5 ms·

Yes, I think there is a real trade-off between an objective scoring system and making it resemble a real activity. Something similar seems to have happened in

Yes, I think there is a real trade-off between an objective scoring system and making it resemble a real activity. Something similar seems to have happened in sport fencing. The style of fencing in the 19th and early 20th century is now known as "classical fencing". It was practiced as a sport but also as a preparation for duels, so the techniques had to be useful in a fight with sharp weapons. Wikipedia[1] says > Scoring was done by means of four judges who determined if a hit was made. Two side judges stood behind and to the side of each fencer, and watched for hits made by that fencer on the opponent's target. ... There also were problems with bias: well-known fencers were often given the benefit of mistakes (so-called "reputation touches"), and in some cases there was outright cheating. Then in the 1930s, electrical scoring was introduced. This is objective, but it led a big change in style, because now you could score by just touching your opponent, even if such a light attack would be ineffective in a real fight. By contrast, kendo never introduced electrical scoring, and still uses human judges. A judge can refuse to award a point if an attack connected but didn't have enough force behind it---this avoids rewarding techniques that would not work in combat. So kendo is maybe closer to actual sword fighting, but on the other hand e.g. Neal Stephenson in Snow Crash makes fun of the subjectivity: > As in fencing, you're not allowed to kick your opponent in the kneecaps or break a chair over his head. And the judging is totally subjective. In kendo, you can get a good solid hit on your opponent and still not get credit for it, because the judges feel you didn't possess the right amount of zanshin. I guess the corresponding thing in debate club would be to give more discretion to the judges, so they wouldn't award a point if there was insufficient follow-through... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_fencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_fencing

Pxtl 9y ago
To be fair, modern fencing does have pressure requirements in Foil and Epee categeories. It is not enough to simply make a circuit. While the game has obviously drifted from its sources, the "light attack" problem was solved outside of the Sabre form of the sport.
- bradleyjg 9y ago
  At least when I fenced foil in high school in the late 90s there was a move called the flick that involved whipping the foil over the opponents shoulder and having it bend sufficiently to depress the tip on his back. Fencers that mastered this technique dominated our level (perhaps Olympians could counter it, I don't know) but I don't think it has any analog in terms of real dueling. It seems like the flick is a quite good analogy for the debate 'spreading' the article talks about.
  - greedo 9y ago
    I didn't think the lame was was conductive in the back for foil?
    - bradleyjg 9y ago
      No, both sides of the torso: http://www.blue-gauntlet.com/Allstar-stainless-steel-Foil-Fencing-Lame_p_3627.html http://www.blue-gauntlet.com/Allstar-stainless-steel-Foil-Fe...
  - brianchu 9y ago
    I believe the pressure requirements were increased to combat the prevalence of this move. Watching Olympic fencing you don't see that many flicks anymore.
    - firebird84 9y ago
      Not just the pressure requirements, but the blade stiffness too. While I was fencing it became almost overnight MUCH harder to flick. You needed a pre-stressed (near breaking) weapon or just huge amounts of force (prep). I was a sabreist but my friends did foil and spent a lot of time bitching about the change. (Some people looooove their flicks)
  - jinfiesto 9y ago
    This. Flicking is probably the most egregious offender. Not only is it not useful in an actual duel (not that that's particularly practical anyways.) But it also depends on properties of the modern epee/foil (extreme flexion.) Btw, the way to counter a flick is to not get hit by it. I know that sounds stupid, but whipping the blade substantially decreases it's length. So just space around it.
ezrast 9y ago
Judges already have ultimate discretion; see my sibling comment.
padobson 9y ago
So what do we do about the "fencification" of Democracy? The point of public debate is to win elections and affect public policy. Just like talented modern fencers don't make good sword fighters, talented political candidates don't make very good stateswomen and statesmen. Is there a way to change the rules of public debate to align the game with the interest of the people? To the author's point, it seems like the problem is fixed for a short time after new rules are introduced. Then, after the Machiavellian players figure out the weak points, the competition becomes a grotesque of what it was intended to be. This makes me think Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he said we should rewrite parts of the constitution[0] once a generation. It's much more difficult to game the system when the game's rules keep changing. [0]https://newrepublic.com/article/63773/what-jefferson-said https://newrepublic.com/article/63773/what-jefferson-said
- slededit 9y ago
  I don't see how this relates to democracy. You as the voter are the judge and can use any criteria you want.
  - thephyber 9y ago
    Since the US is not an actual democracy, but rather a democratic republic, it's extremely relevant. Gerrymandering: states are precisely "cracked and packed" to maximize the number of expected majority-red districts in a state and minimize the number of majority-blue. Partisaned primaries: optimization of campaigning and stumping is done thru visiting specific states that vote early in the primary. Most people don't vote for the best possible candidate, they vote for the candidate they dislike the most that they think can win. The biggest states (CA, TX, NY) are traditionally vote only a few weeks before the end of the primary while NH and IO vote extremely early, and thus, have outsized influence on who most people get to vote for. Electoral college: Republican candidates don't spend any real effort in deep blue states and Democratic candidates don't spend any real effort in red states. These are the extreme optimization of quirks in our "democracy" in the same way modern fencing is an extreme optimization of modern fencing rules rather than training for real-world sword fighting battles.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sdrothrock 9y ago
> By contrast, kendo never introduced electrical scoring, and still uses human judges. A judge can refuse to award a point if an attack connected but didn't have enough force behind it One thing is that this makes it sound like "force" is the primary measure of scoring for kendo, but it's not. Judges (there are three, majority is required for a point) have significant leeway in judging hits and one of the primary, if not THE primary criteria is whether the striker displayed proper "spirit," which can be explained in various ways. A forceful strike that simply does not show intention would never be given a point; in fact, at lower levels where such things happen, it wouldn't be uncommon for a clearly reckless, forceful strike to a target area to be given a foul. Valid scoring areas are also incredibly limited and unrealistic. The point I'm trying to make in a roundabout fashion is that kendo is just as much a victim of sportification via rules as fencing. :)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Pxtl 9y ago

To be fair, modern fencing does have pressure requirements in Foil and Epee categeories. It is not enough to simply make a circuit. While the game has obviously drifted from its sources, the "light attack" problem was solved outside of the Sabre form of the sport.

bradleyjg 9y ago
At least when I fenced foil in high school in the late 90s there was a move called the flick that involved whipping the foil over the opponents shoulder and having it bend sufficiently to depress the tip on his back. Fencers that mastered this technique dominated our level (perhaps Olympians could counter it, I don't know) but I don't think it has any analog in terms of real dueling. It seems like the flick is a quite good analogy for the debate 'spreading' the article talks about.
- greedo 9y ago
  I didn't think the lame was was conductive in the back for foil?
  - bradleyjg 9y ago
    No, both sides of the torso: http://www.blue-gauntlet.com/Allstar-stainless-steel-Foil-Fencing-Lame_p_3627.html http://www.blue-gauntlet.com/Allstar-stainless-steel-Foil-Fe...
- brianchu 9y ago
  I believe the pressure requirements were increased to combat the prevalence of this move. Watching Olympic fencing you don't see that many flicks anymore.
  - firebird84 9y ago
    Not just the pressure requirements, but the blade stiffness too. While I was fencing it became almost overnight MUCH harder to flick. You needed a pre-stressed (near breaking) weapon or just huge amounts of force (prep). I was a sabreist but my friends did foil and spent a lot of time bitching about the change. (Some people looooove their flicks)
- jinfiesto 9y ago
  This. Flicking is probably the most egregious offender. Not only is it not useful in an actual duel (not that that's particularly practical anyways.) But it also depends on properties of the modern epee/foil (extreme flexion.) Btw, the way to counter a flick is to not get hit by it. I know that sounds stupid, but whipping the blade substantially decreases it's length. So just space around it.

ezrast 9y ago

Judges already have ultimate discretion; see my sibling comment.

padobson 9y ago

So what do we do about the "fencification" of Democracy? The point of public debate is to win elections and affect public policy. Just like talented modern fencers don't make good sword fighters, talented political candidates don't make very good stateswomen and statesmen. Is there a way to change the rules of public debate to align the game with the interest of the people? To the author's point, it seems like the problem is fixed for a short time after new rules are introduced. Then, after the Machiavellian players figure out the weak points, the competition becomes a grotesque of what it was intended to be. This makes me think Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he said we should rewrite parts of the constitution[0] once a generation. It's much more difficult to game the system when the game's rules keep changing. [0]https://newrepublic.com/article/63773/what-jefferson-said https://newrepublic.com/article/63773/what-jefferson-said

slededit 9y ago
I don't see how this relates to democracy. You as the voter are the judge and can use any criteria you want.
- thephyber 9y ago
  Since the US is not an actual democracy, but rather a democratic republic, it's extremely relevant. Gerrymandering: states are precisely "cracked and packed" to maximize the number of expected majority-red districts in a state and minimize the number of majority-blue. Partisaned primaries: optimization of campaigning and stumping is done thru visiting specific states that vote early in the primary. Most people don't vote for the best possible candidate, they vote for the candidate they dislike the most that they think can win. The biggest states (CA, TX, NY) are traditionally vote only a few weeks before the end of the primary while NH and IO vote extremely early, and thus, have outsized influence on who most people get to vote for. Electoral college: Republican candidates don't spend any real effort in deep blue states and Democratic candidates don't spend any real effort in red states. These are the extreme optimization of quirks in our "democracy" in the same way modern fencing is an extreme optimization of modern fencing rules rather than training for real-world sword fighting battles.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sdrothrock 9y ago

> By contrast, kendo never introduced electrical scoring, and still uses human judges. A judge can refuse to award a point if an attack connected but didn't have enough force behind it One thing is that this makes it sound like "force" is the primary measure of scoring for kendo, but it's not. Judges (there are three, majority is required for a point) have significant leeway in judging hits and one of the primary, if not THE primary criteria is whether the striker displayed proper "spirit," which can be explained in various ways. A forceful strike that simply does not show intention would never be given a point; in fact, at lower levels where such things happen, it wouldn't be uncommon for a clearly reckless, forceful strike to a target area to be given a foul. Valid scoring areas are also incredibly limited and unrealistic. The point I'm trying to make in a roundabout fashion is that kendo is just as much a victim of sportification via rules as fencing. :)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]