[blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Adam Wildavsky:

[snip]

>My data cover 293 AC and 222 Panel rulings over a period of five
>years, through the Dallas NABC. In brief, I found that when ACs
>changed TD rulings, and excluding cases I judged too close to call,
>they improved them 82% of the time and worsened them 18% of the
>time.
>
>I feel terrible about that 18%, especially since some of those
>were perpetrated by committees I served on or even chaired.
>Panels, however, had a poorer record, improving 72% of the rulings
>they changed while worsening 28%, again excluding cases I judged
>too close to call. This difference becomes more significant if we
>take into account that cases heard by Panels tend to be more
>straightforward than those heard by ACs.

[snip]

Richard Hills:

Adam's statistics are incomplete, since they do not provide any
information on when erroneous TD rulings have been upheld by an
erroneous appeals committee.

Also, I do not believe that Adam's statistics are relevant.  Adam
assumes that the past quality of the TDs who were selected for
panels reviewing Regional ("Rueful Rabbit") rulings will be
identical to the future quality of the TDs who will be selected
for ACs reviewing NABC+ ("Hideous Hog") rulings.

Provided that an AC follows the standard practice of polling peers
when assessing logical alternatives, I would argue that world-
class TDs are better equipped than world-class experts to give an
accurate appeals committee ruling.

Therefore, in my opinion, an AC composed of Kojak, Ton and Grattan
would give better rulings than an AC composed of Meckstroth, Wolff
and Rodwell.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285