From stables at usc.edu  Tue Jul  8 15:37:56 2008
From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:37:56 +0200
Subject: [CEDA-L] Fwd: CSUF, USC date change announcement
Message-ID: <df9cea5b32c3.4873ec44@usc.edu>

An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Bruschke, Jon" <jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU>
Subject: CSUF, USC date change announcement
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:27:34 -0700
Size: 7541
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20080708/67b06577/attachment.eml 

From jbruschke at fullerton.edu  Tue Jul 15 15:17:46 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:17:46 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Pepperdine
Message-ID: <0F7A0F59D581459CB1CC9029F27354D0@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Name:Pepperdine Ray Buchanan Invitational
Starts:10/17/2008
Ends:10/19/2008
Hosted by: Pepperdine
Contact: Sarah Stone Watt
Address: 24255 PCH, Malibu CA 90263
Phone: 310-506-6804
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False
Divisions Offered: 
Open Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
JV Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
Novice Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.

From stables at usc.edu  Wed Jul 16 16:02:00 2008
From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:02:00 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] CEDA newsletter - Call for announcements,
	news and tournament schedule
Message-ID: <030801c8e787$310a50e0$931ef2a0$@edu>

Greetings all. I hope you are enjoying a safe and healthy and summer.

 

The impending topic announcement (the deadline for voting is almost here)
reminds us all that the new season is almost upon us. In order to make the
transition to a new year easier, CEDA has decided to produce a beginning of
the year e-newsletter that will contain news, job announcements, updates on
CEDA rules and policies and a comprehensive (and regionally organized)
tournament calendar.

 

To make this newsletter work we need your contributions. Please email me if
you have any items that you would like included, such as:

-        Announcements about new faculty or staff for the 08-09 season

-        Upcoming job announcements

-        Call for papers 

-        Graduate school information for 09-10

-        Other matters of professional interest to our community

 

And don't forget to check Dave Steinberg's incredibly helpful tournament
calendar at If your tournament isn't listed there, but you still intend to
host and earn CEDA points you should let us know ASAP. 

 

Even if a tournament is tentatively planned, we still want to list it so
folks can consider their plans. We will make specific notations for any
tournament that isn't 100% finalized (i.e., hotel contract not signed, date
could move, etc.), but we still want to have all options listed. In our
current economic climate and with skyrocketing travel costs we all need to
do what we can to streamline our travel planning. Dave has done a tremendous
volunteer service with this calendar and now we all need to work together to
make our organizational calendar as comprehensive as possible.

 

Thanks. Let me know if you have any questions. The e-newsletter will be
produced in a few weeks and will be linked with content on the new CEDA site
http://www.cedadebate.org/

 

Gordon

CEDA 1st VP

 

Gordon Stables, Ph.D.
Director of Debate and Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
Office: 213 740 2759               Fax: 213 740 3913
 <http://usctrojandebate.com/> http://usctrojandebate.com

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20080716/d46532e3/attachment.htm 

From stables at usc.edu  Fri Jul 18 14:12:49 2008
From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:12:49 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] FW: [eDebate] CEDA Voting Results
Message-ID: <001501c8e90a$4556a470$d003ed50$@edu>


-----Original Message-----
From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
[mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Jarman
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:44 AM
To: eDebate eDebate
Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Voting Results

A full break down of the results is available at www.cedadebate.org

Short version:  resolution 2A wins.

Amendment 1 & 2 pass.
Amendment 3 fails.

Jeff


_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate



From delliott at kckcc.edu  Mon Jul 21 03:18:38 2008
From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:18:38 -0500
Subject: [CEDA-L] Failure of Conferences Proposal--a redux
Message-ID: <4884000E0200009300017621@mymail.kckcc.edu>

To paraphrase Robert Fulghum, ?All I really need to know about computer
mediated communication, I learned on edebate?.

I wanted to take a moment (between umpiring softball tournaments, having
a family vacation, and researching the HS and College Topic) to take a
second shot at posting my thoughts on conferences, the failed proposal,
and the organizational leadership.

Since my post the other day, responding to Malcolm, 2 people I consider
friends and highly respect helped me view my email through their eyes. 
Edebate is indeed a horrible medium at times, and all computer mediated
communication comes with risks of misinterpretation.  Am I frustrated
that the conference proposal failed?  Obviously.  But the two emails I
received made me realize that my frustration is just as much aimed at
where we can be more effective leaders as it is at the failure of the
amendment.    I wont publicly name these 2 friends here.  They chose
private communication and I respect that.  One I have known since my
first college tournament and if they are anything, it's passionate about
this activity.  But I want to thank them for helping me hopefully
remember to see things through different eyes.  If we, I, can be
anything, I hope it's reflexive.

So let me answer some concerns the tenor of my email may have raised:

First, my opinion about the conference proposal was not meant to
chastise either those who voted no or those choosing not to vote.  It's
primary focus was to share frustration.  As much as I want to disagree
with Jeff about some not caring about the business of the organization?I
want to think everyone cares as deeply as I do?I do have to admit that
when 35% do not vote at all, they perhaps see no value in voting. 
Perhaps part of our organizational mission should be to provide more
value.  Part of our job should be to encourage voting.  I will try and
embrace that.  As for those who voted no, I will admit I was initially
against conferences.  But I heard the debate play out for an hour at NCA
in Chicago.  I came away convinced it was a good idea.  There was very
little opposition, more devil's advocate playing.  Then the proposal
failed.  We re-hashed the ideas.  Upon the encouragement of myself and
Gordon Stables, the proposal was resubmitted this summer.  This time, no
real debate at the business meeting.  Some who claimed initial
opposition came forward in support.  Again it failed.  Part of my
frustration was what Malcolm conveyed.  We are so talkative, yet so few
counter arguments were made.  It was thought by many of us leaving
Dallas, it would pass this time.  But when it didn't, frustration
mounted.  But now, one of my good friends helped illuminate some
opposing reasons.  Some of them had not been conveyed before.  I
certainly understand why those in opposition choose not to use edebate,
ceda-l, etc.  But I hope through honest, back-channel means if
necessary, we can come to an understanding.  The reasons elucidated were
enlightening to me.  It gives us common ground to start from.  It
changes how I see the proposal and how the organization should operate. 
Without this person taking the time and having the courage to email me,
in their own admission with trepidation, we may have no common starting
point.

Second, I hope the joking reference to ?JED? was not seen as a
Presidential Seal in code, uncovering the ?elite? or ?out? members of
the ?cabal?.  If you know my relationship with Jarman, we worked
together, he served as a mentor for me, and I think he is one of the
best coaches in the country.  But we often disagree on issues.  A lot. 
In the end we both work hard, I think, to make the organization better. 
But we disagree a lot.  If you are familiar with the archives, you can
see where Mike Davis and I have butted heads in the past.  Mike has
quickly become one of my favorite people in the activity.  But he too
will often quip at business meetings, that if him and I agree, it is
scary.  So my references to them agreeing with me,?out? the Knights Templar.  But to put some humor in an otherwise
frustrated post.  It really was shocking the 3 of us would agree and yet
it could not get a super majority to agree as well.  But it was
definitely meant in a joking manner.

Third, my statement about agreeing with Jeff that many may not care
about the business of the organization, was not intended to suggest that
those voting ?no? did not care.  It was a saddened admittance on my part
that Jeff may be right and some folks don't care and choose not to vote.
 Again, perhaps we need to give them more to vote for.  But as one of my
friends pointed out, those voting ?no? probably care deeply and have
valuable reasons they chose to vote no.  Those reasons give me starting
points again for common ground between the belief of some of the
leadership that the system is broken, business meetings fail to make
quorums, and we get stalled, and those who voted no who believe the
system would become worse, that the SQ serves their needs, that we
failed in the proposal by putting too much burden on the membership,
that it was too punitive in nature, etc.  We now have a place to work
from.  I sincerely hope that others who voted no can share their
concerns with someone in the leadership.  

Fourth, I agree that checks and balances are a good thing.  I believe
that we should not be able to move too quickly when revamping
constitutions.  I would like to have seen this proposal go forward.  It
failed.  Now we have to work with what we have.  And I do believe that
everyone who voted no, did so for a reason and probably one that
directly impacted them, their institution, or their Region.  I have no
reason to think otherwise.  So yea, I believe they cared about the
running of the organization.  Please do not misinterpret my feelings
that when meetings are under-represented, that I think all those not in
attendance do not care.  There are plenty of reasons not to attend the
meetings.  Families, finances, travel fatigue, etc.  But I am smart
enough to know a lot of those folks still care.  I guess that is why it
is our job to figure out how to make things better, and perhaps more
accessible.  Again, we have a place to work from.

Finally, I indicated in my email that we would begin working with the
Executive Secretary to use his authority under the Constitution to
present proposals aimed at revamping the Regional structure.  I honestly
believe that for the purpose of effectively running business meetings,
that there does need to be some work done here.  However, I do not think
this is a decision that should be left solely to the Exec Secretary or
the Executive Council.  While you did elect us, our roles in this matter
should be formative.  In the end, suggestions, movement, and final
decisions should have the consultation of those directly effected.  It
would be irresponsible for us to assume to know what is in the best
interest of every program.  For some schools, perhaps being in a huge
Region is what helps them justify funding.  For others, perhaps a
smaller Region is best.  We need to find out.  And in the meantime we
need to do our job and figure out how to make meetings effectively run
with what we have, and perhaps go even farther in increasing
accessibility.  

In conclusion, I hope that people can begin to feel more comfortable in
sharing their thoughts with the leadership, even if in private if
understandably fearing the nature of computer mediated communication. 
But edebate and ceda-l serve valuable purposes too.  They demand of
leadership a clarity of purpose, a willingness to be open about our
intentions, and the wisdom to know that in the most frustrating moments,
there will be common ground from which we can start to do a better job. 

Sometimes we just need our friends to remind us!

Humbly,
chief

Darren Elliott
Director of Debate and Forensics?KCKCC
CEDA President

From stables at usc.edu  Fri Jul 25 12:40:26 2008
From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:40:26 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Last call for materials for CEDA newsletter
Message-ID: <00db01c8ee7d$85da5460$918efd20$@edu>

Following up on my earlier note, I am close to finalizing the content for
the inaugural CEDA e-newsletter. This will contain a variety of material
related to the new season.

 

I would ask that our members please take a moment and send me any of the
following items:

 

-        Information about your college tournaments - If you are hosting, we
need to know before the season starts. If you have already adding it to
debateresults or Dave Steinberg's calendar - great. If you haven't published
any material and you intend on hosting, please let me know . 

 

-        New coaching announcements - Who has joined your staff in the last
few months?

 

-        Upcoming calls/announcements - Will you be advertising a new job?
Having graduate assistantships available? Do you have a new public program
that you would to let people know about?

 

Let me know if you have any questions.

Gordon

 

Gordon Stables, Ph.D.
Director of Debate and Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
Office: 213 740 2759               Fax: 213 740 3913
 <http://usctrojandebate.com/> http://usctrojandebate.com

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20080725/70fb735d/attachment.htm 

From jbruschke at fullerton.edu  Fri Jul 25 13:12:40 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:12:40 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Santa Rosa Junior Co
Message-ID: <79245D86122A4FA09BECE2DCB50FB127@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Name:Enter tournament name here.
Starts:10/10/2008
Ends:10/12/2008
Hosted by: Santa Rosa Junior Co
Contact: 
Address: 1501 Medocino Ave., Santa Rosa, CA, 95401
Phone: 707-838-2028
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered: 
Open Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
JR Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
Novice Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
Open Parli with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Novice Parli with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.

From jbruschke at fullerton.edu  Fri Jul 25 14:12:42 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:12:42 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Northern Iowa (Univ.)
Message-ID: <6D53BEF46F624BAE8C64FE9DBB13A739@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Name:UNI Ulrich Season Opener 
Starts:9/20/2008
Ends:9/22/2008
Hosted by: Northern Iowa (Univ.)
Contact: Cate Palczewski
Address: 
Phone: 319-273-2714
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered: 
Open with 8 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles
JV with 8 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.

From jbruschke at fullerton.edu  Mon Jul 28 13:27:25 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:27:25 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Kings College
Message-ID: <1A0A3C7E389246C39B525DB83099A95E@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Name:Connelly-Garvey Debate Tourament
Starts:9/19/2008
Ends:9/21/2008
Hosted by: Kings College
Contact: Mike Berry
Address: Department of Theatre and Speech, King's College, Wilkes Barre PA 18711
Phone: 570.208.5900
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered: 
Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.

From stables at usc.edu  Mon Jul 28 23:37:15 2008
From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:37:15 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Ag - Topic Committee Resources available
Message-ID: <009001c8f134$c7ffe990$57ffbcb0$@edu>

Greetings all. 

 

As the first effort to migrate this CEDA Topic.com to the new CEDA website,
we have organized all of the research produced in the process of writing
this topic. 

 

In the next few months, the cedatopic.com site will be merged with the new
CEDA site. The 09-10 topic process will all be conducted on the new site at
topic.cedadebate.org/

 

Right now you can start using the new site and review the agricultural
research and analysis directly at topic.cedadebate.org/ag_research

 

Enjoy and let us know if you have any questions.

 

Gordon

 

Gordon Stables, Ph.D.
Director of Debate and Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
Office: 213 740 2759               Fax: 213 740 3913
 <http://usctrojandebate.com/> http://usctrojandebate.com

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20080728/6c5c8b09/attachment.htm 

From jbruschke at fullerton.edu  Wed Jul 30 03:39:29 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:39:29 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Whitman College
Message-ID: <93FFE95B04B146C0858DD367BFB72879@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Name:WNPT-Whitman November Policy Tournament
Starts:11/22/2008
Ends:11/23/2008
Hosted by: Whitman College
Contact: Jim Hanson
Address: 
Phone: 509-527-5499
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered: 
Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
Junior with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.

From jbruschke at fullerton.edu  Wed Jul 30 03:42:01 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:42:01 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Whitman College
Message-ID: <589EA49670544AA890EFD8AFCB3DD632@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Name:NW CEDA Champs
Starts:2/28/2009
Ends:3/2/2009
Hosted by: Whitman College
Contact: Jim Hanson
Address: 
Phone: 509-527-5499
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered: 
Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.

From hansonjb at whitman.edu  Wed Jul 30 03:58:22 2008
From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:58:22 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] nw ceda champs: be GOLDEN 10
Message-ID: <7FC94D8D2F8C4E3585138252301590AD@whitman.edu>


we invite schools to submit a GOLDEN 10 team and judge bid to participate at
the nw ceda championship. schools must be at least 700 miles from whitman
college. (you submit after the wake forest tournament)

--$600 is given to each of these teams/judges

--no fees; you just debate and judge

--free food (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) provided

--free shuttle (pasco or walla walla airport) provided throughout the
tournament

--student and coach's party

--all rounds occur in one, nice building--it is well setup

--the tournament occurs feb 28-mar 2, 2009--the weekend after almost all
districts; perfect as a nationals warmup or for teams trying to get a second
round bid

--great competition especially with this new golden 10 opportunity

submissions accepted shortly after the wake forest tournament. jim hanson,
glenn frappier, and derek buescher evaluate quality of teams and judges. 10
chosen. announcements occur in december, giving you lots of planning time.

invitation with full details at:
http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/54nwceda2009.htm

jim :)
hansonjb at whitman.edu


_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate