Lynbrook…nice team effort getting Narayan to finals!
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 16:23
CHRISTAIN TARSNEY IS THE GREATEST JUDGE.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 16:23
I AM PROUD TO BE PART OF THE CHRISTAIN TARSNEY WELFARE SERVICES. THANK YOU FOR HELPING ME DO REASONABLY WELL AT THIS TOURNAMENT.
-DFK
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 16:25
moerner wins on a 2-1 against pirate, Lawerence on bottom.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 16:26
Finals
Los Altos DM vs. Lynrbook NS
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 16:26
Props to Moerner and Narayan for getting to finals.
Posted from: 66.87.88.5
March 4th, 2007 16:29
or you could just coach an incredible novice team like lynbrook does and have your chances increase to 99.999% =)
Posted from: 72.254.23.92
March 4th, 2007 16:31
i hate to be the bearer of bad news, but moerner did not win. joseph miller won on a 2-1 in semis, RL on bottom.
Posted from: 64.12.117.8
March 4th, 2007 16:36
anon, definitely true. I’m casting no doubt on the quality of the lynbrook novice squad, in fact quite the opposite. It’s a shame we can’t compete with them at this year’s novice nats again (we’re hosting our district tourney that weekend) as that was fun last year. McGinnis and his older kids do a great job making sure each novice is solid and prepared. My post was simply addressing the mathematical oddity which intrigued me.
Posted from: 169.229.77.223
March 4th, 2007 16:45
joe,
my intuition was also that it’d be harder than that…but the conditional nature of your setup is prolly why that happened, at least for me.
congrats to narayan on the bid! props also to jkwan and diehl for being good teammates, and to the lynbrook novices for giving joe and me something interesting to think about. :P
Posted from: 68.196.115.198
March 4th, 2007 16:54
joe knows about elim coachovers
Posted from: 161.253.49.1
March 4th, 2007 17:24
So how did everyone get the final round wrong? (i.e. moerner dropping)
Posted from: 71.142.106.7
March 4th, 2007 17:33
Haha, the math looks right.
But the better solution is that Lynbrook just takes the first seven seeds. Plus the ninth.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 17:51
THROW DOWN! MOERNER V. NARAYAN
Posted from: 76.17.154.147
March 4th, 2007 17:58
either someone is being stupid and is posting as joseph, or vbd has it wrong. which is it?
Posted from: 71.135.46.79
March 4th, 2007 18:00
NARAYAN IS A BEAST congrats.
Posted from: 72.254.35.185
March 4th, 2007 18:05
Joseph Miller picks up on a 2-1.
Posted from: 68.191.49.72
March 4th, 2007 18:12
to answer heather’s question:
someone is being stupid
Posted from: 75.52.252.45
March 4th, 2007 18:23
Narayan you fuckin baller
Posted from: 75.73.204.148
March 4th, 2007 18:31
Grats Miller, way to be a total beast.
Posted from: 67.170.247.77
March 4th, 2007 18:37
gj narayan.
and its all because of our little peace treaty hahaha.
Posted from: 205.134.251.132
March 4th, 2007 18:39
[...] LIVE COVERAGE: Joseph Miller Wins Harker | Jake Nebel Wins Florida State Title | Lexington Wins Lakeland, Bronx Science Takes Northeast Championships | Cary, East Chapel Hill Take NC State | Shravan Muralidharan Wins OHSSL State | Patrick Diehl Wins the Harker RR — [...]
Posted from: 75.73.206.15
March 4th, 2007 18:39
Joe Miller: good work.
Posted from: 71.82.137.104
March 4th, 2007 18:41
Good job joe.
Posted from: 71.202.53.245
March 4th, 2007 18:46
I almost cried when I heard Scarsdale wasn’t coming to novice nats. IT’S NOT FAIR!
Good job, Narayan. Good job, Joseph Miller.
Posted from: 69.107.70.144
March 4th, 2007 18:46
i like how khalessi used his normal email address when he posted as “JOE MILLER”
congrats to the champion of harker
Posted from: 71.139.26.245
March 4th, 2007 18:59
The confusion was that Spirtos cannot listen on the phone. I called him and said I lost on a 2-1 and he misheard me.
Posted from: 75.73.214.186
March 4th, 2007 19:02
Way to go Joe Miller!
Posted from: 72.144.175.110
March 4th, 2007 19:56
spirtos isn’t a sensory kind of guy
congrats diehl, moerner, pam, jkwan, narayan, and DFK on doing ‘reasonably well’.
Posted from: 209.162.38.144
March 4th, 2007 19:57
Nice job Joe. Hiatuses seem to serve you well.
Posted from: 208.54.15.1
March 4th, 2007 20:14
kudos to Joseph for rocking (and running down a crowded hallway with me on his back), Lynbrook for pulling off an amaaaaaazing bid conspiracy, Tourvillain for pwning me 7-2 in rock paper scissors despite basic probability, and Ashan for judging more rounds in one weekend than a man should have to in a lifetime.
Posted from: 75.35.216.98
March 4th, 2007 20:16
eric palmer did not judge finals as he was in the car at the time.
Posted from: 69.3.94.160
March 4th, 2007 21:02
Congrats to narayan for going 5-1 in prelims, peacing diehl n jkwan out of the tournament, and only dropping 2 ballots throughout the whole tournament. =]
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 21:14
the final was a 2-1 decision for Moerner. Good job to everyone who participated. Props to Joe Miller and Narayan.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 21:14
why does it say that Joemiller is the champ when moerner really won.
Posted from: 208.54.15.1
March 4th, 2007 21:15
hey dude that wasn’t me posting that above that moerner won
idk who that was
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 21:15
DMX wins his first tournament!
Posted from: 71.139.26.245
March 4th, 2007 21:16
Diehl is talking about Joe Miller not me. This is getting silly. He even watched my sems round.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 21:16
Moerner v. Narayan was a hella tite round. Run more irony K’s.
-Spirit
Posted from: 208.54.15.1
March 4th, 2007 21:17
people need to not post as other people its really retarded
but props to narayan and to miller good torunaments
even though narayan only had to debate octas
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 21:17
Spirtos wtf are u saying. Who really won?
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 21:18
damn straight. can ppl stop posting as other ppl
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 21:19
SPIRIT
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 21:20
MVLA WILL HAVE MORE BIDS THAN ALL OF VBI COMBINED (NEXT YEAR)
-ANON
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 4th, 2007 21:21
HOPEFULLY
Posted from: 208.54.15.1
March 4th, 2007 21:29
*Sigh*
Moerner drops in semis to Miller
Joseph Miller defeats Narayan in finals.
Joseph Miller = champ
Posted from: 75.73.200.123
March 4th, 2007 21:54
at the risk of repeating myself
OMG OMG OMG OMG JOSEPH MILLER
Posted from: 71.135.46.79
March 4th, 2007 22:33
khalessi when you’re postin as someone else at least change your email address
plus your ip gets logged so its useless
Posted from: 75.18.210.142
March 4th, 2007 22:48
khalessi what are you doing
everyone knows that your email is dktennis@yahoo.com now because youve posted like 490358704895 times with it.
Posted from: 70.149.33.166
March 4th, 2007 23:03
i am daniel khalessi
i know the names of lots of cool peeps on the circuit
i love mountain view debate bfffffleleaeaea
nsd ftw
Posted from: 68.252.226.236
March 4th, 2007 23:09
uh – i didn’t post that moerner won, since i wasn’t there. check the IPs
jmiller – good job man, a well deserved win
Posted from: 67.170.247.77
March 4th, 2007 23:15
the number of posts with the ip adress 24.6.159.5 is kindof insane.
Posted from: 66.245.49.105
March 4th, 2007 23:18
lord dfk. control yourself
Posted from: 68.229.61.213
March 5th, 2007 00:28
dfk, can you just stop
Posted from: 75.6.232.79
March 5th, 2007 01:16
haha, beating DFK for a bid might be the easiest bid in LD history
Posted from: 134.173.93.192
March 5th, 2007 02:33
Congrats Narayan
Posted from: 64.251.53.81
March 5th, 2007 06:21
eric is right– haha
Posted from: 72.144.174.137
March 5th, 2007 07:40
you are wrong
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
March 5th, 2007 08:00
eric dude stop being an asshole
Posted from: 205.173.47.254
March 5th, 2007 10:20
1 I sign my name as “pdiehl” not “PDiehl” atleast get it right if you want to post under my name
2 moerner is right i watched both semis and finals so I know the correct results and the above post declaring incorrect results in my name is not truly me
Posted from: 66.209.65.163
March 5th, 2007 13:39
and i never sign my posts
-spirt or -Spirtos ever
especailly since i dont post very muchh
Posted from: 205.173.47.254
March 5th, 2007 13:44
Also major congratulations to SOOJEE HAHN, who has been working very hard lately. Her preparation shows. She defeated Julian Switala in prelims – no mean feat, given that he is fully qualled to the TOC. And she upset Catherine Tarsney, The Best Freshman Ever, in elims.
Lynbrook is going to be very deep for a very long time.
Posted from: 129.116.10.134
March 5th, 2007 14:45
nice job narayan. the berroweeks machine will war with perelman.
Do you really think it’s a smart idea to mess with a man as dangerous as DFK?
Posted from: 129.116.10.134
March 5th, 2007 15:06
the berroweeks machine will war the meltzer*
Posted from: 71.139.198.77
March 5th, 2007 16:13
the panel was alex smith, ryan lawrence, and ashan. hopefully the time, place, and manner worked out in the end, man. my sypmathies.
congrats to joseph and narayan. i think my favorite moment was in prep when diehl and jkwan both mobbed lawrence… or perhaps the lynbrook prep party before the round.
good times.
swing dancers of the world unite.!
Posted from: 76.17.171.188
March 5th, 2007 16:36
how does one view their ballots?
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 5th, 2007 18:09
Do you really think it’s a smart idea to mess with a man as dangerous as DFK?
I affirm diehl
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 5th, 2007 18:11
jk
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 5th, 2007 18:12
I apologize for the incorrect posts.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 5th, 2007 18:18
haha, beating DFK for a bid might be the easiest bid in LD history
Nah man, it was actually the round you dropped at Yale.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 5th, 2007 18:19
Although I do agree that I did poorly in the octos round with Narayan. Keep up the good work Lynbrook.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 5th, 2007 20:29
I agree with Kamil’s post. Harker was a very well run tournament thanks to Mr. Berryhill, Mr. Brundage, and the entire Harker Debate Team. Thank you very much and hopefully the tournament becomes a semis bid.
Posted from: 76.17.145.242
March 5th, 2007 20:47
Congrats Joseph! You rock!
Posted from: 71.250.103.5
March 5th, 2007 20:52
this thread is making my head hurt
Posted from: 76.17.171.188
March 5th, 2007 22:58
TOP 19 SPEAKERS:
1) Mr. Kwon
2) Mr. Moerner
3) Mr. Spirtos
4) Mr. Diehl
5) Mr. Tourville
6) Mr. Ruby
7) Ms. Brown
8) Mr. Johnason
9) Mr. Switala
10) Mr. Menon
11) Mr. Subramanian
12) Mr. Garber
13) Mr. Sporkin
14) Mr. Ramakrisha
15) Mr. Khalessi
16) Mr. Miller
17) Ms. Tarsney
18) Ms. Hahn
19) Mr. Ramakumar
Posted from: 76.17.171.188
March 5th, 2007 23:00
“8) Mr. Johnason” is supposed to be “Mr. Johnson”
“19) Mr. Ramakumar” is supposed to be “Mr. Ramkumar”
Posted from: 24.6.65.253
March 5th, 2007 23:57
harker ballots?
Posted from: 71.132.134.170
March 6th, 2007 01:05
I am a giant douchebag.
Posted from: 205.134.251.132
March 6th, 2007 11:01
[...] THIS WEEKEND: Joseph Miller Wins Harker | David McGough is TFA State Champion | Jake Nebel Wins Florida State Title | Lexington Wins Lakeland, Bronx Science Takes Northeast Championships | Cary, East Chapel Hill Take NC State | Shravan Muralidharan Wins OHSSL State | Patrick Diehl Wins the Harker RR — [...]
Posted from: 205.173.47.254
March 6th, 2007 12:48
suggestion?
Make wake a finals bid (there are enough quality bid tournaments that weekend anyways) then make harker a quarters bid (12 of the poeple breaking are fully qualled, another 2 ppl are at large-i think
Make CPS a semis bid, then do something to some other tournament-i can’ think of any off the top of my head
pleeease?
Posted from: 76.17.171.188
March 6th, 2007 13:45
correction 2 above: 13 people who cleared at harker were qualled.
Posted from: 24.6.65.253
March 6th, 2007 16:33
although it is a good suggestion, it would make too many bids in cali. But harker should still be made a semis bid at worst.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
March 6th, 2007 16:53
The argument that “too many bids” would be in California is absurd since the debate there is of much higher quality than other areas that are already overbidded. A little balance wouldn’t hurt.
Posted from: 24.7.65.244
March 6th, 2007 17:11
my thoughts on bids:
1) harker is a good case for a semis bid–it has pretty outstanding judging, a rr that draws national competition, etc. if it were a bit larger (80+) there would be no question about it, but i’m not sure how big the school is (especially since it also hosts public forum, varsity and novice policy, and novice LD). i think if it collapsed its LD pool into an open division and kept similar entry caps it could probably be a great semis bid.
2) cps is a decent case for a semis bid (lexy really does work hard to run a hell of a tournament) but unfortunately falls on the same weekend as blake and doesn’t tend to attract lots of competition outside california. it’s also a very small campus and can’t really stretch to accommodate many more entries.
3) california is very highly bidded but it is also extremely, extremely deep competitively. additionally, all but 2 of its bid tournaments (cps and logan) are major national tournaments that have a really broad draw (over half of the bids from berkeley, stanford, and vbt go to people outside of california). i think there is a convincing case for getting rid of logan’s bid and giving it to harker, but i’m not sure that will happen.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 6th, 2007 17:30
I strongly affirm Wade’s post
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 6th, 2007 17:41
I am strongly in accord with the notion that Harker and other California tournaments should become quarters bids. This is partly because california is a very competitive state with numerous top-ranking debaters. For that matter, seven major circuit schools compete in one league, namely Menlo-Atherton, Lynbrook, Palo Alto, Mountain View, James Logan, Los Altos and Harker. Additionally, the population density of debaters is also the greatest in California. Although some previous posts said that there would be an inbalance in bids, there would actually be a more fair allocation if the number of Cali bids increased. We would not say the size of the electoral college is unfair because California has a large population. For the same reason, the coupling of debater population density and the quality of California competition warrant an increase in the number of Cali bids at tournaments such as Harker, CPS, BACDL 3 AND Berkeley II (If there is to be one).
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 6th, 2007 17:46
Another suggestion is to reduce the number of octos bids in NE and transfer the remaining bids to California tournaments. Should great, talented debaters like Narayan Subramanian, Rohit Ramkumar, Rahul Ramakrishnan, Sophie Asher, and Deepa Ramakrishnan rely on getting an at-large while a large number of freshmen fully qual at cake-walks like Manchester?
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 6th, 2007 17:55
I hope my previous post did not offend anyone (especially talented NE freshmen). I just think it is only fair if California receives a few more bids, especially at tournaments like Harker.
Posted from: 71.146.31.9
March 6th, 2007 18:03
Khalessi – James Logan does not compete in CFL, they’re in GGSA.
Posted from: 71.232.110.88
March 6th, 2007 18:53
Khalessi- I’m really glad you decided to post again saying that you’re not trying to be offensive. As someone who majorly competed in the northeast this year (and qualled at Manchester this year, and last year), I was pretty offended by your first few posts. Manchester isn’t by any means a ‘cakewalk’. But, you didn’t mean any harm by that, so, let’s move on.
Further, you say that the number of octos bids in the northeast should be reduced.
..
as far as I know, the octos bids currently are:
Stanford (CA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Berkeley (CA)
Glenbrooks (IL)
St. Marx (TX)
Greenhill (TX)
Emory (GA)
and Harvard. (MA)
Of those, a total of one octos bid is in the northeast, Harvard. I’m not quite sure what you mean by reducing the amount of octos bid in the northeast then, unless you mean decreasing the bid at Harvard. Many people may not like Harvard, but I think everyone agrees that it has one of the biggest pools and definitely draws people from many areas. Further, many schools only trip out of their state IS Harvard. I think that Harvard deserves its status as an octos bid.
Further, if you look at the bid structure, California and Texas both have two octos bids. I don’t think this is unfair to the northeast by any means, rather, it is indicative of the high quality debate in those regions, the national draw, and efficiency of those tournaments.
I’m not saying that some tournaments don’t deserve bids, I myself have questioned the assignment sometimes. But I don’t think we understand all that goes into choosing a bid tournament, by any means. What you might think of as “high-quality debate” can be viewed very differently by other people. I do think, personally, that some relocation would be good, especially for schools that aren’t able to travel extensively. Making debate accessible to people should be of high priority to everyone, regardless of the lens through which they view “high-quality debate”.
Posted from: 68.175.60.62
March 6th, 2007 19:23
Just to clarify, there are no freshmen who qualified to the TOC this year from the Northeast. Catherine Tarsney is the only freshman who qualified this year, and she is only the third freshman ever to do so. (I believe Daniel was referring to the very talented Scarsdale sophomores in his post.)
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
March 6th, 2007 19:37
even though harvard is the only octas bid in the northeast, the area still gives out more total bids than cali. i might be wrong, but i’m pretty sure that 64 bids are given in the NE, and 42. so, while there isn’t much room for reducing the number of octas bids, it wouldn’t be hard to bump down bid levels at a few tournaments and bump california up.
making debate accessible is a good idea, but at the same time it matters that people who clearly qualify as good under a national circuit perspective like those DFK talks about: Narayan, Rohit, Rahul, Sophie, and Deepa, don’t lose the chance to compete at TOC because CA doesn’t have enough bid opportunities.
the CA tournaments also bring in more national competition than NE ones. at berkeley, only 5 of the 16 bids went to cali kids; at harvard 11 of 16 did. the harker rr draws in people from all around the country, which i think legitimates at least a sems bids considering the level of national competition there versus that at some tournaments that give out bids at sems or earlier.
Posted from: 24.6.65.253
March 6th, 2007 19:49
I also think that the fact that harker is the last bid tournament of the year makes the pool a lot stronger because it becomes the last bid tournament for a lot of seniors(aside from the toc) and the bid hunters also come. This warrants a higher bid because the level competition is also naturally increased.
Posted from: 68.175.60.62
March 6th, 2007 19:53
While I agree that not all of the Northeast tournaments draw competition from outside the Northeast, I think it’s important to not generalize “the CA tournaments” and the “NE ones.” There are California tournaments that don’t draw much competition outside California, and there are Northeast tournaments that draw tons of competition from outside the Northeast.
This is not meant as an attack on Catherine, whom I obviously (see above) like and respect very much. I also don’t necessarily disagree with the overall argument (that the West Coast may need more bids), as I’ve said repeatedly elsewhere. I just want to make sure that when this discussion occurs (and it does, repeatedly, all over the place) that we make sure to remember that not all Cali tournaments are alike, and not all Northeast tournaments are alike.
Posted from: 68.175.60.62
March 6th, 2007 19:57
As a related aside that should have been included in my last post: the growth of Harker has been really impressive, and I’ve heard nothing but fantastic things about the tournament. We were really bummed last year when we couldn’t attend at the last moment.
I’m interested to hear more reactions to the paperless ballot system. (I realize that discussion got kind of lost in the comments.) I’d specifically be interested in hearing from other judges.
How do comments work on the paperless ballots? Is there still a paper ballot for them?
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
March 6th, 2007 20:15
“I think it’s important to not generalize “the CA tournaments” and the “NE ones.” There are California tournaments that don’t draw much competition outside California, and there are Northeast tournaments that draw tons of competition from outside the Northeast.”
truth–i definitely wasn’t intending to insult any of the tournaments in that area. i’ve never competed at any of them, so i don’t have much of an idea, if one at all, regarding the level of competition; since that region produces lots of nationally successful debaters every year, i have no doubt it’s high. at the same time, i don’t know anything about the tournaments in california that don’t draw many competitors from other region.
instead, my point is that, considering other tournaments’ degrees of national competetion vs their bid level, i think harker should be a sems bid at least. whether those bids come from tournaments in the northeast or other smaller cali tournaments, i don’t know. there are definitely tournaments in both regions that deserve the bid level they have, and probably some that don’t. either way, harker deserves more.
Posted from: 75.73.219.162
March 6th, 2007 20:36
congrats joseph!
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 6th, 2007 20:39
Sonia-I was referencing the quantity of good debaters, not the quality.
Once again, my post was not meant to offend anyone. There are numerous prodigious NE debaters such as Nikita and Marcus that are friends of mine. However, I still strongly believe it is imperative that some bid reallocation occurs (whether these bids come from reduction of the NE bids, etc. as Catherine pointed out). Although I am somewhat biased toward making Harker a semis bid, it would also be nice to see the bid number increase at tournaments like Valley and VBT. Although I have never attended the former, I competed at the latter. My experience there as an out-round spectator was that the tournament seemed like a blood bath. There had to have been at least thirty renowned, qualled debaters there and it was sad to see only four of them receive bids. Although I did not mean to insult the “quality” of NE debate, which I have a lot of respect for, I solely said that the population density of competitive debaters in the West is greater than any other region by a landslide.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 6th, 2007 20:40
referring to* (not referencing)
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
March 6th, 2007 20:54
Without getting drawn too deeply into this discussion, I think it’s worth pointing out that it’s impossible to have a meaningful discussion about bid distributions if its taboo to suggest that some bids are easier than others and some people with bids wouldn’t have gotten them if they lived elsewhere/went to different tournaments. To get a bid, whatever tournament it’s at and however you get it, you have to be a pretty damn good debater. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t better debaters out there who don’t have bids or that you would be getting bids under an ideal bid distribution. If I say “Harker’s bid level should be raised” (which it should), I can only make sense of that claim by either claiming that (a) the number of at-larges should be cut down, (b) more people should qual to TOC, or (c) some other tournament should have its bid level correspondingly cut. No one seems especially interested in advocating (a) or (b), which I don’t think make a ton of sense anyway, so we’re pretty much left with the conclusion that some tournaments should lose bids, i.e. that the debaters who reach the level at which the bid is presently set at those tournaments don’t deserve a bid simply by virtue of that accomplishment.
Without making any particular suggestions, here’s one general point: The ease of qualifying out of a given region seems to be strongly correlated to the number of semis and quarters bids available within driving distance. At the octos bids, with the exception of Harvard, national competition tends to shut out all but a few of the very best local competitors, and finals bids are just too small–two top-level debaters are, in theory, all that’s needed to shut everyone else out. California has a sum total of zero quarters bids and one sems bid, VBT, which is probably the hardest sems bid in the country except maybe Bronx. Which explains why Cali, especially the Bay Area, quals so few people relative to the strength of its circuit…
Posted from: 68.194.242.222
March 6th, 2007 23:01
As probably one of the only debaters this year to really hit all the different areas of the circuit, perhaps I can say a few things on the topic.
It’s difficult to compare NE tournaments to other tournaments, because there’s really a huge difference between the two. I mean, to point out the relatively obvious (that no one really wants to say), NE debate is just a tad bit more accessible and open than the other areas. Though there are of course the NE allstars, there’s just a lot more openness for debaters who can’t do a 300 wpm spread to bid and qual. Of course, without this structure there’s a bit more “randomness”, and certainly an opportunity for really great coaches to master the system, so to speak, and get a half dozen people qualled by teaching a nice balance between argumentation and presentation. So, tournaments such as Hen Hud and Harvard are certainly of a different nature than their cross-country counterparts, they are still highly competitive tournaments with select individuals who have really mastered the style and consistently do well.
Naturally, dispute comes in when bids are going out to unknown debaters, unlike tournaments elsewhere where every single bid goes to a debater with a reputation. But, this is the nature of the NE, and I don’t know if that’s a bad thing.
Especially in Cali tournaments, the debater pools are almost polar opposites of the NE. Harker, for example, had 59 debaters, but a total of 61 bids among them or so. The concentration of high-level debaters was astounding, compared to Princeton where there might be 200 debaters, but most inexperienced. So, it does really ask the question as to whether strength or size better determines the bid count.
An odd thing I’ve noticed is the level of travel. What I noticed at St. Marks and Emory was a tremendous amount of debaters travelling from across the nation to attend. However, at most NE tournaments, you generally find NE (and some southeast) debaters. The only texans I saw at Harvard were a few Strake Jesuit kids and one or two others. Meanwhile, my trip to VBT led to seeing tons of debaters from all-around. It looks like the NE tends to stay to itself, and everyone else just traverses the rest of the country.
I guess it’s really hard to make any assessments (besides a giant rambling like the above) considering the polar differences. There are so many travelling teams in the NE that almost match the rest of the country in number, but perhaps not in intensity, and certainly not in style. However, since my school was one among many that went solely to Yale, Princeton, Harvard and Lexington, maintaining the NE base and seperation is pretty vital to a culture that’s unique from the rest of the nation.
With that all said, there are still a few tournaments that do require another look. Manchester had quite a small number of debaters for a Quarters bid, and there are tons of semis bids tournaments that don’t really draw in anyone but locals. I know they have a seperate role altogether, but I’m wondering how a small tournament without national circuit competition of really any sort yields TOC debaters. I mean no offense by this however, as I am no real expert on these types of tournaments.
In terms of raising bids, I definitely think Harker deserves more, by sheer concentration of excellent debaters. Also, like Christian said, VBT and Bronx were absurdly difficult and competitive, to say the least. Though naturally VBT is usually questioned by its being on the same weekend as MBA, it still had an incredible pool from both the area and the round robin’s participants.
Bronx, however, definitely deserves more. It was the only Northeast tournament to really draw in a crowd from across the nation, with judging of all sorts. Jon did a great job running it smoothly and well, and debaters got a great sense of a bunch of styles. I really hope it gets at least a Quarters bid.
Overall, though this post gets very verbose and lengthy, I think the general issue is the unique NE culture of debate, and how we can’t just relocate bids without really considering that. For example, Texas seems to have less bids than the NE, but most Texas debaters I know travel a lot further and more often throughout the year. So, while some minor shifting can happen, for now things just seem to make sense where they are.
Posted from: 24.7.65.244
March 7th, 2007 03:25
without getting dragged down into “bid theory”, i have some concrete suggestions:
bid gains:
harker should be a sems bid
bronx should probably be a quarters bid if the pool is 120+
ut should probably be a quarters bid conditional on paneling all outrounds
vbt might be quarters worthy though i do worry about falling on the same weekend as mba and about room capacity.
bid losses:
blue key should be a semis bid
manchester should be a semis bid
logan should lose its bid, terrible tournament
alta should be a semis bid
asu should lose its bid, its had it for 3 years without any major contribution to debate in the region.
harvard should probably be a quarters bid, it’s really big and has a sort of national draw but not many other redeeming qualities.
Posted from: 68.175.60.62
March 7th, 2007 04:45
Just to clarify, the New York City Invitational (Big Bronx) had 120+ competitors last year. We are in negotiations with two of the departments at Bronx Science to use rooms that have never been available to the tournament since it began in 1969; assuming we can get them, I plan to cap the tournament at 150. I appreciate the kind words from Christian and Eric (and others) about the tournament.
I do not really want to get drawn into this conversation more, but whatever the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Harvard tournament, I do want to say that there were plenty more Texans in Cambridge than those from Strake Jesuit. (Rahul Talati from Coppell got a bid, after all.) There were even a couple of Californians, as I recall.
Posted from: 68.181.255.99
March 7th, 2007 10:26
Circuits are growing, tournaments are getting more competitive. Why can’t we push to expand the toc past 70 as well? Why does rewarding good tournaments w/ increased bid level have to mean taking away bids from other regions?
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 7th, 2007 18:10
Prateek, I dont know you, but that sounds like a good perm.
Posted from: 207.200.116.74
March 7th, 2007 21:11
Are full results going to be posted on joyoftournaments?
Posted from: 68.194.242.222
March 7th, 2007 22:32
I guess Harvard had a bigger draw than I thought, but it’s still much more NE than not.
Harvard should maintain its octos bid, however. Like I said, the NE is its own culture, and these types of kids deserve their shot at a bid.
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
March 8th, 2007 07:31
sporkin ftw; dude speaks the truth
Posted from: 69.107.78.151
March 10th, 2007 15:47
if vbd really wanted to get a good debate going, it would make this whole bid level discussion its own topic
we had a discussion before about how bid allocation should work, but this topic is more about what specific tournaments’ bid levels should be. obviously such a topic would be controversial, but isn’t that what debate is about?
Posted from: 75.2.148.2
March 13th, 2007 22:46
I think insofar as we are questioning toc bid allocation we need to look at regional success at the toc. Ideally toc bids should be given out to competitors that will do well at the toc. This is the only logical allocation of toc bids as each bid is supposed to reflect a particular merit that the toc then tries to reward by inviting them to compete. Thus to determine if a tournament’s toc bid level is too high or too low we should analyze how the region is doing at the toc competitively. I don’t really know enough about the variety of tournament in question to connect my point directly and I haven’t studied toc results extensively, so this claim is probably based more on hearsay than fact, but the northeast does not seem to perform as well as other regions at the toc, atleast in the very recent past(wow run on sentence). As of late Minnesota, Texas, and California seem to have generated the most successful toc debaters. This is not to say good debaters have not come from the northeast, because obviously they have. My point merely is that there aren’t as many toc successful debaters from the northeast. My logical conclusion is that regions who do better at toc should be rewarded with more toc bids. Again, I want to reiterate I don’t know if what I am saying about the northeast is perfectly accurate it merely serves to contextualize my claim that toc bid distribution ought to reflect toc success in a ideal world, which I think a lot of us would argue is not the case in the current system.
Posted from: 68.108.21.165
June 16th, 2007 12:42
Does anyone know if the Harker results packet is online anywhere?
Posted from: 213.239.234.41
February 5th, 2008 10:38
interesting Paris hilton sex tape exposed…
Recently leaked footage of the new Paris Hilton sex tape…
Posted from: 76.176.162.20
April 1st, 2008 20:00
giocare a poker on line…
…
Posted from: 216.174.134.2
April 2nd, 2008 08:34
tilt poker bonus code…
…
Posted from: 85.18.136.103
April 2nd, 2008 11:48
casino con bonus casino bonus casino online bonus…
…
Posted from: 190.42.134.239
April 13th, 2008 11:01
poker signup bonus…
…
Posted from: 81.215.141.200
May 3rd, 2008 01:21
craps gambling strategy gambling craps…
Quite bank of america cash advance juegos interactivos portales…
Posted from: 201.78.66.108
May 3rd, 2008 13:56
account into loan payday savings account loan payday savings payday loan in savings account…
One best online casino gambling america cash loan payday…
Posted from: 66.226.36.108
May 4th, 2008 10:19
backgammon game internet internet backgammon…
Well live poker game online poker spielgeld…
Posted from: 212.76.37.156
May 4th, 2008 12:43
fax loan payday quick loan online? payday quick ? loan payday quick…
Don”t free online poker no download live poker…
Posted from: 78.145.171.182
May 5th, 2008 13:33
regeln für poker…
Is 1000 cash loan payday advance poker enligne gratuites…
Posted from: 85.103.226.218
May 6th, 2008 07:57
bank card credit orchard services…
Is bank card credit orchard services regles poker 2…
Posted from: 70.197.84.220
May 6th, 2008 20:44
download nokia 3360 ringtones caller download hotlink ringtones…
It is understood glucks spiele un jeu de poker gratuites…
Posted from: 207.35.67.130
June 2nd, 2008 06:15
regles du jeu du poker…
I online poker bonus ruleta portales salle poker en ligne sistema ruleta jugar video poquer internet…
Posted from: 60.51.158.189
June 13th, 2008 17:53
regles poker 2…
Commerésultat free slots alquiler ruletas strip poker pc telecharger evrest poker 7 card stud strategies…