Marist Ivy Street Invitational
2026 — NSDA Campus, GA/US
MPJ & Conflict Policy
Mutual Judge Preference at Ivy Street Invitational
All Varsity debate divisions offer competitors the option to use Mutual Judge Preference (MPJ) for their debates. For teams that opt out and do not complete MPJ, the software will default to the other team’s preferences in the debate.
| Deadline | Information |
| MPJ Opens | September 30 at 12:00 p.m. EST |
| Preference Sheets Close | Friday, October 2 at 12:00 p.m. EST |
We will not manually input preferences or copy one team’s preference sheet to another team.
If a judge must be removed from your preference sheet after preferences have closed, your school will be fined for the number of debates affected. Because preferences are calculated by round, removing a judge after the deadline creates a competitive disadvantage for other teams.
What is MPJ?
MPJ is a system that eliminates manual judge placement by using debater preferences to match judges that both teams mutually prefer, creating a more balanced and competitive debate round. At the Ivy Street Invitational, we believe MPJ gives debaters a voice in their community by allowing them to identify judges with whom they are more comfortable and reducing mismatches in judging style and preferences.
For coaches unfamiliar with preferences, we have put together the step-by-step guide below explaining both how to complete preference sheets and how the software will be used to place judges during the tournament.
How to Complete Prefs
| Step | Instructions |
| 1 | Log in to Tabroom and go to your registration page for the Ivy Street Invitational. |
| 2 | Click the red “Prefs” tab to access your team’s preference sheet for any Varsity debate division. Select the event category and team using the right sidebar of that screen. A team’s preference sheet will be highlighted in red if it is incomplete. |
| 3 | Rank the available judges according to the preference categories listed below. |
| Ranking | Percentage | Meaning |
| 1 | Top 30% | Most preferred judges — these are the judges your team most wants to hear your debates. |
| 2 | Next 20% | Highly preferred judges. |
| 3 | Next 20% | Middle preference category. |
| 4 | Next 15% | Lower preference category. |
| 6 | Bottom 15% | Struck judges — these judges will not be assigned to your team. |
You can use judge paradigms to help guide your rankings. Simply click on a judge’s name from the preference sheet or visit the Judges tab at marist.tabroom.com.
How MPJ changes judge placement: Instead of random or manual placement, Tabroom uses each team’s preferences to find the most mutually preferred available judge. For example, if both teams rank a judge as a 1, that judge is highly preferred for that debate. The placement order below shows how Tabroom determines mutuality.
ISI26 Mutuality Process
For all divisions, Tabroom judge placement will prioritize judges according to the following mutuality order:
1-1 2-2 1-2 3-3 2-3 4-4 3-4 1-3 2-4
| VCX | 1-1 | 2-2 | 1-2 | 3-3 | 2-3 | 4-4 | 3-4 | 1-3 | 2-4 |
| 2021 | 54.6% | 25.9% | 13.0% | 2.8% | 1.9% | 0% | 0% | 1.9% | 0% |
| 2022 | 56.7% | 29.9% | 12.2% | 0.6% | 0.6% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 2023 | 62.3% | 21.3% | 14.5% | 1.4% | 0.5% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 2024 | 81.7% | 13.5% | 4.3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0.5% | 0% |
| PF | 1-1 | 2-2 | 1-2 | 3-3 | 2-3 | 4-4 | 3-4 | 1-3 | 2-4 |
| 2023 | 64.9% | 16.9% | 3.9% | 6.5% | 0% | 1.3% | 0% | 1.3% | 3.9% |
| 2024 | 78.4% | 13.8% | 2.3% | 1.9% | 0.6% | 1.0% | 0% | 1.9% | 0% |
Debate Judge Conflict Policy
Judges must be conflicted for an entry or school if any of the following circumstances apply:
| Conflict Type | Policy |
| High School Affiliation | You attended the student’s high school within the last five years. |
| Family Relation | You are related to the student. |
| Coaching Relationship | You have coached at the student’s school, either paid or unpaid, within the past two school years. This does not apply when your only connection was serving as a hired judge with no coaching responsibilities or direct student contact. |
| Future Employment | The student’s school has offered to hire you to coach or judge in the future. Summer institutes and brief companies are included. |
| Primary Instruction | You have had primary instructional responsibility for the student, such as serving as their school or personal coach. Summer institute instruction does not apply. |
| Personal Relationships | You have or have had a personal friendship or romantic relationship with the student. |
| College/University Recruitment | You coach or debate for a college or university, and the student is either debating for your program next year or is actively being recruited by your school. |
| Coach Relationships | You have or have had a romantic relationship with the student’s coach or coaches. |
| Other Relationships | Any other relationship that might reasonably be seen as compromising your impartiality as a judge. To assess this, ask yourself: “If I were a competing student and knew only about this relationship between my judge and my competitor (or their coach), would I question their impartiality?” If the answer is “yes,” mark the student as a conflict. |