From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Tue Nov 4 15:59:50 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:59:50 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by North Texas (Univ.) Message-ID: <98AC2208311D4699958C0DEB38578F70@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:William DeMougeot Debates at UNT Starts:1/6/2009 Ends:1/8/2009 Hosted by: North Texas (Univ.) Contact: Address: Phone: 940-565-4534 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice 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 lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Nov 6 18:53:16 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:53:16 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Pre-Shirley Disclosure Message-ID: <4913917C.9040607@wfu.edu> [Summary: Post stuff on wiki soon. If you have intel that isn't "self disclosure" post that too.] Once again, we're looking forward to scouting the Shirley. Our goal is to upgrade the scouting at opencaselist.wikispaces.com as much as possible. This will take effort from each participant in the tournament. In the end, I hope the effort will pay off by helping everyone debate better. To facilitate scouting during the tournament, we need a good deal of pre-tournament information. That way, everyone scouting can focus on upgrading what we've already got & gathering new information. You can submit your information two ways: 1. Become a member of the wiki & post it (Easy, just label your stuff "Pre-Shirley") Just go to http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/ and click "join . . ." Be sure to include information that identifies you as a debater/coach for a school in your request to join. 2. Email it to me: lacyjp at wfu.edu (This way may work, but it's slow & doesn't get common cite requests out of your hair as quickly) Target deadline: Midnight, Wednesday, November 12. Expectations: Affirmative Disclosure-- Plan text(s) you've read. Complete 1ac outline(s) with full cites [Author, Source, Date,URL, page #s, First & Last phrases.] 2ac add-ons 2ac answers to common negative positions (including off case args & major case arguments) If your 1ac is not 'traditional', describe your affirmative in as much detail as necessary to provide the opposition the equivalent of the above. [Plus full cites for anything that can be cited] Negative Disclosure-- Basic rule: Disclose the quantity & quality of information you'd want from a team when you are affirmative. Include at minimum the generic strategies you've deployed thus far, with a complete outline & full citations as described above. I say this every year: A good norm to strive for is MSU's Pre-Shirley disclosure from the courts topic at http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/Michigan+State+Neg#toc2 We don't expect you to disclose new arguments. Keeping 'caselist-able' electronic versions of new arguments is a great idea. Thanks! --JP Lacy lacyjp at wfu.edu From davismk13 at gmail.com Sat Nov 8 13:46:04 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 14:46:04 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] JMU Invitational Message-ID: <9a7f6f740811081146v733d3e24y1f2eb3d6d18d7cf8@mail.gmail.com> September 4, 2008 Dear Colleagues, The James Madison University Debate Squad and the Department of Communication Studies invite you and your teams to the James Invitational Tournament held the weekend of January 3-5, 2008. All schools are welcomed. The tournament will consist of three CEDA divisions: Open, JV and Novice ~ but we will collapse divisions if low numbers warrant. We will use the CEDA definitions for all divisions. In each division, there will be seven preliminary rounds of debate competition on the 2008-2009 CEDA resolution. The appropriate number of elimination rounds will follow. All divisions will use the 9-3-6 format with ten minutes of preparation time. We will not break brackets for elimination rounds. Rounds I and II will be preset. We will apply for ADA sanctioning. Hybrids are eligible to clear. New programs who can cover their judging will have all fees waived. We look forward to seeing old and new friends alike in Harrisonburg in the new year. Sincerely, Michael Davis Director of Debate (540)-568-7308 Office (540)-246-1919 Cell Davismk at jmu.edu TOURNAMENT INFORMATION ENTRIES: Schools may enter any number of teams in any division. CEDA definitions for all divisions will be used. This is a sanctioned CEDA & ADA tournament. JUDGES: Schools must provide a qualified judge for every two teams or fraction thereof entered. There will be only a small number of judges available for hire. If you can provide qualified judges for hire, please let us know. All judges are obligated 1 round after their teams are eliminated. AWARDS: All teams reaching elimination rounds will receive awards. In addition, Speaker Awards will be given to the top 10 speakers in each division. Speaker Awards will be based on adjusted speaker points (dropping high and low), then total speaker points, then double adjusted speaker points, then z-scores, then ranks. FORMAT: Seven preliminary rounds and the appropriate number of elimination rounds will be offered in each division. The 2008-2009 CEDA resolution will be used with the 9-3-6 minute format. Preparation time will be limited to 10 minutes. Rounds I and II will be randomly paired. Rounds III and V will be paired high/high based on cumulative records. Rounds IV and VI will be paired high/low within brackets and side constraints. FORFEIT RULE: A 15-minute forfeit rule will be strictly enforced. CEDA STATEMENT ON SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION: This tournament abides by the CEDA Statement on Sexual Discrimination and encourages an inclusive atmosphere for all those participating. Insofar as possible, the procedures in the CEDA Statement on Sexual Discrimination will be followed for complaints based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. FEES: Entry fees of $60 per person attending the tournament. The entry fee covers lunch on Saturday and Sunday, snacks throughout the tournament and reception on Monday night. Judging fees of $100 per each uncovered team will be collected at registration. All changes/drops at registration will result in a $15 fee. DEADLINE: All teams must be entered through debateresults.com by 5:00 p.m. (EST) on Friday, December 25, 2008. We encourage early tournament entry so that others will know which of their friends plan to attend. LODGING: We have secured a rate of $54 for The Best Western of Harrisonburg, 45 Burgess Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia, Phone: 540/433-6089, Fax: 540/433-6485. They will hold a block of rooms until December 15th, 2008. Rooms are reserved under "The Commonwealth Swing". If you have any problems ask to speak to Gini Boyers. TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE Saturday, January 3rd, 2009 7:00am Pairings released on campus 8:30am Round 1 11:00am Round 2 1:30pm Lunch (provided) 2:30pm Round 3 5:30pm Round 4 Sunday, January 4th, 2009 8:00 Pairings released on campus 8:30 Round 5 11:00am Round 6 1:30pm Lunch (provided) 2:30pm Round 7 5:30pm First Elim Monday, January 5, 2009 8:30 Pairings released for first elimination round 9:00 First elimination round 11:30 Awards ceremony 12:30 Elimination rounds continue -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From todonnel at umw.edu Mon Nov 10 09:56:49 2008 From: todonnel at umw.edu (Timothy O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:56:49 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] UMW Invitational In-Reply-To: <9a7f6f740811081146v733d3e24y1f2eb3d6d18d7cf8@mail.gmail.com> References: <9a7f6f740811081146v733d3e24y1f2eb3d6d18d7cf8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49181371020000BD00077EE3@umwgw.umw.edu> The University of Mary Washington Invitational Debate Tournament (part 2 of the Commonwealth Swing) Wednesday, January 7 to Friday, January 9, 2009 in Fredericksburg, VA ENTRIES: Entries will be accepted in all three divisions (novice, junior varsity, and varsity). If there are a sufficient numbers of rookie teams (defined as 1 tournament or less of competition prior to January 1, 2009) and judges, we will hold a separate rookie breakout in elimination rounds. The tournament will apply for ADA sanctioning. Hybrids are eligible to clear. In each division, there will be six preliminary rounds of debate competition on the 2008-2009 CEDA resolution. The entry deadline is Monday, January 5 at noon (teams dropping after that time will be assessed entry fees). JUDGING: Judging philosophies as a precondition of entry must be posted at www.debateresults.com no later than January 3rd. Each school must provide 3 rounds of prelim judging. Judges must vote for one and only one team in each debate. CASELIST and SCOUTING: Participating teams and schools are expected to contribute to http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/ as a precondition for entry and should provide their most recent affirmative and negative information by January 1, 2009 (at the latest). This should include an outline of the arguments sufficient for novice comprehension as well as full citations. Teams and schools are expected to cooperate with UMW students and staff assigned to gather the material. AUDIO and VIDEO RECORDING: All rounds (defined as the speeches of the participants) are open to registered tournament participants and may be electronically recorded for private educational use by tournament participants (registered coaches, debaters and helpers, and UMW tournament staff) only. Public distribution of such recordings is expressly prohibited unless prior written consent of all people on the recording is obtained and unless prior written consent of the University of Mary Washington is obtained. Private sharing for educational use is permitted. TOURNAMENT HOTELS: The Quality Inn is less than 5 minutes from campus. The WyteStone Suites are further, but nicer and have the suite option. WyteStone is less than 15 minutes from campus (1 exit south on I95) and have a few more friendly debate amenities. OPTION 1: Quality Inn Cutoff: December 10th Groupname: ?UMW Debate? $69 (plus tax)/1-2 Adults - $10 extra per guest) 2310 William Street Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Phone. 540-371-0330 Fax: 540-371-1753 www.qualityinn.com/hotel-fredericksburg-virginia-VA463 OPTION 2: WyteStone Suites Cutoff: December 10th Groupname: ?UMW Debate? $74(plus tax) / 1-2 Adults $84(plus tax) / 3+ Adults 4615 Southpoint Parkway Fredericksburg, VA 22407 Phone: (540) 891-1112 Toll Free: (800) 794-5005 Fax: (540) 891-5465 www.wytestonesuitesfredericksburg.com HOSPITALITY: Lunch each day and hospitality throughout. RULES, NORMS AND CONDUCT: All participants debate at the invitation of the University of Mary Washington according to its tournament rules as well as any rules of their sponsoring institutions. The tournament abides by the rules and norms of the American Forensics Association, the American Debate Association, and the Cross Examination Debate Association. FEES: $40.00 per person. TENTATIVE SCHEDULE: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 Registration: TBA Wednesday, January 7, 2009 7:00 am - Pairings at the hotel for rounds 1 and 2 8:30 am - Round 1 10:45 am - Round 2 2:15 pm - Round 3 5:15 pm - Round 4 Thursday, January 8, 2009 7:00 am - Pairings at the hotel 8:30 am - Round 5 11:30 am - Round 6 2:00 pm - Awards and Lunch 3:30 pm - First Elimination Round Friday, January 9, 2009 Elimination rounds continue as necessary Judges are obligated 1 round past the elimination of their last team Timothy M. O'Donnell Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Speech University of Mary Washington 1201 William St., #25 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 todonnel at umw.edu (540) 654-1252 (office) (540) 654-1569 (fax) From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Nov 10 19:44:48 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:44:48 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Texas-Dallas Message-ID: <55A34455668D44DDB63AC198D201164D@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Fear and Loathing in Dallas (UTD) Starts:1/10/2009 Ends:1/12/2009 Hosted by: Texas-Dallas Contact: Christopher Burk Address: Phone: 972-536-3995 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles Junior Varsity with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Novice 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 dave at miami.edu Tue Nov 11 07:10:04 2008 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:10:04 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Live Debate Streamed Online Tonight! Message-ID: Live Debate Streamed Online Tonight! Check out the British Debate Team's Ed James and Derek Doyle and University of Miami's Robert Levine and Jennefer Melendez as they debate Western Prosperity live on UMTV's "We the Students". To view the debate log onto www.wethestudents.tv at 9pm. At the site, students from around the world can comment on the debate and ask questions to the debaters! Watch live at 9! David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, Lecturer in Communication Studies University of Miami PO Box 248127 Coral Gables, FL 33124 FLW 3015 305-284-5553 204-385-5216 (fax) dave at miami.edu http://debate.miami.edu/ From smithr at wfu.edu Tue Nov 11 13:36:26 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:36:26 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Important Wake tournament notes Message-ID: <4919DEBA.9000909@wfu.edu> 1) We will be "closing" your access to make entry changes on Bruschke after this evening. So, be sure to get all of the following taken care of: a) Correct judges entered (all in attendance should judge at least some). b) Correct number of rounds per judge (3 rounds per team, 4 rounds per team for 3rd or fourth teams). Some of you have entered judges for 7 or eight prelims, but we only have six! c) Judge conflict info entered. d) Number of participants from your school, vegan/vegetarian info on the "school info" info page. e) Correct e-mail and phone contact info on the "Edit your account" under "Account Management" on the main page of the Bruschke site. 2) Starting Wednesday, we will let you rank (ordinally) judges. 3) Entry info you cannot fix on Bruschke site should be sent to Gary Larson, Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu 4) Frosh/Soph breakout team eligibility will be checked at registration, so do not fret about the fact that there is no way to indicate that in Bruschke. Note: any team with both debaters in their first two years of college debate is eligible. No team with a debater in their third year of college debate is eligible. -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org From davismk13 at gmail.com Tue Nov 11 13:45:03 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:45:03 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Please finalize your App State entries Message-ID: <9a7f6f740811111145j5c0e7f87la0603aa4da47658@mail.gmail.com> I will be closing registration tonight. We will have limited MPJ so please make sure all your judges are correct so I can open preferences tomorrow. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From smithr at wfu.edu Tue Nov 11 15:58:55 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:58:55 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] 100 point scale at Wake Message-ID: <491A001F.5040108@wfu.edu> attached is a graph of the distribution of scores given at our tournament last year, FYI -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Score distribution.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 10232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081111/85e3ed02/attachment.pdf From delliott at kckcc.edu Tue Nov 11 22:56:58 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:56:58 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] MPJ Clarification for multiple divisions Message-ID: <491A0DBA020000930001F65E@mymail.kckcc.edu> Hey all. Since I authored the amendment requiring MPJ in all divisions at tournaments that use a preference system in any division, I thought I should also weigh in. A few things: 1. Jarman is correct (someone write that down in a permanent archive please) : ) about my original posting on the subject where I encouraged a yes vote. The amendment was not written to make each division use the SAME system. 2. I understand and appreciate the frustration of Scott and Doug et al. We talked a lot about this lately. Bottom line for many of us with Novices and JV teams is that sometimes those people need the kind of feedback and critiques in order to learn that tournaments tend to preference into the Open rounds. Like Scott I would love my novices to have a break even chance of being judged by Calum Matheson, Roger Solt, JP Lacy, Will Repko, etc. Rarely does it happen. There are a couple different schools of thought. I can empathize with Hanson's, about Open debaters and debates being more nuanced, requiring a more discerning judge. I lean towards the one I mention above-the need of young debaters to be educated by the best and brightest. I also think it should go without saying that tab room directors should try hard to place judges in rounds that matter first across all divisions. Dont place A+ judges in a division for teams that are down and out before placing judges in break rounds in other divisions. If this isnt standard practice it should be in my opinion. I think tab room directors should be willing to share how they will assign judges and how they ended up assigning judges (should something change over the course of the tournament). When I ran tab at East Coast JV/Nov Nats last year I posted a lengthy description of how we placed judges. The days of smoke filled, shady, protect my friends tab rooms are hopefully long behind us. Everyone should be willing to be open and honest. 3. If the work of Gary and Rich continue to imporve these practices we owe them even more thanks. 4. One thing I have come to believe is that every single tournament no matter the size of the divisions or judge pools CAN use MPJ across all divisions. While my amendment did not require the same MPJ, I believe every tournament has the capability to provide more than strikes, and use MPJ. And it is better for the tournament likely. UCO this weekend gave 6 strikes in JV and Novice. I thought this was an ample amount given the judge pool. In fact after our first 5 I just kind of picked a 6th. In this world, if most teams strike the same 5 or 6, you could lose a lot of rounds. I think it would be better for the tournament tab room AND for the teams to at least allow A B C Strikes. You could reduce strikes by a couple AND ensure some mutuality. In a world where all judges except strikes are treated equal, is where the shaft usually occurs. Why it seems ok to assume a non-struck judge is the same mutuality for everyone is beyond me. My #1 may be my opponents #30. Sure, they didnt strike them, but that wide a discrepancy seems ludicrous. At least with A B C, even if you place that #30 judge, it will be a mutual #20-30 as opposed to a 1-30 range. I cant imagine a world in which a tournament could not offer A B C across divisions at a minimum. Worst case? You have to place an A/C judge. It will rarely happen. In a world of random or just strikes, it is likely happening a lot in the squo. 5. Finally, I would encourage programs to ask tab directors their methods. Vote with your feet if you need to. PS--I dont think if you place a mutual strike, in order to preserve preferences in another division, you are really compliant with the CEDA amendment. That's my opinion. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City Kansas Community College From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Wed Nov 12 13:28:27 2008 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:28:27 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions Message-ID: I'd like to second Jon Bruschke's concern about problems related to MPJ across divisions. Based on our experience at the UNLV invitational tournament this year, respecting MPJ across divisions creates an odd problem. Most teams/coaches appear to simply copy the prefs (or copy them with slight modifications) for their JV and novice teams from one of their open teams. This means that the judges who are only Novice or JV elegible will be struck or ranked incredibly low by most JV and novice teams. Darren's example of his novice or JV teams wanting feedback from some of the most preferred judges in the country exemplifies this point... It means that they are much less interested in feedback from new judges who are learning/developing their judging skills. While I sympathise with Darrens point, in the end, we lost many, many, many elegible rounds of judging at our tournament because of MPJ across divisions. As Jon points out the other serious downside of this quandry is that many of the judges who could have learned and improved in the novice and JV divisions were summarily excluded from judging. I think the rule needs some serious revision (or at least the development of a new community understanding), 1) at a bare minimum, coaches or the folks who fill out prefs should not summarily dismiss novice or JV only elegible judges from judging their students. 2) Ideally, I believe that we should consider MPJ across divisions, but only within discrete judguing pools for each division. Here is my vision of how the system would work: if I bring a JV or novice team to a tourney, I could select a UNLV judge for that division (or even split that judge between 2 divisions--i.e. 2 uin JV and 2 in Open. That judge would be on the pref sheet only for the divisions that they were slated to judge in and would be ranked accordingly. Here are the benefits: a) each division still gets prefs b) fairly good judges would be entered in the pool for the JV and novice divisions--any of my assistant coaches are a perfect example. I'm sure that Darren's team would get great feedback from Grace Saez, etc. We'll take at least 1 JV team to the cal swing, and would be happy to dedicate a judge to that division only. c) the judge for your team judging in novice or JV can better coach the novice or JV team(s) they are judging for. They may have judged/scouted the competition and can give the team they are coaching more specific pre-round prep advise. d) no massive loss of elegible judging My two cents. Jake Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081112/1cbe691b/attachment.htm From vikeenan at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 13:54:06 2008 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:54:06 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think the tab from West Point (Patrice/Rubino) and the tab from West Conn have pretty good counter-examples of using preferred judges across divisions that we may want to examine. West Point does use an ABC/strike system in all divisions. Of course, they also put the "lay" judges in Open Finals ... but overall the recent move to prefs has worked very well for both years. Joe and Kathryn may have some specific insight on this if we do a formal follow-up. Neil Berch was primarily tabbing West Conn, which gave each division the same amount of strikes I believe, but no additional prefs. Any tournament that has Ken Strange judging multiple jv rounds and Sherry Hall giving feedback to novices in prelims may also give us some insight into how to ensure we allow our emerging debaters to have some of the best feedback available.. (Sherry also judged elims in nov and jv, as did Ken). Also, 3 of our most preferred judges in the entire region (based on past prefs) also judged all three divisions in the tournament. One common thing I know about both of these tab rooms is that they primarily leave things to the program, with only minor changes (Neil was very excited when the computer decided that only women would judge in Open for one round). But this may be affected by a second criteria - division numbers. West Point broke to partial-doubles in novice, West Conn broke to Octs. In both tournaments novice was clearly the largest division. Assuming it is the "biggest" division that is paired first or has the most break rounds, it could conceivably change the ordering priorities of tabulation. Of course, these are also examples of tournaments where novice debate itself is a very high priority. Finally, Jake brings up an interesting point about how "novice only eligible" judges may skew preferencing. One criteria I would emphasize that affects this is the availability of judging philosophies. Many novice only judges don't have them. In fact, if there is a lesser known judge with a philosophy, versus one without, I think many of us prefer the more known quantity. Most judges aren't a Jessica Yeats or a Josh Kernoff, who will get rounds at Harvard whether or not they have a philosophy up (yes, that's a reminder). A novice only judge is likely to have little-to-no reputation, making them automatically less preferred. In our region we have a number of Open debaters who regularly judge - and some can fill a commitment, and some can't, but if all other criteria are equal, in theory there shouldn't be as much of a skew. I think an interesting tournament to look at might be Richmond - they have offered the same type of prefering in ALL divisions for years (previously just strike, now multiple categories). It might be a good start for a "control" if we want to analyze the data. It has some novice only judges, as well a diversity of argumentation leanings by both the debaters and the judging pool, so it forces some choice more than some other larger Open tournaments. The Novice teach in round might even offer an interesting comparison for pairing 2 versus 3 divisions. I think ultimately it is important to understand that the MPJ rule will NOT change the competitive or educational focus of a tournament that has existed historically. And I think that intent is a lot more of a factor than any rule we can possibly make for the CEDA constitution. -VIK 2008/11/12 > > I'd like to second Jon Bruschke's concern about problems related to MPJ > across divisions. Based on our experience at the UNLV invitational > tournament this year, respecting MPJ across divisions creates an odd > problem. > > Most teams/coaches appear to simply copy the prefs (or copy them with > slight modifications) for their JV and novice teams from one of their open > teams. This means that the judges who are only Novice or JV elegible will > be struck or ranked incredibly low by most JV and novice teams. Darren's > example of his novice or JV teams wanting feedback from some of the most > preferred judges in the country exemplifies this point... It means that they > are much less interested in feedback from new judges who are > learning/developing their judging skills. While I sympathise with Darrens > point, in the end, we lost many, many, many elegible rounds of judging at > our tournament because of MPJ across divisions. As Jon points out the other > serious downside of this quandry is that many of the judges who could have > learned and improved in the novice and JV divisions were summarily excluded > from judging. > > I think the rule needs some serious revision (or at least the development > of a new community understanding), > > 1) at a bare minimum, coaches or the folks who fill out prefs should not > summarily dismiss novice or JV only elegible judges from judging their > students. > > 2) Ideally, I believe that we should consider MPJ across divisions, but > only within discrete judguing pools for each division. Here is my vision of > how the system would work: if I bring a JV or novice team to a tourney, I > could select a UNLV judge for that division (or even split that judge > between 2 divisions--i.e. 2 uin JV and 2 in Open. That judge would be on > the pref sheet only for the divisions that they were slated to judge in and > would be ranked accordingly. > > Here are the benefits: > a) each division still gets prefs > b) fairly good judges would be entered in the pool for the JV and > novice divisions--any of my assistant coaches are a perfect example. I'm > sure that Darren's team would get great feedback from Grace Saez, > etc. We'll take at least 1 JV team to the cal swing, and would be happy to > dedicate a judge to that division only. > c) the judge for your team judging in novice or JV can better coach > the novice or JV team(s) they are judging for. They may have judged/scouted > the competition and can give the team they are coaching more > specific pre-round prep advise. > d) no massive loss of elegible judging > > My two cents. > > Jake > > Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. > Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum > Assistant Professor In Residence > Greenspun College of Urban Affairs > Department of Communication Studies > University of Nevada, Las Vegas > 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 > Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 > office (702) 895-3474 > fax (702) 895-4805 > cell (702) 809-9670 > > Rebel Debate on the web: > www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > -- Vik Keenan Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges 212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081112/907310eb/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Wed Nov 12 14:00:08 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:00:08 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions Message-ID: <491AE168020000930001F745@mymail.kckcc.edu> Jake, Interesting comments that I plan to give some thought to. (Right now inundated in the D3 discussion over AFA rules). In the meantime can someone forward me Bruschke's post on this that Jake alludes to? CEDA-L messages are not all coming through. I am hesitant to post to ceda-l because of this. At least edebate is archived where I can easily see the 10-12 posts a day I miss. thanks, chief >>> 11/12/08 1:28 PM >>> I'd like to second Jon Bruschke's concern about problems related to MPJ across divisions. Based on our experience at the UNLV invitational tournament this year, respecting MPJ across divisions creates an odd problem. Most teams/coaches appear to simply copy the prefs (or copy them with slight modifications) for their JV and novice teams from one of their open teams. This means that the judges who are only Novice or JV elegible will be struck or ranked incredibly low by most JV and novice teams. Darren's example of his novice or JV teams wanting feedback from some of the most preferred judges in the country exemplifies this point... It means that they are much less interested in feedback from new judges who are learning/developing their judging skills. While I sympathise with Darrens point, in the end, we lost many, many, many elegible rounds of judging at our tournament because of MPJ across divisions. As Jon points out the other serious downside of this quandry is that many of the judges who could have learned and improved in the novice and JV divisions were summarily excluded from judging. I think the rule needs some serious revision (or at least the development of a new community understanding), 1) at a bare minimum, coaches or the folks who fill out prefs should not summarily dismiss novice or JV only elegible judges from judging their students. 2) Ideally, I believe that we should consider MPJ across divisions, but only within discrete judguing pools for each division. Here is my vision of how the system would work: if I bring a JV or novice team to a tourney, I could select a UNLV judge for that division (or even split that judge between 2 divisions--i.e. 2 uin JV and 2 in Open. That judge would be on the pref sheet only for the divisions that they were slated to judge in and would be ranked accordingly. Here are the benefits: a) each division still gets prefs b) fairly good judges would be entered in the pool for the JV and novice divisions--any of my assistant coaches are a perfect example. I'm sure that Darren's team would get great feedback from Grace Saez, etc. We'll take at least 1 JV team to the cal swing, and would be happy to dedicate a judge to that division only. c) the judge for your team judging in novice or JV can better coach the novice or JV team(s) they are judging for. They may have judged/scouted the competition and can give the team they are coaching more specific pre-round prep advise. d) no massive loss of elegible judging My two cents. Jake Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate From stables at usc.edu Wed Nov 12 14:05:20 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:05:20 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions In-Reply-To: <491AE168020000930001F745@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <491AE168020000930001F745@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <013e01c94501$fd460c80$f7d22580$@edu> CEDA-L uses the same platform as edebate and has the same archive system. CEDA-L archives are publicly available at http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/ The two lists are similar except that CEDA-L has a restricted posting membership. Emails may take a few minutes to process on either list. Folks may not also have their posting subscription enabled on both accounts. Jon's email is on the edebate archives at http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-November/076855.html 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 -----Original Message----- From: ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Darren Elliott Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:00 PM To: CEDA-L at ndtceda.com; edebate at ndtceda.com; Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions Jake, Interesting comments that I plan to give some thought to. (Right now inundated in the D3 discussion over AFA rules). In the meantime can someone forward me Bruschke's post on this that Jake alludes to? CEDA-L messages are not all coming through. I am hesitant to post to ceda-l because of this. At least edebate is archived where I can easily see the 10-12 posts a day I miss. thanks, chief >>> 11/12/08 1:28 PM >>> I'd like to second Jon Bruschke's concern about problems related to MPJ across divisions. Based on our experience at the UNLV invitational tournament this year, respecting MPJ across divisions creates an odd problem. Most teams/coaches appear to simply copy the prefs (or copy them with slight modifications) for their JV and novice teams from one of their open teams. This means that the judges who are only Novice or JV elegible will be struck or ranked incredibly low by most JV and novice teams. Darren's example of his novice or JV teams wanting feedback from some of the most preferred judges in the country exemplifies this point... It means that they are much less interested in feedback from new judges who are learning/developing their judging skills. While I sympathise with Darrens point, in the end, we lost many, many, many elegible rounds of judging at our tournament because of MPJ across divisions. As Jon points out the other serious downside of this quandry is that many of the judges who could have learned and improved in the novice and JV divisions were summarily excluded from judging. I think the rule needs some serious revision (or at least the development of a new community understanding), 1) at a bare minimum, coaches or the folks who fill out prefs should not summarily dismiss novice or JV only elegible judges from judging their students. 2) Ideally, I believe that we should consider MPJ across divisions, but only within discrete judguing pools for each division. Here is my vision of how the system would work: if I bring a JV or novice team to a tourney, I could select a UNLV judge for that division (or even split that judge between 2 divisions--i.e. 2 uin JV and 2 in Open. That judge would be on the pref sheet only for the divisions that they were slated to judge in and would be ranked accordingly. Here are the benefits: a) each division still gets prefs b) fairly good judges would be entered in the pool for the JV and novice divisions--any of my assistant coaches are a perfect example. I'm sure that Darren's team would get great feedback from Grace Saez, etc. We'll take at least 1 JV team to the cal swing, and would be happy to dedicate a judge to that division only. c) the judge for your team judging in novice or JV can better coach the novice or JV team(s) they are judging for. They may have judged/scouted the competition and can give the team they are coaching more specific pre-round prep advise. d) no massive loss of elegible judging My two cents. Jake Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l From berchnorto at msn.com Wed Nov 12 14:11:48 2008 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:11:48 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] MPJ across divisions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Four notes on the West Conn tournament: 1. Each division had 7 strikes, no other prefs. The tougher conditiion would be with prefs. 2. The fact that the novice division was the largest was probably the biggest factor in placing superstar judges in Novice (that's just where most of the judging was). 3. In each round, I first placed judges in the most constrained pool (Open), and worked my way to the least constrained. Gary's point about the order in which you place judges determining average preference between divisions doesn't apply when there are only strikes (regardless of division, everyone got non-struck judges, of course). 4. No judge was struck by more than 50% of teams, if memory serves me correctly. --Neil Berch West Virginia University >From: "V I Keenan" >To: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu >CC: edebate at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:54:06 -0500 > >I think the tab from West Point (Patrice/Rubino) and the tab from West Conn >have pretty good counter-examples of using preferred judges across >divisions >that we may want to examine. West Point does use an ABC/strike system in >all divisions. Of course, they also put the "lay" judges in Open Finals >... >but overall the recent move to prefs has worked very well for both years. >Joe and Kathryn may have some specific insight on this if we do a formal >follow-up. > >Neil Berch was primarily tabbing West Conn, which gave each division the >same amount of strikes I believe, but no additional prefs. Any tournament >that has Ken Strange judging multiple jv rounds and Sherry Hall giving >feedback to novices in prelims may also give us some insight into how to >ensure we allow our emerging debaters to have some of the best feedback >available.. (Sherry also judged elims in nov and jv, as did Ken). Also, 3 >of our most preferred judges in the entire region (based on past prefs) >also >judged all three divisions in the tournament. > >One common thing I know about both of these tab rooms is that they >primarily >leave things to the program, with only minor changes (Neil was very excited >when the computer decided that only women would judge in Open for one >round). But this may be affected by a second criteria - division numbers. > >West Point broke to partial-doubles in novice, West Conn broke to Octs. In >both tournaments novice was clearly the largest division. Assuming it is >the "biggest" division that is paired first or has the most break rounds, >it >could conceivably change the ordering priorities of tabulation. Of course, >these are also examples of tournaments where novice debate itself is a very >high priority. > >Finally, Jake brings up an interesting point about how "novice only >eligible" judges may skew preferencing. One criteria I would emphasize >that >affects this is the availability of judging philosophies. Many novice only >judges don't have them. In fact, if there is a lesser known judge with a >philosophy, versus one without, I think many of us prefer the more known >quantity. Most judges aren't a Jessica Yeats or a Josh Kernoff, who will >get rounds at Harvard whether or not they have a philosophy up (yes, that's >a reminder). A novice only judge is likely to have little-to-no >reputation, >making them automatically less preferred. In our region we have a number >of >Open debaters who regularly judge - and some can fill a commitment, and >some >can't, but if all other criteria are equal, in theory there shouldn't be as >much of a skew. > >I think an interesting tournament to look at might be Richmond - they have >offered the same type of prefering in ALL divisions for years (previously >just strike, now multiple categories). It might be a good start for a >"control" if we want to analyze the data. It has some novice only judges, >as well a diversity of argumentation leanings by both the debaters and the >judging pool, so it forces some choice more than some other larger Open >tournaments. The Novice teach in round might even offer an interesting >comparison for pairing 2 versus 3 divisions. > >I think ultimately it is important to understand that the MPJ rule will NOT >change the competitive or educational focus of a tournament that has >existed >historically. And I think that intent is a lot more of a factor than any >rule we can possibly make for the CEDA constitution. > >-VIK > > >2008/11/12 > > > > > I'd like to second Jon Bruschke's concern about problems related to MPJ > > across divisions. Based on our experience at the UNLV invitational > > tournament this year, respecting MPJ across divisions creates an odd > > problem. > > > > Most teams/coaches appear to simply copy the prefs (or copy them with > > slight modifications) for their JV and novice teams from one of their >open > > teams. This means that the judges who are only Novice or JV elegible >will > > be struck or ranked incredibly low by most JV and novice teams. >Darren's > > example of his novice or JV teams wanting feedback from some of the most > > preferred judges in the country exemplifies this point... It means that >they > > are much less interested in feedback from new judges who are > > learning/developing their judging skills. While I sympathise with >Darrens > > point, in the end, we lost many, many, many elegible rounds of judging >at > > our tournament because of MPJ across divisions. As Jon points out the >other > > serious downside of this quandry is that many of the judges who could >have > > learned and improved in the novice and JV divisions were summarily >excluded > > from judging. > > > > I think the rule needs some serious revision (or at least the >development > > of a new community understanding), > > > > 1) at a bare minimum, coaches or the folks who fill out prefs should not > > summarily dismiss novice or JV only elegible judges from judging their > > students. > > > > 2) Ideally, I believe that we should consider MPJ across divisions, but > > only within discrete judguing pools for each division. Here is my >vision of > > how the system would work: if I bring a JV or novice team to a tourney, >I > > could select a UNLV judge for that division (or even split that judge > > between 2 divisions--i.e. 2 uin JV and 2 in Open. That judge would be >on > > the pref sheet only for the divisions that they were slated to judge in >and > > would be ranked accordingly. > > > > Here are the benefits: > > a) each division still gets prefs > > b) fairly good judges would be entered in the pool for the JV >and > > novice divisions--any of my assistant coaches are a perfect example. >I'm > > sure that Darren's team would get great feedback from Grace >Saez, > > etc. We'll take at least 1 JV team to the cal swing, and would be happy >to > > dedicate a judge to that division only. > > c) the judge for your team judging in novice or JV can better >coach > > the novice or JV team(s) they are judging for. They may have >judged/scouted > > the competition and can give the team they are coaching more > > specific pre-round prep advise. > > d) no massive loss of elegible judging > > > > My two cents. > > > > Jake > > > > Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. > > Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum > > Assistant Professor In Residence > > Greenspun College of Urban Affairs > > Department of Communication Studies > > University of Nevada, Las Vegas > > 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 > > Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 > > office (702) 895-3474 > > fax (702) 895-4805 > > cell (702) 809-9670 > > > > Rebel Debate on the web: > > www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate > > _______________________________________________ > > CEDA-L mailing list > > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > > > > >-- >Vik Keenan >Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY >Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges >212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894 >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From joepatrice at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 14:13:52 2008 From: joepatrice at gmail.com (Joe Patrice) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:13:52 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] MPJ across divisions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Also, at West Point there was one instance of people not understanding that their rankings changed depending on the division of the team. But beyond that it worked OK. On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:11 PM, NEIL BERCH wrote: > Four notes on the West Conn tournament: > 1. Each division had 7 strikes, no other prefs. The tougher conditiion > would be with prefs. > 2. The fact that the novice division was the largest was probably the > biggest factor in placing superstar judges in Novice (that's just where > most > of the judging was). > 3. In each round, I first placed judges in the most constrained pool > (Open), and worked my way to the least constrained. Gary's point about the > order in which you place judges determining average preference between > divisions doesn't apply when there are only strikes (regardless of > division, > everyone got non-struck judges, of course). > 4. No judge was struck by more than 50% of teams, if memory serves me > correctly. > > --Neil Berch > West Virginia University > > >From: "V I Keenan" > >To: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu > >CC: edebate at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com > >Subject: Re: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions > >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:54:06 -0500 > > > >I think the tab from West Point (Patrice/Rubino) and the tab from West > Conn > >have pretty good counter-examples of using preferred judges across > >divisions > >that we may want to examine. West Point does use an ABC/strike system in > >all divisions. Of course, they also put the "lay" judges in Open Finals > >... > >but overall the recent move to prefs has worked very well for both years. > >Joe and Kathryn may have some specific insight on this if we do a formal > >follow-up. > > > >Neil Berch was primarily tabbing West Conn, which gave each division the > >same amount of strikes I believe, but no additional prefs. Any tournament > >that has Ken Strange judging multiple jv rounds and Sherry Hall giving > >feedback to novices in prelims may also give us some insight into how to > >ensure we allow our emerging debaters to have some of the best feedback > >available.. (Sherry also judged elims in nov and jv, as did Ken). Also, 3 > >of our most preferred judges in the entire region (based on past prefs) > >also > >judged all three divisions in the tournament. > > > >One common thing I know about both of these tab rooms is that they > >primarily > >leave things to the program, with only minor changes (Neil was very > excited > >when the computer decided that only women would judge in Open for one > >round). But this may be affected by a second criteria - division numbers. > > > >West Point broke to partial-doubles in novice, West Conn broke to Octs. > In > >both tournaments novice was clearly the largest division. Assuming it is > >the "biggest" division that is paired first or has the most break rounds, > >it > >could conceivably change the ordering priorities of tabulation. Of > course, > >these are also examples of tournaments where novice debate itself is a > very > >high priority. > > > >Finally, Jake brings up an interesting point about how "novice only > >eligible" judges may skew preferencing. One criteria I would emphasize > >that > >affects this is the availability of judging philosophies. Many novice > only > >judges don't have them. In fact, if there is a lesser known judge with a > >philosophy, versus one without, I think many of us prefer the more known > >quantity. Most judges aren't a Jessica Yeats or a Josh Kernoff, who will > >get rounds at Harvard whether or not they have a philosophy up (yes, > that's > >a reminder). A novice only judge is likely to have little-to-no > >reputation, > >making them automatically less preferred. In our region we have a number > >of > >Open debaters who regularly judge - and some can fill a commitment, and > >some > >can't, but if all other criteria are equal, in theory there shouldn't be > as > >much of a skew. > > > >I think an interesting tournament to look at might be Richmond - they have > >offered the same type of prefering in ALL divisions for years (previously > >just strike, now multiple categories). It might be a good start for a > >"control" if we want to analyze the data. It has some novice only judges, > >as well a diversity of argumentation leanings by both the debaters and the > >judging pool, so it forces some choice more than some other larger Open > >tournaments. The Novice teach in round might even offer an interesting > >comparison for pairing 2 versus 3 divisions. > > > >I think ultimately it is important to understand that the MPJ rule will > NOT > >change the competitive or educational focus of a tournament that has > >existed > >historically. And I think that intent is a lot more of a factor than any > >rule we can possibly make for the CEDA constitution. > > > >-VIK > > > > > >2008/11/12 > > > > > > > > I'd like to second Jon Bruschke's concern about problems related to MPJ > > > across divisions. Based on our experience at the UNLV invitational > > > tournament this year, respecting MPJ across divisions creates an odd > > > problem. > > > > > > Most teams/coaches appear to simply copy the prefs (or copy them with > > > slight modifications) for their JV and novice teams from one of their > >open > > > teams. This means that the judges who are only Novice or JV elegible > >will > > > be struck or ranked incredibly low by most JV and novice teams. > >Darren's > > > example of his novice or JV teams wanting feedback from some of the > most > > > preferred judges in the country exemplifies this point... It means that > >they > > > are much less interested in feedback from new judges who are > > > learning/developing their judging skills. While I sympathise with > >Darrens > > > point, in the end, we lost many, many, many elegible rounds of judging > >at > > > our tournament because of MPJ across divisions. As Jon points out the > >other > > > serious downside of this quandry is that many of the judges who could > >have > > > learned and improved in the novice and JV divisions were summarily > >excluded > > > from judging. > > > > > > I think the rule needs some serious revision (or at least the > >development > > > of a new community understanding), > > > > > > 1) at a bare minimum, coaches or the folks who fill out prefs should > not > > > summarily dismiss novice or JV only elegible judges from judging their > > > students. > > > > > > 2) Ideally, I believe that we should consider MPJ across divisions, but > > > only within discrete judguing pools for each division. Here is my > >vision of > > > how the system would work: if I bring a JV or novice team to a tourney, > >I > > > could select a UNLV judge for that division (or even split that judge > > > between 2 divisions--i.e. 2 uin JV and 2 in Open. That judge would be > >on > > > the pref sheet only for the divisions that they were slated to judge in > >and > > > would be ranked accordingly. > > > > > > Here are the benefits: > > > a) each division still gets prefs > > > b) fairly good judges would be entered in the pool for the JV > >and > > > novice divisions--any of my assistant coaches are a perfect example. > >I'm > > > sure that Darren's team would get great feedback from Grace > >Saez, > > > etc. We'll take at least 1 JV team to the cal swing, and would be > happy > >to > > > dedicate a judge to that division only. > > > c) the judge for your team judging in novice or JV can better > >coach > > > the novice or JV team(s) they are judging for. They may have > >judged/scouted > > > the competition and can give the team they are coaching more > > > specific pre-round prep advise. > > > d) no massive loss of elegible judging > > > > > > My two cents. > > > > > > Jake > > > > > > Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. > > > Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum > > > Assistant Professor In Residence > > > Greenspun College of Urban Affairs > > > Department of Communication Studies > > > University of Nevada, Las Vegas > > > 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 > > > Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 > > > office (702) 895-3474 > > > fax (702) 895-4805 > > > cell (702) 809-9670 > > > > > > Rebel Debate on the web: > > > www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate > > > _______________________________________________ > > > CEDA-L mailing list > > > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >Vik Keenan > >Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY > >Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges > >212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894 > > > >_______________________________________________ > >eDebate mailing list > >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081112/9043daee/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Wed Nov 12 14:57:21 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (lacyjp) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:57:21 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Missing Pre-Shirley Disclosure In-Reply-To: <4913917C.9040607@wfu.edu> References: <4913917C.9040607@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <491B4331.4040304@wfu.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081112/891137b6/attachment.htm From smithr at wfu.edu Wed Nov 12 15:38:15 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:38:15 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Shirley judge commitments -- please correct Message-ID: <491B4CC7.2060408@wfu.edu> From the invitation: Each school must provide 3 rounds of prelim judging for each of their first two teams and 4 rounds of judging for each additional team. Based on the latest info Larson has via debateresults, the following schools are short: Baylor - 1 Dartmouth -4 George Mason -1 Samford -3 Towson -1 Whitman -2 Wyoming -1 Please let Gary know how you will be fixing this. Thanks. -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org From davismk13 at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 15:47:48 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:47:48 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] App State Prefs Message-ID: <9a7f6f740811121347o13afc4b4x1588b826a9d6d135@mail.gmail.com> Are up and ready to go. Rank one third of the judges in each category (1, 2 or 3). Any questions. Just ask. -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From smithr at wfu.edu Wed Nov 12 15:51:08 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:51:08 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Child care needs at Shirley? Message-ID: <491B4FCC.4010704@wfu.edu> Let me know and we will provide for you. Thanks. -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org From lacyjp at wfu.edu Wed Nov 12 21:01:10 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:01:10 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Missing Pre-Shirley Disclosure In-Reply-To: <491B4331.4040304@wfu.edu> References: <4913917C.9040607@wfu.edu> <491B4331.4040304@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <491B9876.2050709@wfu.edu> Thanks to everyone who has posted information so far! As of 10 Eastern, below are the teams who are missing Pre-Shirley disclosure. If you haven't submitted intel, please post it to the wiki (Fast) or email it to reedac7 at wfu.edu & lacyjp at wfu.edu (Slow & Unreliable.) [This may be as easy as saying "Our stuff from X & Y tournament is accurate and complete."] If you need more details about how & what to submit, scroll to the bottom of this email. Thanks again! --JP Binghamton Matthew Torsiello & Bill Sebelle Aff/Neg Binghamton Lauren Cameron & Peter Fountain Aff/Neg California Mike Burshteyn & Jacob Polin Aff ADD ONS?? Case Western David Mattern & Andrew Wolf Aff/Neg City University NY Dima Povazhuk & Timothy Pimble Aff/Neg City University NY Kate Ortiz & Aubrey Semple Aff/Neg Clarion University Aaron Swanlek & Andrew Zachar Aff/Neg Concordia Ian Cero & Brett Lind Aff/Neg Aff/Neg CSU Fullerton Caitlin Gray & Bryce Bridge Aff/Neg Dartmouth Cyrus Akrami & Caroline Brandt Aff/Neg Emory Ovais Inamullah & Ana Nikolic Aff Emory Nicholas Miller & Chipp Schwab Aff Emory Stephen Weil & Matt Senghas Aff Emporia State U. Ryan Wash & LaToya Williams-Green Neg Florida State Matthew Rosenblum & Louis Paine Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Adam Herbert & Mark Offenbach Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Kyle Leinbach & Adam James Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Emily Owens & Janna Reynolds Neg George Washington Troy Roth & Jon Karlin Aff/Neg George Washington Tim Kellogg & Sunny Park Aff/Neg Georgetown Dorothy Hector & Lucy Zhu Aff Georgetown Cody Forrester & Bon Koo Aff Georgia State Kevin Bottoms & Josh Grace Neg *needs more neg intel Gonzaga Brent Hamilton & James Joseph Neg Gonzaga Karina Momary & Leah Moczulski Neg Harvard Tripp Rebrovick & Geoff Smith Aff Harvard Elizabeth Kim & Catalina Santos Neg Idaho State Lindsay Vanluvanee & Andrew Ridgeway Aff/Neg Idaho State Paul Montreuil & Danielle Jennings Aff/Neg Iowa Kiran Dhillon & Nat Olson Aff John Carroll Univers Brian Brossmann & Anthony Miranda Aff/Neg John Carroll Univers Andy Labuza & Chris Schroeder Aff/Neg Kansas (Univ. of) Brett Bricker & Nate Johnson Aff Kansas (Univ. of) Chris Stone & Mark Wilkins Neg Kansas (Univ. of) Erum Shah & Patrick Kennedy Aff/Neg Kansas State Rafi Ahmadullah & Brett Farmer Aff/Neg Kansas State Beth Mendenhall & Derek Ziegler Aff/Neg Kansas State John Grice & Jordan Hanson Aff/Neg Kentucky AJ O'Donnell & Mike Gentile Aff/Neg Kentucky Suneet Gautam & Bryan Gort Neg Liberty University Michelle Oh & Joshua Turnage Neg Liberty University Eddie Fitzgerald & Jeff White Neg Liberty University Amy Boyd & Ben Hagwood Aff/Neg Louisville Sarah Powell & Rosie Washington Aff/Neg Louisville Marian Kennedy & Chris Vincent Aff/Neg Michigan State Univ. Gustavo Eyzaguirre & Sam Shore Aff/Neg Michigan State Univ. Garrett Abelkop & Carly Wunderlich Aff/Neg Michigan University Maria Liu & Edmund Zagorin Aff/Neg Michigan University Lina Rudashevski & Lee Reed Aff/Neg Minnesota Arif Hasan & Logan Chin Aff/Neg Minnesota Daryl Pinto & Kelly Nickel Aff/Neg Missouri State Jordan Foley & Clay Webb Aff/ Missouri State Jace Gilmore & Aaron Kruse Aff/Neg Missouri-Kansas City Toni Jantz & Rachel Stevens Aff/Neg Missouri-Kansas City Andrew Allsup & Juan Garcia Aff/Neg Nevada Las Vegas Travis Cochran & Austin Mueller Aff/Neg North Texas (Univ.) Daniel Rowe & Brian Searles Aff/Neg North Texas (Univ.) Kuntal Cholera & Grant Peretz Neg Northwestern Matt Fisher & John Warden Aff Oklahoma R.J. Giglio & Nick Watts Aff/Neg Richmond (Univ. of) Mycal Kelly & James Farr Aff/Neg Richmond (Univ. of) Ashley Fortner & Liz Lauzon Aff/Neg Samford Dan Bagwell & Logan Gramzinski Neg Samford Jayme Cloninger & Ben Johnson Aff/Neg Southern California Mike Jones & Mima Lazarevic Neg Texas Hayden Schottlaender & Nick Whitaker Neg Texas Laura Boyle & Nick Scott Aff/Neg Texas Kenny Cauthen & Drew McNeil Aff/Neg Texas San Antonio Christopher Thomas & Andy Montee Aff/Neg Texas-Dallas Andrew Baker & Brian Rubaie Neg Towson Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love Aff/Neg Towson Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray Aff/Neg Towson Ignacio Evans & Ben Morgan Aff/Neg Trinity University john elson & Nick Burr Aff U.S. Naval Academy Laura Faulkner & Jessica Wilcox Aff/Neg U.S. Naval Academy Josh Palacios & Casey Sheldon Aff/Neg Wayne State Universi Geneva Hackler & Alex Pasquinelli Aff/Neg Wayne State Universi Baldomero Gonzalez & Michelle Kesling Aff/Neg Weber State Univ. Stacy Dawson & Shola Adesanwo Aff/Neg Weber State Univ. Isa Tausinga & Brian Bryngelson Aff/Neg West Georgia Jadon Marianetti & Zak Schaller Aff/Neg West Georgia Vince Binder & Jim Schultz Neg West Georgia Darcey McCampbell & Sara Simonis Aff/Neg Wichita State Matt Coleman & Eric Robinson Aff/Neg Wyoming Sam Allen & Jamie Piechura Aff/Neg Wyoming Travis Beach & Grae Harper Aff/Neg Wyoming Mike Bausch & Tony Johnson Aff/Neg On 11/6/2008 7:53 PM, JP Lacy wrote: >> [Summary: Post stuff on wiki soon. If you have intel that isn't "self >> disclosure" post that too.] >> >> Once again, we're looking forward to scouting the Shirley. >> >> Our goal is to upgrade the scouting at opencaselist.wikispaces.com as >> much as possible. This will take effort from each participant in the >> tournament. In the end, I hope the effort will pay off by helping >> everyone debate better. >> >> To facilitate scouting during the tournament, we need a good deal of >> pre-tournament information. That way, everyone scouting can focus on >> upgrading what we've already got & gathering new information. >> >> You can submit your information two ways: >> >> 1. Become a member of the wiki & post it (Easy, just label your stuff >> "Pre-Shirley") Just go to http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/ and click >> "join . . ." Be sure to include information that identifies you as a >> debater/coach for a school in your request to join. >> >> 2. Email it to me: lacyjp at wfu.edu (This way may work, but it's slow & >> doesn't get common cite requests out of your hair as quickly) >> >> >> Target deadline: Midnight, Wednesday, November 12. >> >> >> Expectations: >> >> Affirmative Disclosure-- >> >> Plan text(s) you've read. >> Complete 1ac outline(s) with full cites [Author, Source, Date,URL, page >> #s, First & Last phrases.] >> 2ac add-ons >> 2ac answers to common negative positions (including off case args & >> major case arguments) >> If your 1ac is not 'traditional', describe your affirmative in as much >> detail as necessary to provide the opposition the equivalent of the >> above. [Plus full cites for anything that can be cited] >> >> Negative Disclosure-- >> >> Basic rule: Disclose the quantity & quality of information you'd want >> from a team when you are affirmative. >> Include at minimum the generic strategies you've deployed thus far, with >> a complete outline & full citations as described above. >> >> I say this every year: A good norm to strive for is MSU's Pre-Shirley >> disclosure from the courts topic at >> http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/Michigan+State+Neg#toc2 >> >> We don't expect you to disclose new arguments. Keeping 'caselist-able' >> electronic versions of new arguments is a great idea. >> >> Thanks! >> --JP Lacy >> lacyjp at wfu.edu >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081112/2031b60a/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Nov 13 16:45:10 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (lacyjp) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:45:10 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Shirley Caselist Update Message-ID: <491CADF6.2080402@wfu.edu> We are missing information from the teams below. If you've already sent in stuff-just resend it--its probably lost in the ether. You can submit your information 2 ways: 1. Post it to the wiki 2. Email it: reedac7 at wfu.edu & lacyjp at wfu.edu Thanks! --JP Binghamton Matthew Torsiello & Bill Sebelle Aff/Neg Binghamton Lauren Cameron & Peter Fountain Aff/Neg City University NY Dima Povazhuk & Timothy Pimble Aff/Neg City University NY Kate Ortiz & Aubrey Semple Aff/Neg Concordia Ian Cero & Brett Lind Aff/Neg Aff/Neg Dartmouth Cyrus Akrami & Caroline Brandt Aff/Neg Emory Ovais Inamullah & Ana Nikolic Aff Emory Nicholas Miller & Chipp Schwab Aff Emory Stephen Weil & Matt Senghas Aff Florida State Matthew Rosenblum & Louis Paine Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Adam Herbert & Mark Offenbach Aff George Mason Univers Kyle Leinbach & Adam James Neg George Mason Univers Emily Owens & Janna Reynolds Neg George Washington Troy Roth & Jon Karlin Aff/Neg George Washington Tim Kellogg & Sunny Park Aff/Neg Gonzaga Karina Momary & Leah Moczulski Neg Idaho State Paul Montreuil & Danielle Jennings Aff/Neg John Carroll Univers Brian Brossmann & Anthony Miranda Neg John Carroll Univers Andy Labuza & Chris Schroeder Neg Kansas State Beth Mendenhall & Derek Ziegler Aff/Neg Kansas State John Grice & Jordan Hanson Aff/Neg Liberty University Eddie Fitzgerald & Jeff White Neg Liberty University Amy Boyd & Ben Hagwood Aff Louisville Sarah Powell & Rosie Washington Aff/Neg Louisville Marian Kennedy & Chris Vincent Aff/Neg Missouri-Kansas City Toni Jantz & Rachel Stevens Neg North Texas (Univ.) Daniel Rowe & Brian Searles Neg Richmond (Univ. of) Ashley Fortner & Liz Lauzon Neg Samford Dan Bagwell & Logan Gramzinski Neg Samford Jayme Cloninger & Ben Johnson Aff/Neg Texas Hayden Schottlaender & Nick Whitaker Neg Texas Laura Boyle & Nick Scott Aff Texas Kenny Cauthen & Drew McNeil Aff/Neg Texas-Dallas Andrew Baker & Brian Rubaie Neg Towson Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love Aff/Neg Towson Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray Aff/Neg Towson Ignacio Evans & Ben Morgan Aff/Neg U.S. Naval Academy Laura Faulkner & Jessica Wilcox Neg U.S. Naval Academy Josh Palacios & Casey Sheldon Neg Wayne State Universi Geneva Hackler & Alex Pasquinelli Aff/Neg Wayne State Universi Baldomero Gonzalez & Michelle Kesling Neg West Georgia Vince Binder & Jim Schultz Neg West Georgia Darcey McCampbell & Sara Simonis Aff/Neg Wichita State Matt Coleman & Eric Robinson Aff/Neg Wyoming Travis Beach & Grae Harper Aff/Neg Wyoming Mike Bausch & Tony Johnson Aff/Neg From smithr at wfu.edu Thu Nov 13 20:27:10 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:27:10 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] useful Shirley info Message-ID: <491CE1FE.9060902@wfu.edu> 1) Remember, if you have entry data that needs adjustment, Gary Larson needs it: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton dot edu 2) There is basic info here: http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/DixieClassic/DixieInvitation2008.htm 3) Judges: realize that you must make a decision within the allotted time: 2:45 from round starting time in prelims, 3:00 in elims. There is ample time allotted to move, eat, coach, etc. . Show up and START ROUNDS ON TIME. Bring a timer. Manage your time. Debaters use 10 minutes per team prep. Some are better at it than others. Judges have more than five times that amount of time to make a decision. Some are better at it than others. But if the debaters give you no good way to evaluate their debate in less than an hour, it's just time to flip the coin. 4) Twitter. You can get all the tournament news and updates (new cases being run, pairings about to be released, etc.) in real time during the tournament by following us on Twitter. If you are not already a follower . . . 1. Send a text message to 40404 (it doesn't matter what's in the text message) 2. You will then receive a text from twitter (40404) asking you to send your name to confirm you want a twitter mobile account (this may take a minute); reply to this message with your name. 3. Send a message to 40404 that contains "follow wfushirley" (as written exactly here with a space between follow and wakedebate, without the quotes) 4. You should receive a confirmation text from twitter saying that you'll receive wfushirley updates You can learn more about Twitter and sign up to send an recieve via AIM and other computer channels at twitter.com Restaurant list is being updated by Reed and Gonzalez, but if you have Friday night questions, I recommend Szechuan Palace above all else. Close to hotel Putters and Elizabeths are no brainers. Call or e-mail me for customized recommendations. Chilly but Sunny is the forecast. -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Nov 13 20:59:06 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:59:06 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Another Shirley List Update In-Reply-To: <491CADF6.2080402@wfu.edu> References: <491CADF6.2080402@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <491CE97A.8090300@wfu.edu> We're missing information from the teams below. If you've already sent in stuff-just resend it--its probably lost in the ether. If your information is the same as before, just say so! You can submit your information 2 ways: 1. Post it to the wiki 2. Email it: reedac7 at wfu.edu & lacyjp at wfu.edu Thanks! --JP Binghamton Lauren Cameron & Peter Fountain Aff/Neg City University NY Dima Povazhuk & Timothy Pimble Aff/Neg City University NY Kate Ortiz & Aubrey Semple Aff/Neg Concordia Ian Cero & Brett Lind Aff/Neg Emory Stephen Weil & Matt Senghas Aff Florida State Matthew Rosenblum & Louis Paine Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Adam Herbert & Mark Offenbach Aff George Mason Univers Kyle Leinbach & Adam James Neg George Mason Univers Emily Owens & Janna Reynolds Neg George Washington Troy Roth & Jon Karlin Aff/Neg George Washington Tim Kellogg & Sunny Park Aff/Neg Idaho State Paul Montreuil & Danielle Jennings Aff/Neg John Carroll Univers Brian Brossmann & Anthony Miranda Neg John Carroll Univers Andy Labuza & Chris Schroeder Neg Missouri-Kansas City Toni Jantz & Rachel Stevens Neg North Texas (Univ.) Daniel Rowe & Brian Searles Neg Richmond (Univ. of) Ashley Fortner & Liz Lauzon Neg Texas Hayden Schottlaender & Nick Whitaker Neg Texas Laura Boyle & Nick Scott Aff Texas Kenny Cauthen & Drew McNeil Aff/Neg Towson Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love Aff/Neg Towson Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray Aff/Neg Towson Ignacio Evans & Ben Morgan Aff/Neg U.S. Naval Academy Laura Faulkner & Jessica Wilcox Neg U.S. Naval Academy Josh Palacios & Casey Sheldon Neg West Georgia Vince Binder & Jim Schultz Neg West Georgia Darcey McCampbell & Sara Simonis Aff/Neg Wichita State Matt Coleman & Eric Robinson Aff/Neg Wyoming Travis Beach & Grae Harper Aff/Neg Wyoming Mike Bausch & Tony Johnson Aff/Neg From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Nov 13 23:21:16 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:21:16 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Yet another Shirley list update In-Reply-To: <491CE97A.8090300@wfu.edu> References: <491CADF6.2080402@wfu.edu> <491CE97A.8090300@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <491D0ACC.1030502@wfu.edu> Hurry up and get your info in! There are 14 affs we haven't heard from. We've got 24 teams who we are missing some intel on. Remember: 1. The basic rule--disclose what you expect from an opponent. 2. Your pre-tournament info drastically improves our scouting. If you like good intel on your opponents, send your stuff as soon as you can. Good intel improves everyone's debating! If you've already sent your disclosure-please resend it--its obviously lost somewhere along the line. If your information is the same as before, just let us know! You can submit your information 2 ways: 1. Post it to the wiki 2. Email it: reedac7 at wfu.edu & lacyjp at wfu.edu Thanks! --JP City University NY Dima Povazhuk & Timothy Pimble Aff/Neg City University NY Kate Ortiz & Aubrey Semple Aff/Neg Concordia Ian Cero & Brett Lind Aff/Neg Florida State Matthew Rosenblum & Louis Paine Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Adam Herbert & Mark Offenbach Aff George Mason Univers Kyle Leinbach & Adam James Neg George Mason Univers Emily Owens & Janna Reynolds Neg George Washington Troy Roth & Jon Karlin Aff/Neg George Washington Tim Kellogg & Sunny Park Aff/Neg Idaho State Paul Montreuil & Danielle Jennings Aff/Neg John Carroll Univers Brian Brossmann & Anthony Miranda Neg John Carroll Univers Andy Labuza & Chris Schroeder Neg Missouri-Kansas City Toni Jantz & Rachel Stevens Neg North Texas (Univ.) Daniel Rowe & Brian Searles Neg Richmond (Univ. of) Ashley Fortner & Liz Lauzon Neg Texas Hayden Schottlaender & Nick Whitaker Neg Towson Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love Aff/Neg Towson Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray Aff/Neg Towson Ignacio Evans & Ben Morgan Aff/Neg U.S. Naval Academy Laura Faulkner & Jessica Wilcox Neg U.S. Naval Academy Josh Palacios & Casey Sheldon Neg West Georgia Darcey McCampbell & Sara Simonis Aff/Neg Wyoming Travis Beach & Grae Harper Aff/Neg Wyoming Mike Bausch & Tony Johnson Aff/Neg From delliott at kckcc.edu Fri Nov 14 14:44:02 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:44:02 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] CEDA Elections Call for Nominations Message-ID: <20081114T144402Z_0A6D00070001@kckcc.edu> Community members, I am sending this out on behalf of the nominatiing committee. At NCA during the CEDA Business Meeting, we will entertain nominations for the offices up for election this year. At the close of the Business Meeting, all nominations will be closed. That means you have about 1 week to nominate for the following positions. Please send your nominations to myself by replying to this email or to Jeff Jarman at jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu or Mike Davis at davismk13 at gmail.com There are no term limits, so people can serve in a position more than once. Open Offices: 2nd Vice President (will assume the role of 1st Vp in 2nd year of term and President in 3rd year of term. member of the Executive Council) Topic Committee Rep (at large seat with a 3 year obligation) Regional Reps from the following Regions: (2 year term, member of the Executive Council) Northwest West Mid-America East Central Southeast Central Southeast thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081114/9cc3d649/attachment.htm From dbuescher at ups.edu Fri Nov 14 15:29:38 2008 From: dbuescher at ups.edu (Derek T Buescher) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:29:38 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Forensics Assessment, Evaluation, Tenure, Review and Promotion Message-ID: Apologies for multiple listing--I was using my gmail account which is not registered to the lists. This is also a slightly modified letter from the other version caught somewhere in the "tubes." Derek ____________________________ Dear Colleagues, At the annual Northwest Forensics Conference meeting held this last September at the University of Washington, I was placed in charge of a committee to plan a one day conference entitled: ?A Conversation about Forensics Assessment? which will take place on September 11, 2009 at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. The immediate and prescient purpose of this conference is to examine educational assessment as it pertains to forensics and to assist forensics programs in meeting increasing demands for pedagogical assessment, professional development and review, and programmatic assessment and accreditation. The issues before the conference are important issues to the future of forensics education and the continuing opportunities of students to participate in forensics as an educational enterprise. Although there are many approaches and topics that the conference may cover, I am going to do my best to limit the day in order to provide both a fruitful conversation and generate substantive outcomes (or statements) about forensics education that may assist best our programs and our careers. I write to ask you both if you are interested in attending the conference and for some initial information, some basics for data collection, and your thoughts and feedback as we move forward. My goal is to collect this information from as many programs as possible and create a database of information that will assist our committee to create a useful assessment of current similarities and differences across participating programs, a collection of relevant information and models of evaluation and development, and, importantly, a productive conversation next September. First, a list of items I hope to solicit: ? The job title and description of your academic position (simple, no more than a paragraph) including information on your teaching load and requirements ? A copy of the University/College and departmental criteria used to evaluate your position whether in the case of cyclic reviews and/or promotions and tenure ? Your latest review statement (the forensics sections only) and only if willing ? A brief description (narrative) of your forensics program?number of students, types of competition, number of tournaments, means of funding, relationship to an academic department, leadership (i.e. student run or faculty led), etc. ? Any pertinent guiding educational documents--University/College/departmental/programmatic mission statements, philosophies, etc. ? Any pertinent information regarding recent programmatic assessments including documents submitted for accreditation and/or review If you wish to participate, please submit the above information no later than February 1, 2009. Second, I invite your comments and feedback regarding a few starter questions (while I also realize these are long and open-ended questions. Please respond as you see fit): ? In what ways, if any, has the role of forensics education relative to your university setting changed during the course of your involvement? (Has the program funding altered in any dramatic ways? Have new tenure lines been created or old ones eliminated? Has your program altered its participation in professional organizations and styles or practices of forensics competition and education?) ? In what ways is your forensics program a professional program (that is, akin to or on par with other academic programs), or professionalized in its directing position? Has your institution?s forensics program had its professional status altered in any substantive ways? For instance, has it lost or created tenure line positions? Has its directing role been moved from tenure line faculty to graduate students, or is/has the program become student run? ? In what ways do existing forensics organizations meet or fail to meet your professional development needs? Your program?s educational needs? Your institution?s educational needs? ? How best might this committee?s efforts serve your interests and needs regarding forensics education, professional development, and forensics assessment? ? What other materials or assistance might you, your program, or your institution need for effective assessment and professional development? As information becomes available and we are able to document our current status as forensics educators and develop helpful materials for forensics education and the educators of forensics relative to their professional and programmatic development we will make every effort to make this information accessible to all. Most importantly, we hope to create a discussion ahead of the curve of contemporary models of educational assessment, to position forensics at the forefront of educational assessment models. And, we hope to make this merely the beginning of an ongoing conversation. To facilitate the collection of this information I have created a new gmail.com account at forensicseducation at gmail.com. Please send all information to that account. If you are interested in attending the conference please let me know and I will provide information. Sincerely, Derek Buescher Associate Professor and Director of Forensics University of Puget Sound -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081114/664d493f/attachment.htm From smithr at wfu.edu Fri Nov 14 21:54:27 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:54:27 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] NDT committee meeting during round 2 Message-ID: <491E47F3.6070307@wfu.edu> At Wake, Room A3, Tribble Hall. 11:15 a.m. -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org From smithr at wfu.edu Sat Nov 15 14:31:38 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:31:38 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] REAL Sunday Shirley schedule Message-ID: <491F31AA.6030400@wfu.edu> OOPS -- hundreds of people saw this but no one noticed the flaw. Therefore, real schedule is: 8 am pairings 9 am round 5 start 11:45 round 5 decision deadline 12:00 noon round 6 pairings 12:45 round 6 start 3:30 round 6 decision deadline 3:45 first elim round pairings 4:30 first elim start 7:30 first elim decision deadline 7:15 banquet start -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org From davismk13 at gmail.com Sat Nov 15 19:40:02 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:40:02 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Teams Clearing at App State Message-ID: <9a7f6f740811151740i63314fcfgfe3e94247542ad5d@mail.gmail.com> App State Team Clearing Open Liberty/Capital AC 6 Liberty BP 6 Liberty GW 5 Liberty JS 5 Vandy LM 3 JV Miami FR Vandy AJ Novice GMU BT 3 Miami HR 3 JMU AW 5 Liberty AS 6 Liberty AT 5 Liberty CD 3 Liberty ET 5 Liberty HL 4 Vandy EM 5 Vandy CG 4 Vandy KO 4 -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From smithr at wfu.edu Sun Nov 16 10:58:30 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:58:30 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Wake round 6 Message-ID: <49205136.4050202@wfu.edu> attached -- elims mostly in Greene with the rest in Carswell Sandwiches outside of Tribble now. -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: round 6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12281 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081116/02cd5135/attachment.pdf From dave at miami.edu Mon Nov 17 17:33:32 2008 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:33:32 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] NCA Reception Invitation Message-ID: You're Invited! The University of Miami School of Communication cordially invites you to a cocktail reception 2008 NCA Convention Friday, November 21, 8:00 - 10:00 p.m. Meeting Room Emma C Manchester Grand Hyatt David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081117/31aa4913/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCA Recep Invite Postcard v1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1533919 bytes Desc: NCA Recep Invite Postcard v1.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081117/31aa4913/attachment-0001.pdf From dave at miami.edu Mon Nov 17 19:50:24 2008 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:50:24 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Emory v. Miami Dade College on-line debate Message-ID: Please share this with other debate and student lists. Thank you! Tuesday Nov. 18 9pm EST Emory University v Miami Dade College (produced by University of Miami) Topic: Globalization log onto www.wethestudents.tv to watch the debate live, comment and ask questions to the debaters! David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, Lecturer in Communication Studies University of Miami PO Box 248127 Coral Gables, FL 33124 FLW 3015 305-284-5553 204-385-5216 (fax) dave at miami.edu http://debate.miami.edu/ From dave at miami.edu Tue Nov 18 06:13:36 2008 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:13:36 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Participate in a Live Debate Tonight! Message-ID: Please forward about WTS show tonight! Thank you! VOICE YOUR OPINION! Share your thoughts on Globalization with college students from across the country TONIGHT on the UMTV show, We the Students! Join debaters from Emory University and Miami-Dade College in their debate on the benefits and consequences of globalization. Log onto www.wethestudents.tv at 9pm EST to view the live debate, make comments and ask questions for the debaters to answer during the show! For more information check out We the Students on Facebook! David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081118/e9d78b81/attachment.htm From shahall at comcast.net Wed Nov 19 01:52:05 2008 From: shahall at comcast.net (Sherry Hall) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:52:05 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] NDT Subscription Update Message-ID: <005b01c94a1b$b7558f60$6c02a8c0@PowerspecPc> Greetings! I have just received the list of schools that paid their subscriptions to the NDT via the AFA website in October. This list represents all schools who have either paid me directly (through the Wake Forest tournament) or paid via the AFA site through the end of October. If you paid on the AFA site after October 31, you can send me an electronic copy of your receipt. I will receive another update from James Pratt in Mid December. If your name is not on this list then as far as I know, you have not yet subscribed. According to the Standing Rules of the Board of Trustees, the fee for subscribing has now doubled from $50.00 to $100.00. Please keep in mind that that fee will increase to $150.00 on December 15. The final deadline for subscribing is January 15, 2009. In order to participate in the district qualifying tournament, the at-large bid processes and the NDT itself you must have subscribed by January 15. I will be at the NCA convention this weekend and will be prepared to accept payments (cash or check). You can mail a check made out to "The National Debate Tournament" to my home: 324 Franklin St, Cambridge, MA, 02139. Finally, you can pay via the AFA website (this is the only way to pay by credit card). Here is the updated list as of November 19, 2008. Sherry NDT 2008-2009 Subscribers Binghamton University Boston College California Polytechnic University California State University @ Chico California State University @ Northridge City University of New York Clarion College Columbia University Concordia College Dartmouth College Eastern New Mexico University George Mason University George Washington University Gonzaga University Harvard University Illinois College Illinois State University Johnson County Community College Kansas State University Liberty University Macalaster Marist College Mary Washington University Methodist University Michigan State University New York University Northwestern University Pepperdine University Redlands Sacramento State University Samford University San Francisco State University Southern Methodist University Towson University Trinity University United States Naval Academy University of California @ Berkeley University of Central Oklahoma University of Florida University of Georgia University of Kansas University of Kentucky University of Miami - Ohio University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Missouri @ Kansas City University of Nevada @ Las Vegas University of North Texas University of Notre Dame University of Pittsburgh University of Richmond University of Rochester University of Texas @ Austin University of Texas @ Dallas University of Tulsa University of Vermont Wake Forest University Weber State West Virginia Western Connecticut State University Whitman College Wichita State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081119/8b310afb/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Wed Nov 19 09:27:38 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:27:38 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Baltimore College Debate Message-ID: <6F716B8E03F443D1A81342731119E9C9@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Mid Atlantic Fall Championships Starts:12/6/2008 Ends:12/7/2008 Hosted by: Baltimore College Debate Contact: Andy Ellis Address: 1800 n. charles street suite 906 baltimore, md 21218 Phone: 240-285-0843 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 5 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos jv with 5 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Novice with 5 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 Nov 19 15:59:58 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:59:58 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] USC - Alan Nichols Tournament Hotel Message-ID: <03c901c94a92$29b9e8a0$7d2db9e0$@edu> Apologies to all for the delays. The full invite will be up shortly. The seven round tournament for Open, JV and Novice (entries permitting) tournament will be running from January 3-5, 2009. I wanted to get the hotel information up so folks can go ahead and make their reservations. We have once again secured a block of rooms at the Sheraton Los Angeles Downtown Hotel. This is the same property that we have used in previous years. We are pleased to have secured a $109.00 per night rate for up to four guests per room at this property. We realize this is an increase over past years, but the changing nature of downtown hotel properties has made our historical rate structure difficult to maintain. Contact the hotel at (213) 488-3500 to make reservations. Ask for the block for the 'USC Debate Squad.' We strongly encourage you to use this option. New Year's in Los Angeles can be very expensive. Making reservations outside the block with the Sheraton can cost you at least $199 per room over those dates. The block is available on a first-come, first-serve basis to our guests. The block typically fills so please reserve as early as possible. You can access the Sheraton's website to find more information about the property or contact them. 711 South Hope Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone (213) 488-3500 Fax (213) 488-4110 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081119/e1bf32e7/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 92 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081119/e1bf32e7/attachment.gif From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Wed Nov 19 18:42:24 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:42:24 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Southern California Message-ID: <76636D260CC14EDFB34ED690233BE97A@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:USC 'Alan Nichols' Debate Tournament Starts:1/3/2009 Ends:1/5/2009 Hosted by: Southern California Contact: Gordon Stables Address: Annenberg School for Communication - USC, Los Angeles, CA 90089 Phone: 213-740-2759 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: Open with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles JV with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Novice with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified 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 scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu Nov 20 13:11:34 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:11:34 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] Professional Responsibility Amendment Message-ID: <1227208294.4925b66677aac@webmail.grandecom.net> Dear Colleagues: I support the Professional Responsibility amendment. I won?t be at NCA. However, I would like to raise a few key issues that I believe may be overlooked in the drive to protect academic freedom and free speech at all costs. (1) Predators and miscreants. Some have argued in posts that the University policies of employers are enough to check abuse. If the person in question has behaved egregiously enough, they can be fired. That solves the problem. This is incorrect for a few key reasons: a. University employers often enter into settlement agreements with professors that allow them to exit the university gracefully and with secrecy of past indiscretions. The professor can then get hired on at another university and can resume his or her activities. For example, and merely a hypothetical (cough, cough) example, Professor X coerces his debaters to purchase drugs for them, or a coercive sexual relationship ensues. Professor X is asked to quietly leave his university. He then is hired to coach at another school. This person would be on the circuit with other students and there is nothing that we as an organization can do about it. As a community, we should be able to weed out the bad apples. But, as it currently stands, there is nothing we can do. b. If someone does behave egregiously at a tournament sanctioned by CEDA, there is currently no mechanism for the Association to take action against that person unless it is sexual harassment. Even the sexual harassment clause is so weak that it is ineffective. So, person Y shows up to a round strung out on heroin, or any other bad thing like literally showing your ass there is nothing in the CEDA Constitution that allows the community to enforce any standards or to notify that person?s home institution. CEDA should have a process by which, after some element of due process, it can notify the bad actor?s employer so more action can be taken. c. Sometimes Universities do not take action on issues that we may consider to be unprofessional. For example, take fabrication of evidence. It may be a big deal to those within the community, but I doubt it is an offense worthy of firing someone. Other examples of inconsistent enforcement abound. We need only look at the incident that sparked this discussion to see that there were inconsistent outcomes for the parties at issue. (2) The legal liability issue. I guess it?s the lawyer in me that keeps worrying about this point. Free speech and academic freedom anarchists in the community just don?t seem to get it. There are real world implications our Association?s inaction on this issue. If we have a pattern of tolerating everything and anything, then CEDA could be liable at some level for damages. Extending on the predators example given above, if we just have a laizzie faire attitude towards the professionals in this activity, and we have knowledge of their past misdeeds, and something does happen, CEDA is possibly liable. Just being named in a lawsuit is bad enough. Defending such a suit is expensive and could bankrupt the organization. Worse, not having a Professional Responsibility code would hurt the Association?s ability to defend itself. Granted, we cannot stop bad things from happening just by enacting an enforceable set of rules. But we can show a judge or a jury that we did everything in our Association?s power to protect students. (3) Pathological periods. Martin Reddish, a 1st Amendment scholar wrote an article regarding ?pathological periods.? In a nutshell, he argued that core 1st Amendment rights were in danger of being rolled back because Free Expression was being trivialized. During pathological periods such as a war or national crisis, the trivialization would be used as an excuse to rollback 1st Amendment rights and other rights, even to the detriment of core free speech (political dissent). I personally think that policy debate is about to enter into a pathological period. In fact, I think we have seen the first volley from the administrations at Pitt and Fort Hays State University. We have seen the second volley from some ass Parly coach at Yale who apparently thinks anyone debating from a land grant institution should be shot on sight. In case you have not heard about it, the country is in a major recession. This means that your ivory towers are about to collide with the realities of the markets and the taxpayers in your respective states. Even the Ivy league schools like Harvard are beginning to do cut backs in programs because their stock portfolios have been slashed by as much at 30%. So what is the point? The point is that allowing total and absolute freedom within this activity with little to no real check risks the enemies of the activity using the excesses to crush it. Total freedom and an ?animal house? attitude toward debate risks having competitors for ever dwindling resources point to these excesses as an excuse to cut program budgets. If administrators see debate as having little value, then it is easy to cut the program in a time of fiscal trouble. Mere public relations saying ?well, that only happens a few times,? will not be enough. It really does take only one bad example to ruin the reputation of CEDA. Nobody is going to report the final round in which the competitors ended the debate with a hug. Nobody is going to report when one debater helps another. What will always take center stage is the equivalent of a mid-air collision. My fear is that our community?s tolerance will be used by our enemies to undermine policy debate. I too have concerns about some of the language. In fact, I originally preferred a more detailed list of behaviors subject to sanction. Regardless, the proposed amendment allows for multiple levels of due process, investigation and appeals. As a contrarian on many of the issues within this community, and as someone who has been known to cuss more than a few people out, I too fear a ?witchhunt? mentality. However, I believe the due process sections and the appeals sections provide enough protection for individuals accused of unprofessional conduct. Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D., J.D. Director of Debate U.L.-Lafayette From stables at usc.edu Thu Nov 20 18:54:39 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:54:39 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] CEDA Schedule and Agenda for NCA Meetings Message-ID: <004301c94b73$bb7837b0$3268a710$@edu> There are many great NCA sessions. We encourage you to review those items and to join us for a many of them, including the business meetings. The full schedule of meetings and agenda is below. If you cannot attend the business meeting on Saturday, but would like to cast a proxy vote, the form is available online at http://www.cedadebate.org/?q=proxy Meeting schedule: 1. CEDA Executive Committee Meeting, Fri, Nov 21 - 8:00am - 9:15am, Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 734 2. The CEDA Business Meeting is scheduled for Saturday, November 22, from 12:30 - 1:45 in the Manchester Grand Hyatt / Parlor Room 824 3. CEDA President's Roundtable , Sat, Nov 22 - 2:00pm - 3:15pm, Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 824 4. CEDA Topic Meeting, Sun, Nov 23 - 8:00am - 9:15am, Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 605 CEDA Meeting Agenda NCA 2008 November 2008 Agenda I. Reports A. President Report (Gordon Stables for Darren Elliott) a. Heather Walters has agreed to be at the meetings and serve as a Presidential-Appointed Recording Secretary. b. CEDA Nationals Novice BreakOut Award i. CEDA Nationals 2009 will, for the first time, offer a Novice breakout bracket, culminating in the crowning of a CEDA recognized Champion among Novice Debate Teams. Once preliminary rounds are concluded, a separate bracket will be created among Novice eligible teams. Both debaters must be eligible based on CEDA's definition of Novice. I will work with Tab Room Director Gary Larson to determine the appropriate number of teams (hopefully at least Quarters) and when the best time to begin these rounds based on room availability and judges. B. 2009 CEDA National Tournament Host Report--Sarah Partlow-Lefevre C. 1st VP & Topic Committee Report - Gordon Stables a. 2009 Summer Meetings - Debate Summit and Development Conference i. Wake Forest University - June 2-9 1. Business meeting 2. Topic meeting 3. Debate Summit and Development Conference b. 2009 Awards c. Ad Hoc Committee on Curriculum d. Insurance Policy Review (via Kelly McDonald) e. Financial Emergency Planning Initiative f. Topic Committee Update g. Bid to host 2010 - (see below. This item was already provided to the membership in the Fall 2008 newsletter) UC Berkeley is pleased to submit a bid to host the 2010 CEDA National tournament. It is our hope to, for the first time, host both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. Dates: March 25-28, 2010. The NDT will run March 20-23. This falls during Cal's spring break and if it coincides with other schools spring bring this will significantly minimize the amount of school missed by students who attend both tournaments. Hotel: The hotel we have selected is the Oakland Marriott City Center. We have secured a block of 175 rooms all of which are doubles, though people can request kings for the same cost. The rate for the event is $117 which includes free internet. The Oakland Marriott is in the heart of downtown Oakland and is minutes from several bars and restaurants (including Oakland's Chinatown) as well as the Oakland BART station. There will be no shortage of great restaurants and nightlife opportunities in Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco. The hotel is also connected to the Oakland Convention Center and elimination rounds on the final day of the tournament would all be held there. We are in the process of negotiating a reduced parking rate at the hotel (anyone who has spent time in the Bay Area knows that parking is hard to come by and expensive) and are hopeful we will be able to get parking reduced to around $15 per day. This will also be the same hotel used for the NDT. We will also have ample space at the hotel for a student party and for any and all meetings that need to take place. One final note with regards to our bid. The room reservation office on our campus has a strict policy of not reserving rooms until 1 year before the event. We have a close relationship with this office and the Director of the office assured me that it was very, very unlikely that there would be any group on campus attempting to use rooms over Spring Break, but there is a small chance that this would effect our ability to host. If it does we will know by March 2009 and will thus have time to make alternative preparations. Thank you very much for your consideration of our bid. Greg Achten and Dave Arnett, Co-Directors of Forensics, UC Berkeley D. 2nd VP Report - Sue Peterson E. Treasurer Report - ML Sandoz F. Exec Sec Report - Jeff Jarman New website www.cedadebate.org G. Journal Editor Report - Al Louden H. Committee Reports II. New Business: A. Elections - We have many positions to elect and still need interested members of our community. Nominations for all open positions close at the business meeting. At the close of the Business Meeting, all nominations will be closed. There are no term limits, so people can serve in a position more than once. 1. 2nd Vice President (will assume the role of 1st Vp in 2nd year of term and President in 3rd year of term. Member of the Executive Council) * Andy Ellis * Vik Keenan * * Jason Russell * Mike Davis * 2. Topic Committee Rep (at large seat with a 3 year obligation) * Jake Thompson * Scott Elliott * Jason Russell * Dave Arnett Regional Reps from the following Regions: (2 year term, member of the Executive Council) 3. Northwest - Derek Buescher 4. West - Kristen Tudor * 5. Mid-America - Darren Elliott 6. East Central 7. Southeast Central 8. Southeast - Dave Steinberg * ( * = not yet confirmed) B. Professional Code of Conduct Amendment The amendment is available online at http://www.cedadebate.org/?q=node/220 III. Discussion Items * Does participation in public forum debate in high school count against novice eligibility? * CEDA Region redistricting. * Future of CEDA role with listservs and websites. * New recording and publication policy 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081120/df647dfa/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Sat Nov 22 13:47:57 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:47:57 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] NCA - CEDA Business Meeting Message-ID: The room for the CEDA Business Meeting (and the President's Roundtable) have been moved from 824 at the Hyatt to room 868. Please also check the CEDA website for updated agenda and amendment information. www.cedadebate.org Thanks. Gordon Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From stables at usc.edu Sat Nov 22 14:08:50 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:08:50 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Ceda meeting update Message-ID: Please ignore the earlier message. The hyatt incorrectly listed a room move. The ceda meetings are still in room 824 as originally scheduled. Gordon From stables at usc.edu Tue Nov 25 00:06:33 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:06:33 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Update from CEDA Meetings at NCA Message-ID: <002001c94ec3$f781d4c0$e6857e40$@edu> Thanks to everyone who took part in the meetings over the last few days. The minutes from the minutes, along with the list of folks nominated for office are now available on the CEDA website http://www.cedadebate.org/ The news from NCA is the top story on the page. To answer Neil's question, the professional conduct amendment passed in the meeting and will be now sent for a vote of the membership. This will be on the same ballot with the officer elections. Thanks and happy holidays to all. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081124/d681eca2/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Tue Nov 25 14:46:31 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:46:31 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] FW: AFA Distinguished Service Award Recipient for 2008 - Duane Fish Message-ID: <006201c94f3e$e5cb6a90$b1623fb0$@edu> -----Original Message----- From: Kelly McDonald [mailto:Kelly.McDonald at asu.edu] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 2:06 PM To: gordon stables Subject: FW: AFA Distinguished Service Award Recipient for 2008 - Duane Fish Gordon - Can you post this to CEDA - L. Kelly As Chair of the American Forensic Association's Professional Development Committee it is my honor to announce the 2008 recipient of the AFA Distinguished Service Award is Dr. Duane Fish of Northwest College. Duane has been Director of Forensics at Northwest College since 1976 and Communication Division Chair since 1992. Numerous organizations have recognized Duane's longtime commitment to teaching and service, especially in regard to his work with forensics. Among some of his awards are: being acknowledged by his alma mater honoring him with the "Distinguished Alumni" award in 2006, recipient of the Outstanding Teaching Award in 2004 by the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development, was recognized for Distinguished Service by Phi Rho Pi in 2004, Michael Peterson Service to Debate Award in 2003, the B. Aubrey Fisher Award in 1992, Service Award from Phi Rho Pi in 1986 and induction into the Montanta State University Hall of Fame in 1981. District IX is stronger and better for Duane's service to high school and collegiate speech and debate and the AFA is honored to present Professor Duane R. Fish with the 2008 Distinguished Service Award. It is also my pleasure to announce that the recipient of the 2008 Speaker of the Year goes to the late actor Paul Newman for his tireless campaigning on behalf of progressive causes through the nation and around the world and his generous philanthropic work through his food products company 'NEWMAN'S OWN,' which has donated more than a quarter billion dollars to charities since its inception. Please join us at the AFA business meeting when Dr. Fish is presented his award and later on Thursday evening for the AFA / Forensic Organizations co-sponsored reception. AFA Business Meeting Time: Thursday, Nov 20 - 4:00pm - 5:30pm Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Elizabeth B AFA Reception Time: Thursday, Nov 20 - 7:00pm - 10:00pm Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Elizabeth B An updated list of past award winners follows: Speaker of the Year 2008 Paul Newman, Actor, Humanitarian and Philanthropist 2007 Former Vice President Albert Gore 2006 Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi 2005 Nina Tottenberg, National Public Radio 2004 Christopher Reeve, Actor and Advocate for Medical Research 2003 Janet Reno, Former Attorney General of the United States 2001 Jimmy Carter, The Carter Center, Atlanta 1999 Parents Campaign Against Violence in the Schools 1998 Kofi Annan, Secretary General, United Nations 1997 Franklyn Haiman, President, American Civil Liberties Union 1996 Bill Moyers, Public Broadcasting System 1995 Barbara Jordan, Professor of Law, University of Texas 1994 Brian Lamb, C-SPAN 1993 Hillary Rodham Clinton, First Lady of the United States 1992 Barbara Jordan, Professor of Law, University of Texas 1991 William Brennan, Justice, United States Supreme Court 1990 Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law, Harvard University 1989 Dianne Feinstein, Mayor, San Francisco 1988 Ann Richards, Governor, Texas 1987 C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General of the United States 1986 Franklin Zimring 1985 Richard Lamb, Governor, Colorado 1984 Paul Simon, United States Senator, Illinois 1983 Larry Pressler, United States Senator, South Dakota 1982 Joshua B. Everett 1981 Thomas Bradley, Mayor, Los Angeles, California 1980 Bishop Fulton J. Sheen 1979 Henry Cisneros, Mayer, San Antonio, Texas Distinguished Service Awards 2008 Duane Fish Northwest College 2007 Allan Louden Wake Forest University 2006 Melissa Wade Emory University 2005 David Hingstman University of Iowa 2004 Dale Herbeck Boston College 2003 James F. Klumpp University of Maryland 2002 Guy Yates West Texas A & M University 2001 James A. Johnson Colorado College 2000 Jerry M. Goldberg Pace University, New York 1999 Joseph W. Wenzel University of Illinois, Urbana 1998 James W. Pratt Univ. f Wisc., River Falls 1997 Rebecca Bjork University of Utah 1996 V. William Balthrop University of North Carolina 1995 Larry Schnoor Mankato State University 1994 Jerry Anderson Concordia College (MN) 1993 Scott Nobles Macalester College 1992 Walter Ulrich University of Northern Iowa 1991 Gerald Sanders Miami University (Ohio) 1990 Raymie McKerrow University of Maine 1989 David Zarefsky Northwestern University 1988 Donn Parson University of Kansas 1987 Vernon McGuire Texas Tech University 1986 Jack Howe Cal State- Long Beach 1985 Malcolm Sillars University of Utah 1984 Wayne Brockriede University of Colorado 1983 Lucy Keele California State - Fullerton 1982 Glenn Capp Baylor University 1981 George Ziegelmueller Wayne State University 1980 Austin J. Freeley John Carroll University 1979 Annabel Hagood University of Alabama Kelly M. McDonald, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Communication School of Letters and Sciences Arizona State University - Downtown Campus 411 N. Central Ave., Suite 300 Phoenix AZ 85004-0694 Office: 345 University Center Direct line: (602) 496-0652 Fax: (602) 496-0655 Email: kelly.mcdonald at asu.edu http://sls.asu.edu/ From davismk13 at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 22:05:56 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:05:56 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] 2nd VP Statement Message-ID: <9a7f6f740811252005q3b563266t98df5e786b519af5@mail.gmail.com> I've been in CEDA as long as I have been involved in debate. I joined back in 1991 as a college debater who, like many of our students, did not debate in college. I have served for nine years a regional representative and have been to every summer meeting since 1994 (except one) and CEDA Nationals since 1992 (except one). I have been the chair of numerous committees and have tried to serve whenever I felt my assistance was needed. I have been asked to run for second VP before, but have always declined previous. So why am I running now? Being a CEDA officer is a difficult and thankless job, but I love the Cross Examination Debate Association. I love what we represent because it was the organization that welcomed someone like me into it with no previous experience as has let me continue to serve for all these years. When I look at my debaters I know that I have made the right choice sticking around as long as I have and I am running now because I want to make sure that as many debaters as possible have the opportunity to participate. Despite my undying love for CEDA, I know that our organization is far from perfect. We are smaller than we were 10 or 20 years ago and that is inexcusable. The role I have had with CEDA that I am the most proud of is my position as chair of the Program Development and Retention Committee. We have worked to pass rules changes that reduce tournament entry fees, waive CEDA membership fees and, starting this year, secure free evidence for emerging programs. Our work is just getting started, but I believe that the best way to ensure the future of our organization is to ensure that as many schools as possible are competing. If elected this will be the most important item on my agenda because I think without new programs our other goals all become more difficult. We also need to do more to be proactive in promoting what we do well. I agree with Russell, I don't think debate is in trouble. I actually love what we do and am not afraid to take on anyone who disparages us. That said, I do think we need to do more to make sure that our administrators, the media and those who are choosing whether they want to do policy debate or some other incarnation know why what we do is the best educational experience around. Whether I am elected or not I will be at the summer debate conference at Wake to help to figure out the best ways to encourage positive representations of policy debate. Also, we need to be more responsive. The times when I have been most frustrated with the CEDA leadership are those times when we have lacked information about how decisions were made and why. I ensure you that second vice president we will have a transparent decision making process. I think a lot of people don't participate in our business meetings and so few people vote on our various amendments and elections is because they feel detached from our organization. We need to do everything we can to make sure as many schools (and students) are including in the decision making process. I am excited that we have five individuals running for this office. Most years no one is willing to serve in this office. I know that all of these individuals have a love for the organization that I do and I look forward to the conversation that this election should encourage. And I am excited about serving this organization in whatever capacity the membership sees fit. If you choose to vote for me it will be my honor to serve. If not, I will still be at every CEDA Nats and summer business meeting because I think that the future of CEDA is strong. Thanks for listening. Please let me know if you have any questions. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From crb012000 at utdallas.edu Wed Nov 26 01:46:43 2008 From: crb012000 at utdallas.edu (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:46:43 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] Entries at 2009 Fear and Loathing in Dallas (UTD) -- second update Message-ID: A big thanks to Scott Herndon who diligently labored to secure more classrooms for the tournament. We currently have 63 total rooms available. So we can accomidate up to 126 entries. That amount allows every team currently on the wait list to enter the tournament. I have already shifted all waited listed teams to entered. We have space for another 10 teams so enter soon if you still seek to do so. We are glad to host such a large tournament. However it will place a strain on our campus resources and the host hotel. Please make your reservations soon at the Crowne Plaza. Those seeking assistance with alternative accommodations should email me for suggestions. If you believe that your squad will need to hire additional judging, then please contact me as soon as possible to alert us to your needs. We wish to avoid a judge shortage. Hopefully we can ensure that every team in all divisions can receive preferred judges. Please go ahead and enter your judges if possible. Every entered judge should have a philosophy statement posted on debateresults. Christopher Burk Director of Debate University of Texas at Dallas www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/ "If you believe everything you read, you better not read." -- Japanese Proverb