Bristol IV saw moderate success for the St. Andrews delegation. The A team (Tony and Jason) managed to break to semis, whilst the B team (Doug and Rach) missed out on speaks. Tab results for your reading pleasure.
Team Tab:
1. Cambridge B 14
2. Cambridge D 12
3. Cambridge A 11
4. Oxford A 11
5. Oxford B 11
6. UCL D 11
7. St And. A 10
8. Cambridge C 10
********************
Also Ran:
10. St. And. B 10
24. Glasgow 8
27. Aberdeen 7
52. UWE D 1
Speaker Tab: (Bristol uses the 30pt scale, which leads to distortions and general stupidity due to lack of differentiation).
1. Bob Nimmo (yes, he's back) 124
12. Tony Murphy 114.5
13. Doug Cochran 113
20. Jason Vit 112
32. Rachel Whitbread 109
35. Greg Murray (Aberdeen) 107
41. David Adams (Glasgow) 106
41. Clare Brown (Glasgow) 106
53. Karen Reid 104
104. Anouska Tamoni 82
Home
TheSinner.net
Bristol IV: Results
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Bristol IV: Results
by kdc4 on Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:58 pm
-
kdc4
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:56 am
Re:
by kdc4 on Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:42 pm
Try britishdebate.com and then go to the calendar and Bristol IV. I'm fairly certain its there.
Cheers,
-Doug
Cheers,
-Doug
Quoting jason from 14:28, 31st Oct 2006
Hey doug,
Could you post the link to the full tab cos I can't seem to find it on the Bristol page or on BD.
Cheers
Jason
-
kdc4
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:56 am
Re:
by toff-toff on Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:18 pm
At risk of Doug's wrath following my performance way, way behind him on speaker tab....looking at the team tab on British debate, St Andrews B came 9th, missing the break by 4 speaker points.
Sorry Doug.
Sorry Doug.
-
toff-toff
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 2:17 pm
Re:
by Alex Jennings on Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:32 pm
Can I just say how much I DESPISE the 30 point scale? Even with the option of half points?
There's an interesting (read: boring as watching paint dry) debate going on the British Debate mailing list about this - I find it funny that the older, English debaters think there's nothing wrong with the 30 point scale and the younger or Scottish debaters are fans of the 100 pt scale.
I'm suddenly getting flashbacks to the LGBT Ball in 2004 when myself and John Stewart had a 45 minute discussion about the virtues of the 100 point scale as he was hiding from the lesbians who were flirting with him.
[hr]
"Look, I told you when we met that I was not a leprechaun, that I was from Rhode Island, and that I was half Korean, but you said it didn't matter."
There's an interesting (read: boring as watching paint dry) debate going on the British Debate mailing list about this - I find it funny that the older, English debaters think there's nothing wrong with the 30 point scale and the younger or Scottish debaters are fans of the 100 pt scale.
I'm suddenly getting flashbacks to the LGBT Ball in 2004 when myself and John Stewart had a 45 minute discussion about the virtues of the 100 point scale as he was hiding from the lesbians who were flirting with him.
[hr]
"Look, I told you when we met that I was not a leprechaun, that I was from Rhode Island, and that I was half Korean, but you said it didn't matter."
"Look, I told you when we met that I was not a leprechaun, that I was from Rhode Island, and that I was half Korean, but you said it didn't matter."
-
Alex Jennings
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:41 pm
30-point rant...
by kdc4 on Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:43 pm
The thirty point scale is abysmally poor, as Alex attests.
There's hardly any room for differentiation, which leads to unbreakable ties when headed ot the break (as happened at Bristol), and absurdly large gaps between speakers on the tab (Rach and I were within one point per round of each other, but managed to end up quite far apart on tab).
Moreover, the thirty-point scale exacerbates the variety between judges to utterly shocking levels, as minor differences in what constitutes an 'average' speech are accentuated.
This was particularly problematic for Bristol, whose abandonment of n-1 led to rooms being judged by one or two judges, on occasion.
In round two, before for example, with a one-judge panel, Rach gave a summation that might easily have earned 80-85 speaks at a 100-pt. tournament but gained a mere 22 speaks, roughly equivalent to a 70.
Combine all that with the fact that I bullied Rach into speaking in positions that she hates so I could speak in my favourite slots and one can better understand the gap between us; it had hardly anything to do with her actual performance, which was exemplary throughout.
Bring on Newcastle/Durham....
Cheers,
-Doug
There's hardly any room for differentiation, which leads to unbreakable ties when headed ot the break (as happened at Bristol), and absurdly large gaps between speakers on the tab (Rach and I were within one point per round of each other, but managed to end up quite far apart on tab).
Moreover, the thirty-point scale exacerbates the variety between judges to utterly shocking levels, as minor differences in what constitutes an 'average' speech are accentuated.
This was particularly problematic for Bristol, whose abandonment of n-1 led to rooms being judged by one or two judges, on occasion.
In round two, before for example, with a one-judge panel, Rach gave a summation that might easily have earned 80-85 speaks at a 100-pt. tournament but gained a mere 22 speaks, roughly equivalent to a 70.
Combine all that with the fact that I bullied Rach into speaking in positions that she hates so I could speak in my favourite slots and one can better understand the gap between us; it had hardly anything to do with her actual performance, which was exemplary throughout.
Bring on Newcastle/Durham....
Cheers,
-Doug
Quoting toff-toff from 19:18, 31st Oct 2006
At risk of Doug's wrath following my performance way, way behind him on speaker tab....looking at the team tab on British debate, St Andrews B came 9th, missing the break by 4 speaker points.
Sorry Doug.
-
kdc4
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:56 am
Re:
by Alex Jennings on Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm
At this point, I feel the need to share what Miss Rachel Chan of BPP Law School said on the discussion on British Debate about whether or not we should be concerned with hurting new (or even old) debaters' feelings with low speaker points.
"Had someone told me I was a fuckwit earlier, I could have spared the debating community all of those 'it's an outrage' 5 minute speeches. Personally I blame Vikram Nair who judged my first round at the President's Cup. 'Rachel', he said, 'there's definitely potential there'. He lied to me".
[hr]
"Look, I told you when we met that I was not a leprechaun, that I was from Rhode Island, and that I was half Korean, but you said it didn't matter."
"Had someone told me I was a fuckwit earlier, I could have spared the debating community all of those 'it's an outrage' 5 minute speeches. Personally I blame Vikram Nair who judged my first round at the President's Cup. 'Rachel', he said, 'there's definitely potential there'. He lied to me".
[hr]
"Look, I told you when we met that I was not a leprechaun, that I was from Rhode Island, and that I was half Korean, but you said it didn't matter."
"Look, I told you when we met that I was not a leprechaun, that I was from Rhode Island, and that I was half Korean, but you said it didn't matter."
-
Alex Jennings
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 2:41 pm
Re:
by kdc4 on Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:27 pm
Mr. Nimmo is at Cambridge, debating with Ranald Clouston, an Aussie who debated at the Marquis last year, and lost in the semis.
Cheers,
-Doug
Cheers,
-Doug
Quoting Mr Comedy from 11:22, 2nd Nov 2006
Who is Bob debating for now?
[hr]
"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung
-
kdc4
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:56 am
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Union Debating Society
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests