[blml] Chicago Casebook Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Concluding comments by Jeff Goldsmith:

[snip]

>Twice in this set, poll results rather surprised
>me. I wonder about the procedures used to pick the
>players for polls. In a regional AC case I heard
>recently, a poll was taken and the results
>astonished the whole AC. We asked who was polled;
>it turned out that the four players consulted could
>have been argued to be the four most conservative
>expert players in the room. I don't claim that the
>directors intentionally chose those four players to
>get a desired result, but a representative sample
>is not obtained with a poll size of four, and if
>the sample is biased, poor results are obtained.
>Again, I do not intend to imply that the results of
>the polls in these cases are suspect; in fact, my
>personal poll upheld the directors' poll results in
>the one that surprised me the most. In that poll,
>about half the players thought that the decision to
>be made was not close. Those players were split
>evenly between the two choices. AC members take
>note: even if you have strong feelings that an
>action is automatic, consider the possibility that
>other players may feel very differently. Tournament
>directors (TDs): try to avoid ACs with fewer than
>five members to attempt to get multiple viewpoints.


Best wishes

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