TOC Releases Judge Conflict Guidelines
LEXINGTON, Ky. — JW Patterson has released the Judge Conflict Guidelines to be implemented for this year’s TOC.
The TOC Lincoln-Douglas Advisory Committee has drafted guidelines for determining conflicts of interest in situations in which judges should recluse themselves from judging certain debaters. The situations as well as the consequences for noncompliance are spelled out below. We at the TOC have accepted the Committee’s suggestions and will implement the recommendations at the 2009 TOC. Please study carefully.
TOC Statement on Conflicts of Interest in Judging – Lincoln Douglas
Fair competition requires not merely the absence of impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety. A conflict of interest is a relationship that might reasonably be thought to bias a judge toward or against a competitor. Such relationships may themselves be quite innocent, but they could reasonably be thought to compromise a judge’s impartiality. The Lincoln Douglas TOC Advisory Committee has drafted these guidelines to be implemented at this year’s Tournament of Champions.
A judge must recuse himself or herself from judging a student under the following conditions:
1. The judge and the student may be perceived to have a competitive or financial agreement that may bias the judge’s impartial evaluation of the round. Examples include but are not limited to:
a) The student attends a school (or a collaboration of schools) that the judge attended, coached for, or competed with.
NOTE: Two potential exceptions to this guideline would be that if the TOC Advisory committee (or a quorum thereof), felt that enough time has passed since that judges attendance at the school to resolve concerns of impropriety. In addition, if both coaches felt comfortable with a judge that graduated from a school of one of the competitors, the tab room may allow that judge placement.
b) The judge has a paid or unpaid coaching, consulting, or judging relationship with the student or school during the same academic year. NOTE: Serving a tournament-hired judge does not constitute a conflict of interest.
c) The judge has received or provided expressed or implied offers to provide future coaching, consulting, or judging to a school or student.
d) The judge has provided exclusive pre-round preparation to a student either before or during a tournament through any method including electronically, verbally, or through the transfer of resources. NOTE: Sharing of information does not constitute preparation but the discussion of strategies, arguments, evidence, etc would constitute preparation. If such preparation is provided during a tournament, the judge should immediately (before pairings are released) recluse himself or herself from judging the student they prepared for the rest of the tournament. If practice rounds before or during the tournament has occurred between schools that a judge is fulfilling obligations for and could potentially judge, that would be defined as preparation and all parties should consider that a conflict.
2. The judge and the student may be perceived to have a personal or social arrangement that may bias the judge’s impartial evaluation of the round. Examples include but are not limited to:
a) The judge and the student may be perceived to have had a personal relationship that may bias the judge’s impartial evaluation of the round.
b) The judge and the student are or have been in a familial, physical, or emotional relationship.
c) The judge and the student have communications of a personal nature over e-mail, telephone, or the Internet including social networking sites that goes beyond causal exchanges. For example, communications that are extensive and/or repetitive may create a conflict. Judges who socialize with the student outside of the competition arena are considered to have established a personal or social relationship with that student.
3. The judge does not believe they are able to fairly and impartially adjudicate a competition involving a particular student for whatever reason. A judge may choose to recuse himself or herself from adjudicating a student under the following conditions (If these conditions exist, it is the affirmative duty of the judge to make such information publicly available prior to the round beginning):
a) The judge shares transportation and/or lodging with the student’s team on a regular basis.
b) The judge has a personal, financial, or familial relationship with the student’s coach or member of the student’s family.
c) The judge is an administrator of, currently employed by, or anticipates employment from a forensics related enterprise with whom a financial or advisory relationship exists or is sought with the student. NOTE: While these guidelines do not prohibit lab leaders/institute staff from judging their lab students at the TOC. However, if those lab leaders maintain consistent contact with those students and/or engage in personal relationships with them, they should recuse themselves from judging those specific individuals.
The expectation of competitors, judges, and coaches at the TOC is to engage in the highest levels of professionalism and integrity. The tournament may remove all mutual preference requests for all students from a school/schools if a judge associated with that school fails to adhere to these guidelines. The offending judge will also be removed from the judging pool for the rest
of the tournament and that school required to pay a fee to cover all rounds remaining at the tournament. In any case, schools must provide judges that fit criteria of being usable by the tab room to actually fulfill its judge commitment.
While the responsibility is on judges to aide transparency, the responsibility exists for coaches and student competitors as well. The
tournament will remove all mutual preference requests for all students from a school if a coach or debater fails to disclose known pertinent information regarding a violation of the guidelines above. It is the affirmative duty of all coaches and debaters to assist efforts in transparency. No decisions will be modified as a result of disclosed information. The Tournament of Champions does reserves the right to restrict student and school participation in this years tournament, and future tournaments, if an egregious violation of the rules occurs. The TOC Advisory Committee (or a quorum thereof) shall be empowered to adjudicate such a dispute and its decision shall be final. Appeal of the decision to Dr. J.W. Patterson shall be at the sole discretion of Dr. Patterson or his designated agents.
Popularity: 3% [?]
test
26 Responses to “TOC Releases Judge Conflict Guidelines”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Field Report: The TOC
- Georgia Stasinopoulos Wins 2009 NYSFL Title
- Josh Roberts Wins the Iowa Round Robin
- Avi Arfin Wins CHSSA State
- Happy April Fool's Day!
- Pat Donovan Wins Second NDCA Championship
- TOC Releases Judge Conflict Guidelines
- Hertzig, Harris Announce Six Rounds of Spring
- Jalon Alexander, Jeff Kessler Win Perspectives
- Iowa Round Robin Unveiled
Posted from: 76.167.243.99
April 28th, 2009 01:26
wow. do we he enough qualified judges to cover important rounds with these standards?
“if those lab leaders maintain consistent contact with those students and/or engage in personal relationships with them, they should recuse themselves from judigng those specific individuals.”
really?
am i right that this is the definition of a personal relationship that induces impartiality:
“2. The judge and the student may be perceived to have a personal or social arrangement that may bias the judge’s impartial evaluation of the round. Examples include but are not limited to:
a) The judge and the student may be perceived to have had a personal relationship that may bias the judge’s impartial evaluation of the round.
b) The judge and the student are or have been in a familial, physical, or emotional relationship.
c) The judge and the student have communications of a personal nature over e-mail, telephone, or the Internet including social networking sites that goes beyond causal exchanges. For example, communications that are extensive and/or repetitive may create a conflict. Judges who socialize with the student outside of the competition arena are considered to have established a personal or social relationship with that student”
does this mean that a judge cannot judge anyone in their social network? that rule gets violated CONSTANTLY. consistent facebook contact = judge conflict? really?
Posted from: 76.89.245.80
April 28th, 2009 01:52
i think adults should use some judgment here. you’re leaving out the important “beyond casual exchanges” is your complaint, here. If you are facebook friends, that is one thing.
The standard is if you feel like you are more than just a teacher/student relationship, you probably should recuse yourself.
If you regularly discuss personal matters or play cards in the hotel or whatnot, that is different.
certainly there is no real brightline. hopefully adults are able to use their best judgment.
Posted from: 67.186.56.66
April 28th, 2009 10:08
bietz, the problem is not using your own judgement – its evaluating other peoples judgement. the idea that ‘other people perceive a bias’ constitutes a conflict of interest is absurd.
Posted from: 76.89.245.80
April 28th, 2009 11:20
i guess i don’t see it as absurd. it’s just another way of saying – “would others consider it a bias.” it’s putting yourself in other people’s shoes looking at the situation from the outside.
if someone sees me playing poker with a group of kids at the hotel and then sees me judging them in a 4-2 bump round the next morning – they might feel like its not really fair. I might feel like I can judge them just fine, but at the same time I can see how it might make the other kid feel like the cards are stacked against her. So, I would recuse myself.
Posted from: 67.186.56.66
April 28th, 2009 15:29
the complication is that people have different opinions about what constitutes a bias. i dont think giving people strategic advice about theory before round 1 biases me if i judge their round 5. these rules disagree. how i am supposed to anticipate all the possible interactions that someone might consider a bias? if your argument is just that you should err on the side of caution, then prashants point just becomes more salient.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
April 28th, 2009 15:35
eh. i don’t think its that big of a problem if judges just refrain from becoming “too close” with debaters if they also hope to judge them.
i think the committee was much more concerned with personal interactions than giving advice after having watched them.
want to be able to judge someone? don’t go to parties with them. don’t participate in a poker game with them. don’t give them advice on what to do about their boyfriend or girlfriend.
Posted from: 67.186.56.66
April 28th, 2009 16:00
“i think the committee was much more concerned with personal interactions than giving advice after having watched them.”
this line makes sense to me. i consider anything directly addressed to a single person to be personal interaction. is “personal” a euphemism for something im not cool enough to know?
Posted from: 67.186.56.66
April 28th, 2009 16:00
and of course i mean either “doesnt make sense” or “makes no sense”
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
April 28th, 2009 17:21
i think the delineation is “personal” as opposed to “casual.” the line is gray, of course. “personal” is what you divulge to a friend. casual is what you might say to an acquaintance… maybe that’s it?
Posted from: 67.186.56.66
April 28th, 2009 19:03
bietz – exactly. the line is gray, i am supposed to guess where other people think it is, and if i dont guess correctly beforehand a student gets sanctioned as a result. thats the only point im making.
Posted from: 68.193.252.210
April 28th, 2009 22:00
Then, probably, the measure is, if you have to ask, then assume a conflict.
BC
Posted from: 68.193.252.210
April 28th, 2009 22:08
I don’t mean to make light of the situation, Michael, but that’s really the best rule for working through this sort of situation, because so much is particular to individuals. This particularity makes it difficult to formulate a rule.
For example, at a tournament in the last three years, I witnessed a judge and two debaters go off one evening and return the next morning–by themselves. The going-off and the next-day-returning were as a group. While I do not suggest that anything untoward occurred, I do think that the judge ought to have ensured that the judge did not judge either of the two debaters.
As I recall that judge did NOT judge the debaters, but I also note that the judge should NOT have, as a matter of appearance of a conflict, of a relationship which appeared across the line.
If you have to ask, it’s across the line.
BC
Posted from: 67.186.56.66
April 29th, 2009 01:10
im sorry – what’s (potentially) untoward about a group of people leaving together and later returning together? people share rooms/transportation to save money. i didnt realize proximity implied bias.
Posted from: 24.6.158.21
April 29th, 2009 01:31
Definitely not the correct thread to post this, but check out this video that my teammate (Nikhil Nag) found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vV3QGagck&feature=PlayList&p=B0EDEE6AD3B31CA0&index=24&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL
Posted from: 76.167.243.99
April 29th, 2009 02:51
i guess i’m confused now – is this a decision made by the judges or by the tab? if by the judges, then i guess a ‘use your best judgment’ paradigm might suffice. though i do think this makes it a useless solution to judge bias since people are obviously not going to 100% self-regulate. if it’s for use by the tab, then use your best judgment does not work as an answer to my post. the only proposed solution for a tab director comes from bill cooper:
“Then, probably, the measure is, if you have to ask, then assume a conflict.”
This only proves my original point. if the tab errs on the side of caution across the board (across the board application of course would be necessary since selectively enforcing these regulations would only further contribute to bias), then we end up with a bunchve bad judges in important rounds since alot of the good judges maintain consistent interaction with debaters.
bietz says “well don’t get personal with debaters if you want to judge them” (that’s not a quote it’s a paraphrase) but A) we can’t act like it’s not a reality that alot of good judges would be conflicted out of rounds they SHOULD be adjudicating to avoid the bad judges of the world making bad decisions in rounds that end people’s careers, and B) i mean c’mon its a healthy part of debate that we have such a close community, it’s the icing on the cake to get nerdy kids to commit ridiculous hours to the event and get out of it what we want them to get out of it. i.e., not only is it a fun academic competition that appeals to me cuz i’m nerdy but also the people in debate LIKE ME THEY REALLY LIKE ME :) I FINALLY HAVE FRIENDS. and as a byproduct you get taught how to think/write/argue. point being, i don’t see jon cruz being allowed to judge many debates under this paradigm if you know what i mean. use http://www.aimfight.com if you don’t believe me – that dude DEFINITELY judges people who he has had “communications of a personal nature over e-mail, telephone, or the Internet including social networking sites that goes beyond causal exchanges” with people he judges.
and i’m not beefing with cruzer either, i’m just saying these rules are too strict. am i wrong?
Posted from: 68.193.252.210
April 29th, 2009 06:20
Michael,
When they return in the morning and look like they’ve made a night of it, then I think it appears as if they’re more than just travel/roomshare friends.
PRai, actually the “if you have to ask, assume a conflict” is the rule for one’s own behavior as a judge, not a TD’s. A TD doesn’t know all the personal connections–whioh, I agree, are one of the huge benefits to joining this community–but the judges do know. For example, Regis had a debater a few years ago who I had known since he was a wee tyke. I would have had to recuse myself from judging him because of that relationship: even though no one would know. I know that I did not judge Millburn for four years after I left MHS.
I think it’s a matter of integrity; I do think, however, when ethics need to be rigidly codified and defined, we’ve already lost the battle.
BC
Posted from: 65.65.57.103
April 29th, 2009 13:40
Are there any chances of the TOC being postponed because of the swine flu? I know in Texas that they have postponed all academic and sporting events until the 11th.
“On the recommendation of Dr. David Lakey, Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, and in consultation with Texas Education Agency Commissioner Robert Scott, the University Interscholastic League is altering its schedule of events due to the outbreak of the swine flu in Texas. Effective immediately, all UIL interscholastic competition is suspended until May 11.”
Posted from: 98.109.238.212
April 29th, 2009 17:23
The regular flu virus has killed thousands of people since January and is expected to keep killing hundreds of people every week for the rest of the year. CNN points out that even if swine-flu deaths spread, while they are extremely unfortunate, the virus has a long way to go before it can beat the 36,000 or so deaths here in the U.S. alone attributed to the regular ole’ seasonal influenza.
CALM DOWN.
Posted from: 98.198.235.210
April 29th, 2009 18:33
chill alj ac, its a legitimate question. whether you believe the swine flu to be bad or not, a great majority of texas schools are not allowing their kids to participate in academic and sporting events this weekend, so some texas people might be restrained from going to the toc. that was the possible worry, but i bet it’ll be ok.
Posted from: 173.70.253.232
April 29th, 2009 18:46
Sorry if I came across as rude I was just all worked up with the issue and its current role on the media.
Posted from: 130.160.212.221
April 30th, 2009 10:45
The “consistent contact” standard for lab leaders is really bad. It is pretty common at any camp for instructors to make themselves available for questions during the season to any student who desires that extra help. During my career, I kept consistent contact with a lot of instructors from camps I attended, including ones that were my lab leaders and ones that weren’t. This is something that happens a lot and it is really more of an educational tool than some sort of personal relationship that develops between debaters and judges. I would frequently discuss arguments and strategy with people I did not conflict from judging me. Perhaps to the surprise of whoever thought the “consistent contact” standard was a good idea, it was these judges who would frequently drop me in outrounds. In no way did our communication about debate before and between tournaments draw some sort of in-round bias. In reality, all it did was provide for better quality debates by allowing me to refine my work through the lens of how some top critics felt about the topic. The consistent contact standard is horrible because it destroys the quality of judging by creating conflicts based on perception, and because it discourages the use of a valuable educational resource – consulting judges and teachers on the types of arguments they find compelling and adjusting your work accordingly to produce better debates.
Posted from: 24.6.158.21
April 30th, 2009 13:17
Why is Diehl being forced to conflict himself from Mountain View? He has dropped our team before (i.e. Garber to Ben Lewis in semis of vbt, me to Ben Lewis in dubs of ghill)
Posted from: 130.160.212.221
April 30th, 2009 15:14
Is a list of judging conflicts, as is currently assessed by the TOC committee, available for public viewing? I think it’s important for there to be transparency in terms of A) which judges voluntarily struck themselves from judging debaters they have conflicts with and B) which judges were instructed to strike themselves from debaters based on a conflict perceived by the committee/other judges. I am particularly concerned about this second issue. There needs to be public accountability about which conflicts are pertinent enough to warrant the TOC implementing strikes even when the judges in question do not conflict themselves voluntarily. It’s obvious why this situation can cause problems; if a judge does not voluntarily conflict themselves and must instead by conflicted by the instruction of the TOC committee against the will of the judge, then there’s a chance the conflict is questionable and ought to be open for discussion. This is also important in terms of making sure guidelines are applied consistently. For instance, if one judge is instructed by the TOC to conflict himself from a team on the basis that they have shared evidence with that team in the past, then all judges that share evidence ought to be conflicted. This scenario might sound absurd, but that’s only because some of the guidelines are absurd. If we are going to be serious about implementing these guidelines, then it must be done in a uniform manner. If there is no public information about which conflicts exist, then I fear that we are open to the possibility of politically motivated conflicts and inconsistent implementation of these judging standards. It is in everyone’s best interests to ensure a fair enforcement of judging rules, so everyone affected by this policy ought to be fully informed of its implications.
Posted from: 98.210.172.34
April 30th, 2009 15:21
i have to agree with wade that the consistent contact standard seems rather silly.
if anything, the reason that debate is such an educational activity is because the coaches and educators involved in the activity are genuinely interested in the arguments being debated and dedicated enough to talk about them with debaters who they are NOT coaching.
i talked to wade online every month or so after i was his lab leader at camp… but i have no idea why this would make it problematic for me to judge him fairly in a debate round.
Posted from: 71.63.157.171
April 30th, 2009 19:27
its also good to know all the supposed judging conflicts so that debaters can fill out their MJPs well. wouldnt want to waste a strike on a judge who is unable to judge you etc
Posted from: 68.193.252.210
April 30th, 2009 22:19
Coaches received such a document which included all predesignated strikes (although it does not indicate who make them).
BC