So far, all the arguments seem to have mentioned
speed; however, I would argue that there is a big
difference between moderating speed and moderating
efficiency. I believe that the most Dinanic and Ismailian
moderators on the circuit possess both speed and efficiency.
:-)
Furthermore, I don't think that the two necessarily are
inseparable; one can work on improving efficiency without
increasing one's reading rate, and vice versa. I also
suspect that many moderators, simply by being "more
efficient" could add at least a full tossup-bonus cycle to
their average *without* reading any faster than they
already do.
I have prepared a few simple
suggestions for improving efficiency that arise from seven
years' experience in moderating timed rounds. While some
people may (reasonably) argue that it makes the game
less "personable," I believe that it's better to give
the teams the chance to hear as many tossups as they
can, in agreement with Craig's post.
However,
since it's a long document [two posts or so], I'd
recommend that people email [my initials at MIT.edu] if
they'd like me to forward the list to them.
--AEI