From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Sun Oct 5 19:43:14 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:43:14 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Baltimore College Debate
Message-ID: <7AC714C5FCF9470EADE03C17B4620744@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>
Name:Frederick Douglass Debates
Starts:11/1/2008
Ends:11/2/2008
Hosted by: Baltimore College Debate
Contact:
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: Octos
with 3 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 andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Oct 5 19:49:10 2008
From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:49:10 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] Frederick Douglass Debates nov 1 & 2
Message-ID: <9368bc9b0810051749j272e14d6u5c2037417123b10f@mail.gmail.com>
Hello,
Are you looking for a place to send your debaters not attending Harvard ? We
have a affordable and reasonably humane option easy to get to in the mid
atlantic.
We will offer 5 rounds with an octo break in two days, to us that is the
best combination of competition and safety possible.
We will offer a special $25 entry fee per team for this tournament.
Please contact us with any questions.
Andy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081005/19889eba/attachment.htm
From delliott at kckcc.edu Mon Oct 6 15:51:20 2008
From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:51:20 -0500
Subject: [CEDA-L] KCKCC Tournament Updates
Message-ID: <48EA33F8020000930001C71D@mymail.kckcc.edu>
A few things to report:
1. If you have not entered but plan to, please let me know. Still waiting on a few Regional Schools. We are needing to get a handle on numbers for food and trophies. Also need to decide what to do with the JV division which is currently small.
2. If you do not have your judging covered please let me know that you do plan on hiring through the tournament. We have some to hire but a not a lot.
3. For those with Novice teams note that there are 2 more teams that are not showing up on the Bruschke site. SMU has entered 2 Novice teams. We look forward to hosting SMU, Ben Voth and Chris on our campus for the first time.
4. If you need anything else, please let me know.
thanks,
chief
Darren Elliott
Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
CEDA President
From stables at usc.edu Tue Oct 7 18:19:38 2008
From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables)
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:19:38 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] CEDA Reply to The Chronicle of Higher Education
Message-ID: <014f01c928d3$2b87f270$8297d750$@edu>
The CEDA Executive Committee has drafted a reply and sent to The Chronicle
of Higher Education. We have asked that it be printed as a reply to their
recent story. You can read the letter on the ceda website.
The ceda site is http://www.cedadebate.org/
The letter is directly available at
http://www.cedadebate.org/files/CEDA%20Letter%20to%20CHE.pdf
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/20081007/9cdaa513/attachment.htm
From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Tue Oct 7 19:26:47 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:26:47 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by CSU Fullerton
Message-ID: <1F5CFD05704246ADA977021597FCF310@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>
Name:Fullerton Winter Tournament; Kathryn Klassic
Starts:6/1/2009
Ends:8/1/2009
Hosted by: CSU Fullerton
Contact: Jon Bruschke
Address: PO Box 6868, CSU, Fullerton, Fulleton, CA 92870
Phone: 714-278-3272
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered:
Open Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles
JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.
From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Sat Oct 11 21:06:20 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:06:20 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Macalester
Message-ID: <641638F9671B46B78F827FB8DBA93051@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>
Name:W. Scott Nobles Memorial Tournament
Starts:12/6/2008
Ends:12/7/2008
Hosted by: Macalester
Contact: Mike Baxter-Kauf
Address:
Phone: 651-295-0479
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered:
Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis
Novice with 6 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 delliott at kckcc.edu Sat Oct 11 23:32:59 2008
From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:32:59 -0500
Subject: [CEDA-L] Teams Clearing at KCKCC
Message-ID: <48F137AB020000930001CC30@mymail.kckcc.edu>
All divisions will hold their first elim at 8:30am. Pairings out at 7:30am. All judges are judging or on standby.
Teams Clearing:
Open Octos--
4-2 Emporia Wash and Williams-Green
3-3 K State Denney and Reynolds
3-3 K State Grice and Hanson
6-0 K State Mendenhall and Ziegler
4-2 Missouri State Frederick and Steiner
5-1 Missouri State Husney and Stout
4-2 Oklahoma Dabari and Cox
4-2 Oklahoma Koslow and Tomik
5-1 UMKC Jantz and Stevens
4-2 UT San Antonio Montee and Thomas
3-3 Vanderbilt Norris and Brown
JV Semis--
4-2 Concordia Baseman and Towsley
4-2 K State Funcheon and Walbridge
6-0 Kansas City Kansas CC Fugate and Slinkerd
4-2 Missouri State Frenzel and Rothgeb
Novice Quarters--
4-2 JCCC Vazquez and Gantumur
5-1 Missouri State Smith and Wright
4-2 Oklahoma Luong and Perkins
5-1 Univ Northern Iowa Greenway and Chase
5-1 Vanderbilt Elder and Williams
5-1 Vanderbilt Hooks and O'Connor
4-2 Vanderbilt Mason and Watts
chief
Darren Elliott
Director of Debate
Kansas City Kansas Community College
From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Oct 12 00:10:32 2008
From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:10:32 -0500
Subject: [CEDA-L] Correction on teams clearing at KCKCC
Message-ID: <48F14078020000930001CC34@mymail.kckcc.edu>
In Novice:
Vanderbilt Hooks and O'Connor are 3-3, not 5-1 as previouslyy reported.
Sorry guys, I tried. : )
chief
From shahall at comcast.net Mon Oct 20 08:55:54 2008
From: shahall at comcast.net (Sherry Hall)
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:55:54 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] NDT Dues
Message-ID: <00a801c932bb$930596e0$6c02a8c0@PowerspecPc>
Hello --
I have just received the list from Pratt of dues payments received via the AFA website through October 1. Below you will find the updated list of subscribers. If you paid via the website after October 1 and have an electronic receipt, you can forward that to me. If you have not yet paid, time is running out to pay without penalty. Between now and November 1, your subscription fee is $50.00, after November 1 it will be doubled. You can pay me directly by check at the Harvard Tournament, or by mailing me a check made out to the National Debate Tournament to 324 Franklin St., Cambridge MA, 02139. You may also pay via the AFA website. Please remember that you must subscribe to the NDT to be eligibile to participate in the NDT and its qualification process (such as the district tournaments).
Thanks,
Sherry
NDT 2008-2009 Subscribers
Boston College
California State University @ Chico
California State University @ Northridge
Clarion College
Concordia College
Dartmouth College
Eastern New Mexico University
Gonzaga University
Harvard University
Illinois State University
Kansas State University
Liberty University
Methodist University
Pepperdine University
Redlands
Sacramento State University
Samford University
San Francisco State University
Southern Methodist University
Trinity University
University of Georgia
University of Kentucky
University of Michigan
University of North Texas
University of Notre Dame
University of Richmond
University of Texas @ Austin
University of Texas @ Dallas
University of Tulsa
Western Connecticut State University
Whitman College
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081020/2665e117/attachment.htm
From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Oct 20 19:52:52 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:52:52 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Los Angeles City Col
Message-ID: <31D8E74BE0F6479A9BB578D0BA902372@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>
Name:Tina J Herman Policy Invitational
Starts:12/5/2008
Ends:12/5/2008
Hosted by: Los Angeles City Col
Contact: John Matteson
Address: 855 N. Vermont Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90029
Phone: 323-953-4000
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered:
Novice with 4 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified
Rookie with 4 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 shahall at comcast.net Tue Oct 21 07:01:18 2008
From: shahall at comcast.net (Sherry Hall)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:01:18 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] Harvard Tournament Menu
Message-ID: <027a01c93374$baeac220$6c02a8c0@PowerspecPc>
Howdy:
I am excited to announce that I am seeking to eliminate nearly all of the Harvard College Tournament subsidy for CAFOs by securing non-CAFO produced animal products for the food for the tournament this year. I have made changes in my personal eating choices in response to this topic's spotlight on the plight of factory-farmed animals in this country. I was struggling with what to do about the vast amounts of products I purchase for the Harvard tournament. A couple of weeks ago I began investigating alternatives and was happy to find that affordable, locally produced, humanely-raised products are available. I will have information about these local farmers available at the tournament and would be happy to communicate with anyone who is interested in how to find humanely raised, non-CAFO alternatives.
2008 Harvard Debate Tournament
Menu
Saturday November 1, 2008
Breakfast:
Bagels, Lox, Cream Cheese, Assorted Breakfast Pastries, Carrot-Pinon Chile Bread, Pumpkin Bread, Fresh Fruit, Juice & Coffee
Lunch:
The Starter Table:
Salsa Bar: Guacamole; Roasted Garlic and Tomato Salsa; Grilled Pineapple Salsa; Chipotle-Peach Salsa; Salsa Verde; Cranberry-Habanero Relish
Ceviche Bar: Halibut with Lemon & Coriander Oil; Salmon with Mustard & Scallions; Mussels on the Half Shell with Roasted Red Pepper; Smoky Maine Shrimp with Tangerine
Chili Bar: Aunt Vicky's Award Winning Texas Chili con Carne; Turkey Chicken Verde; Vegetarian Chili
The Big Enchilada: New Mexico Style Cheese Enchiladas with home-made Red Chile Sauce; Chicken, Grilled Poblano Pepper and Sour Cream Enchiladas; Pumpkin and Roasted Veggies Vegan Enchiladas; Chile Rellenos stuffed with Goat Cheese & Queso Blanco; Green Chile Polenta with Three Cheeses; Spanish Rice & Refried Beans
Sweets: (All made from scratch) Oatmeal Cookies, Fudge, Texas Apple Cake
Sunday November 2, 2008
Breakfast:
Breakfast Tacos: Egg, Cheese & Chorizo; Egg, Cheese & Potato; Grilled Vegetables & Potato
Muffins, Fruit, Juices and Coffee
Lunch:
Salads: Green Bean & Roasted Hazelnut Salad; Grilled Corn with Jalapeno Vinaigrette; Moroccan Carrot Salad; Malaysian Cole Slaw with Grilled Pineapple; Jicama & Orange Salad; Red-Hot Potato Salad; Chilly Chile Lentil Salad; Chickpea, Hazelnut & Pepper Salad; Black-Eyed Pea and Cilantro Salad
Sandwiches: Hummus Roll-Ups - with or without Roasted Swordfish; Assorted Sessa's Italian Deli Sandwiches
Desserts: Rum Balls, Bread Pudding
Champagne Reception (At the Sheraton):
Starters:
New Mexico Pumpkin Seed Dip, Chipotle Hummus, Spicy Feta-Cheese Dip, Hummus, Baba Ghanouj, with Pita Chips; Smoked-Salmon Roulades; Assorted New England Cheeses; Vegetable Crudite;
Main Course:
Smoked Salmon with Sour Cream Dill Sauce; Carving Station with Turkey; Chicken Parmesan; Pasta Station with Marinara and Al Fredo Sauce; Grilled Vegetables; Rolls
Desserts: Cookies and Fruit.
Complementary glass of champagne for participants of legal age, must provide identification.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081021/5c733464/attachment.htm
From smithr at wfu.edu Tue Oct 21 10:35:21 2008
From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:35:21 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] Wake invitation
Message-ID: <48FDF6B9.60204@wfu.edu>
Must have been lost in black hole period of edebate . . .
Shirley 2008 invite
Intercollegiate policy debate programs are invited to enter two teams in
the 2008 Franklin R. Shirley Classic, November 15-17, 2008, hosted by
Wake Forest University. Schools may enter more than two teams subject to
the conditions listed below.
NEW THIS YEAR (see relevant sections below for details):
1) 6 prelims. 4 prelims Saturday; 2 prelims, first elim and banquet
Sunday; last 4 elims Monday. Rooms for community discussion on topics of
interest will be made available during first elim.
2) Frosh/soph (any team where both partners have not completed two full
years of college debate) breakout ? clearing at least to quarters.
3) Strict time limits for judge decisions in elims as well as prelims,
and time allotted for post round.
4) Clarification of electronic recording rules.
SAME AS BEFORE:
1) Friendly and efficient.
2) Entry process and qualifications.
3) Hospitality.
4) Scouting.
ENTRIES:
Entries of two teams per school will be accepted until midnight October
22 on a first come, first served basis until we have reached our 150
team limit (this limit is necessary due to classroom and other facility
limitations).
Schools may apply for more teams by adding them to the waitlist subject
to the following:
As space permits, we will take additional teams, up to a total of four
teams per school, as long as ALL THREE OR FOUR teams have cleared to
elims in TWO varsity tournaments this fall. If both debaters on the team
EITHER cleared twice this fall OR qualified for NDT in the past OR
reached elimination rounds at CEDA Nationals in the past, the team is
considered to have met the "cleared twice" requirement. No fourth team
from a school will be accepted until all eligible third teams from other
schools have been accepted.
Waivers of the entry rules may be granted at the discretion of the WFU
coaching staff.
JUDGING (note, there are some new wrinkles here):
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.
If you are hiring judging from outside of your school?s staff/alumni,
and the tournament cannot place your judges into the required number of
rounds, the tournament reserves the right to: 1) adjust the judging
obligations of your other judges (adding rounds of commitment to those
of your judges who are easier to place), and/or 2) charge your school
$30.00 per round of unmet obligation.
As a normative rule, all coaches are expected to make themselves
available for at least some judging and will be on the pref sheet.
Prelim rounds must be decided within two hours and forty-five minutes of
the posted start time of the debate. The tab room will flip a coin to
determine the winner when the judge cannot decide in time.
Elim rounds must be decided within three hours of the posted/announced
start time of the debate. The tab room will flip a coin to determine the
winner when the judge cannot decide in time.
Judges must vote for one and only one team in each debate and must
assign speaker points and ranks in prelim rounds
Fifteen minutes minimum will be allocated to post round discussion of
the decision, but we must ask that the post-round cease 15 minutes after
the decision deadline so debaters can move on to their next debate with
adequate and fair time.
SPEAKER POINTS:
A 100 point scale will be used as last year. We?ll share a graph showing
the distribution of points from last year.
CASELIST and SCOUTING
Participating teams and schools are expected to contribute to
http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/ and should provide their most recent
affirmative and negative information by the Tuesday before the
tournament at latest. Teams and schools should cooperate with Wake
Forest students and staff assigned to gather the material.
AUDIO and VIDEO RECORDING
All rounds (defined as the speeches and judge critiques) are open to the
public and may be electronically recorded for private educational use by
any tournament participants (registered coaches, debaters and helpers,
and Wake Forest 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
Wake Forest University is obtained. Private sharing for educational use
is permitted.
TABULATION and PAIRING STUFF
We will use an ordinal MPJ system run on STA. Rounds one and two preset.
The other 4 prelims individually power paired hi-low within brackets.
Top 32 teams clear on basis of adjusted points, opp wins, total points,
twice adjusted points, ranks, random number. Brackets broken in elims.
Side equalization procedure used for elims.
"JV BREAKOUT" (NAME TENTATIVE)
At least 20% of all teams comprised of two debaters both of whom are
still in their first or second year of debate who do not clear into the
doubles will clear into the Sophfrosh (name tentative) breakout. Clears
at least to 8 teams.
FEES:
Tournament fees are $60.00 per person (debaters, coaches, judges, scouts).
TOURNAMENT HOTEL:
The Sundance, 3050 University Parkway, Winston-Salem, NC 27105
(336-723-2911)
Flat rate: 82.99 per room per night plus taxes and fees
Includes wireless internet (they have increased their capacity),
parking, and continental breakfast daily.
All elims will be held here.
Special needs or problems re hotel? Sales contact there is Sheila Small,
shefaysmall at yahoo.com
We will post other info on backup lodging in the near future.
RENTAL VANS
For vans of all sizes, ask for the Wake Forest Debate rate at Triangle,
http://www.trianglerentacar.com/
HOSPITALITY
Krispy Kreme, coffee, juice, bagels in the mornings. Water, sodas,
aspirin, snacks throughout. Lunch on Saturday and Sunday. Banquet Sunday
night, plus the usual Survivors Party? on Monday night after the start
of the final round.
CONDUCT:
All participants debate at the invitation of Wake Forest University
according to its tournament rules as well as any rules of their
sponsoring institutions. We abide by all rules and norms of CEDA and the
AFA, including but not limited to CEDA's sexual harassment policy.
SCHEDULE:
Friday, November 14
Registration 6-9 pm; airings, rounds 1 and 2 released at 9 pm
Saturday, November 15, 2008
8 am ? round 1 start
10:45 am ? round one decision deadline.
11:15 am ? round 2 start
2 pm ? round 2 decision deadline
2:15 ? round 3 (powered) pairings
3 pm ? round 3 start
5:45 ? round 3 decision deadline
6 pm -- round 4 (powered) pairings
6:45 pm ? round 4 start
9:15 pm ? round 4 decision deadline
Sunday
8 am ? round 5 (powered) pairings released at hotel, online, and on campus
9 am ? round 5 start
11:45 ? round 5 decision deadline
12:15 ? round 6 (powered) pairings
3 pm ? round 6 decision deadline
3:30 pm ? first elim pairings
4:15 pm -- first elim start
7:15 pm ? first elim decision deadline
7:00 pm ? Banquet begins ? awards including speakers and coach of the year.
Monday
8 am -- Octas and 2^nd breakout elim start
11 am ? decision deadline
11:15 ? postround ends by now.
Noon: Quarters and 3^rd breakout elim start.
3 pm ? decision deadline
3:15 pm ? postround ends by now.
4 pm: Semis and breakout elim (if necessary) start.
7 pm ? decision deadline
7:15 pm ? postround ends by now.
8 pm: Final round begins
10 pm ? ?Survivors? Party? begins
LOOK FOR MORE DETAILS coming soon at http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/
--
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 vikeenan at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 11:31:18 2008
From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:31:18 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] Harvard - rounds for sale
Message-ID:
I've got housing in Boston that weekend, and 6 rounds to sell (best offer),
if anyone still needs them.
-VIK
--
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/20081021/07af0a6b/attachment.htm
From smithr at wfu.edu Wed Oct 22 21:38:56 2008
From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:38:56 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure
Message-ID: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu>
The following are not meant to be exhaustive of the subject, but merit
consideration.
1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the
8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if
you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful
inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of
educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%.
Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be.
2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes
next to no difference to the Copeland?
3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social
time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That
ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The
words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all
coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"??
4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we
were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night
elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people
participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I
envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to
debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few
people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision
relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which
have known starting times.
5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It
helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final
round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even
use elims to determine the winner? S
6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament.
7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of
6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected
overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long
ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on
those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us.
Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and
severe unfairness in side assignment.
8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge
decision time and post-round discussion time.
9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the
quantity of debates you are in.
10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a
fair demand?
--
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 jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 22:10:17 2008
From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:10:17 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure
In-Reply-To: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu>
References: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu>
Message-ID:
I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross has earned the
right to do whatever he wants with his tournament and that any tournament
director should run whatever tournament they want to run. But, as I seem to
be the "disagreeer"
1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the
8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if
you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful
inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of
educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%.
Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be.
JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they are currently
operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry picking. However, its true 6
is better than it used to be.....but 8 is still better.
2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes
next to no difference to the Copeland?
JBH: Is that another proposal?
3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social
time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That
ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The
words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all
coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"??
JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2 more debates.
All of that could happen on the net/edebate/wherever and I would send just
as many congrats letters to whoever won. As you said above "they have more
valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include
careful inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision
are of educational value."
In addition the "social events are good" thing flew the coop a long time
ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in. People like free
food. Coaches like being recognized but I suspect most of the non-director
coaches move on to work.
The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh 120 more debate
rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever). As much as I would sometime love
to win coach of the year...I would probably understand getting it without
Greg Achten making fun of me in front of the 300 people (in the fantasy work
in which I won).
4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we
were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night
elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people
participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I
envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to
debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few
people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision
relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which
have known starting times.
JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for monday leave
when the tickets come up...the people who leave tuesday watch rounds...one,
two, three, or whatever. I doubt very seriously that finals grows in
audience much more with the change.....people start partying and play poker
and hang out or watch rounds...The problem is never that a bunch of people
would watch substantially more rounds if only there were less prelims.
5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It
helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final
round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even
use elims to determine the winner? S
JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim debaters? When was
the final round ever the best round of any tournament. In addition, and
perhaps most important, the NDT is even more of an endurance
contest....having a few tournaments that are equally as rigorous on the last
day is probably a good thing.
6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament.
JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just have missed something
here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent argument....of course, my point is
still those rounds would be good for the unlucky/not as talented 30%
7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of
6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected
overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long
ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on
those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us.
Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and
severe unfairness in side assignment.
JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans banquet, or the sq
w/7, or the sq until semis, all options that have been suggested.
8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge
decision time and post-round discussion time.
JBH: agreed
9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the
quantity of debates you are in.
JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more watching
either way.
10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a
fair demand?
JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and coaches and
judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class? This is Mccain v Obama
here.
Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the Shirley is
whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have always been supportive
of debate in ways most people only wish to be......I may disagree this
once..but it happens,
Josh
--
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
_______________________________________________
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/20081022/bbaafccc/attachment.htm
From smithr at wfu.edu Wed Oct 22 23:12:04 2008
From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:12:04 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure
In-Reply-To:
References: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu>
Message-ID: <48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu>
Big picture.
OVERVIEW: If you cannot figure out, as a coach, how to get a highly
educational experience for your debaters that is worth the money in
three days at WFU, ask me for hints. Or do not come. A couple of hints:
if they do not clear in either division (that's why there are at least
40 teams clearing, Hoe), have them watch and record rounds. Go back home
and have them give speeches as if they were in that round. Have them
record their own rounds. Have them redo speeches from those rounds.
Jeepers. the"POOR AND THE MIDDLE CLASS" unwarranted jive analogy needs
to be highlighted here at the top as one of the most ridiculous all time
claims (claims, no warrants were provided).
Other rebuttalish stuff:
1) The SQ is not an alt. 20+ hour days are wrong.
2) Being there in person, alert, awake, is qualitatively different and
better for experiencing elim rounds, banquet speeches, and getting back
to school.
3) Totally exhausted students, who cannot appreciate and participate in
the to-and-for of an elim round, and totally exhausted coaches/judges
who have questionable safety when driving and questionable decision
making skills when coaching or judging are not red herrings. Not to
mention the fact that the exhaustion does spill over into the next day
and the day after when students miss classes or undereperform in school
and teachers/coaches do the same. Question: after a tournament that ends
on a Monday, when are folks really "recovered" and up and running at
full speed? By Wednesday? How often are people sick?
4) I give 25%/33% FACTS and Josh calls it "cherry picking." Nope. Just
the raw numbers. Low hanging fruit, perhaps, but that's what I get when
the facts are on my side. How about it? Quality/quantity.
5) NDT will probably model our elim day before long, and end before
midnight (unless someone has a compelling arg against our Monday
schedule). Therefore, no reason to have our tournament and others be
"good practice" (by abusing people and ending at 2 am) for an absurd
event like the NDT has become.
6) The McCain thing is one of the dumbest and most offensive (to me)
thing I have had directed my way on edebate. Hoe expects me to respond
by accusing him of advocating debate socialism? WE HAVE THIS THING
CALLED A TOURNAMENT WITH A WINNER. I AM NOW TAKING A BRIEF TIME OUT FROM
MY OTHER JOB OF ARRANGING OBAMA RIDES TO POLLS FOR A TERRITORY OF A
MILLION PEOPLE TO RESPOND TO THROW AWAY B.S.???
On 10/22/2008 11:10 PM, Josh wrote:
> I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross has
> earned the right to do whatever he wants with his tournament and that
> any tournament director should run whatever tournament they want to
> run. But, as I seem to be the "disagreeer"
>
> 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the
> 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if
> you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful
> inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of
> educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%.
> Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be.
> JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they are
> currently operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry picking.
> However, its true 6 is better than it used to be.....but 8 is still
> better.
>
> 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes
> next to no difference to the Copeland?
> JBH: Is that another proposal?
>
> 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social
> time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That
> ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The
> words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all
> coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"??
> JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2 more
> debates. All of that could happen on the net/edebate/wherever and I
> would send just as many congrats letters to whoever won. As you said
> above "they have more valuable content if you think pre-round prep,
> judge decisions that include careful inspection of evidence, and
> post-round discussion of the decision are of educational value."
>
> In addition the "social events are good" thing flew the coop a long
> time ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in. People like
> free food. Coaches like being recognized but I suspect most of the
> non-director coaches move on to work.
>
> The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh 120 more
> debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever). As much as I would
> sometime love to win coach of the year...I would probably understand
> getting it without Greg Achten making fun of me in front of the 300
> people (in the fantasy work in which I won).
>
> 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we
> were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night
> elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people
> participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I
> envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to
> debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few
> people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision
> relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which
> have known starting times.
> JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for monday
> leave when the tickets come up...the people who leave tuesday watch
> rounds...one, two, three, or whatever. I doubt very seriously that
> finals grows in audience much more with the change.....people start
> partying and play poker and hang out or watch rounds...The problem is
> never that a bunch of people would watch substantially more rounds if
> only there were less prelims.
>
> 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It
> helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final
> round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even
> use elims to determine the winner? S
> JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim debaters? When
> was the final round ever the best round of any tournament. In
> addition, and perhaps most important, the NDT is even more of an
> endurance contest....having a few tournaments that are equally as
> rigorous on the last day is probably a good thing.
>
> 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament.
> JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just have missed something
> here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent argument....of course, my
> point is still those rounds would be good for the unlucky/not as
> talented 30%
>
> 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of
> 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected
> overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long
> ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on
> those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us.
> Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and
> severe unfairness in side assignment.
> JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans banquet, or
> the sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options that have been suggested.
>
> 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge
> decision time and post-round discussion time.
> JBH: agreed
>
> 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the
> quantity of debates you are in.
> JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more
> watching either way.
>
> 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a
> fair demand?
> JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and coaches
> and judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class? This is Mccain
> v Obama here.
>
> Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the Shirley
> is whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have always been
> supportive of debate in ways most people only wish to be......I may
> disagree this once..but it happens,
>
>
> Josh
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CEDA-L mailing list
> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>
--
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 jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 23:24:07 2008
From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:24:07 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure
In-Reply-To: <48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu>
References: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu>
<48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu>
Message-ID:
Obviously, I have done something to offend Ross, obviously not my
intention. I made multiple Ross friendly caveats...and tried very hard to
be measured and careful. I have no idea why my arguments were dismissed out
of hand and little idea why the reaction included hostility.
I will literally concede this debate rather than continue to piss Ross off,
I have that much respect for him.
BTW, I am also a huge Obama supporter and have been doing lots of things in
Ann Arbor and in other places to debunk Mccain attacks etc. It was both
written in a soft way and even said in joking tone.....apologies for
whatever I did to piss you off.
Josh
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Ross Smith wrote:
> Big picture.
>
> OVERVIEW: If you cannot figure out, as a coach, how to get a highly
> educational experience for your debaters that is worth the money in three
> days at WFU, ask me for hints. Or do not come. A couple of hints: if they do
> not clear in either division (that's why there are at least 40 teams
> clearing, Hoe), have them watch and record rounds. Go back home and have
> them give speeches as if they were in that round. Have them record their own
> rounds. Have them redo speeches from those rounds. Jeepers. the"POOR AND THE
> MIDDLE CLASS" unwarranted jive analogy needs to be highlighted here at the
> top as one of the most ridiculous all time claims (claims, no warrants were
> provided).
>
> Other rebuttalish stuff:
>
> 1) The SQ is not an alt. 20+ hour days are wrong.
> 2) Being there in person, alert, awake, is qualitatively different and
> better for experiencing elim rounds, banquet speeches, and getting back to
> school.
> 3) Totally exhausted students, who cannot appreciate and participate in the
> to-and-for of an elim round, and totally exhausted coaches/judges who have
> questionable safety when driving and questionable decision making skills
> when coaching or judging are not red herrings. Not to mention the fact that
> the exhaustion does spill over into the next day and the day after when
> students miss classes or undereperform in school and teachers/coaches do the
> same. Question: after a tournament that ends on a Monday, when are folks
> really "recovered" and up and running at full speed? By Wednesday? How often
> are people sick?
> 4) I give 25%/33% FACTS and Josh calls it "cherry picking." Nope. Just the
> raw numbers. Low hanging fruit, perhaps, but that's what I get when the
> facts are on my side. How about it? Quality/quantity.
> 5) NDT will probably model our elim day before long, and end before
> midnight (unless someone has a compelling arg against our Monday schedule).
> Therefore, no reason to have our tournament and others be "good practice"
> (by abusing people and ending at 2 am) for an absurd event like the NDT has
> become.
> 6) The McCain thing is one of the dumbest and most offensive (to me) thing
> I have had directed my way on edebate. Hoe expects me to respond by accusing
> him of advocating debate socialism? WE HAVE THIS THING CALLED A TOURNAMENT
> WITH A WINNER. I AM NOW TAKING A BRIEF TIME OUT FROM MY OTHER JOB OF
> ARRANGING OBAMA RIDES TO POLLS FOR A TERRITORY OF A MILLION PEOPLE TO
> RESPOND TO THROW AWAY B.S.???
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/22/2008 11:10 PM, Josh wrote:
>
>> I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross has earned
>> the right to do whatever he wants with his tournament and that any
>> tournament director should run whatever tournament they want to run. But,
>> as I seem to be the "disagreeer"
>> 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the
>> 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if
>> you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful
>> inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of
>> educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%.
>> Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be.
>> JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they are currently
>> operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry picking. However, its true 6
>> is better than it used to be.....but 8 is still better.
>> 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes
>> next to no difference to the Copeland?
>> JBH: Is that another proposal?
>> 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social
>> time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That
>> ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The
>> words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all
>> coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"??
>> JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2 more debates.
>> All of that could happen on the net/edebate/wherever and I would send just
>> as many congrats letters to whoever won. As you said above "they have more
>> valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include
>> careful inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision
>> are of educational value." In addition the "social events are good" thing
>> flew the coop a long time ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in.
>> People like free food. Coaches like being recognized but I suspect most of
>> the non-director coaches move on to work.
>> The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh 120 more
>> debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever). As much as I would sometime
>> love to win coach of the year...I would probably understand getting it
>> without Greg Achten making fun of me in front of the 300 people (in the
>> fantasy work in which I won).
>> 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we
>> were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night
>> elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people
>> participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I
>> envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to
>> debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few
>> people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision
>> relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which
>> have known starting times.
>> JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for monday leave
>> when the tickets come up...the people who leave tuesday watch rounds...one,
>> two, three, or whatever. I doubt very seriously that finals grows in
>> audience much more with the change.....people start partying and play poker
>> and hang out or watch rounds...The problem is never that a bunch of people
>> would watch substantially more rounds if only there were less prelims.
>> 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It
>> helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final
>> round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even
>> use elims to determine the winner? S
>> JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim debaters? When was
>> the final round ever the best round of any tournament. In addition, and
>> perhaps most important, the NDT is even more of an endurance
>> contest....having a few tournaments that are equally as rigorous on the last
>> day is probably a good thing.
>> 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament.
>> JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just have missed something
>> here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent argument....of course, my point is
>> still those rounds would be good for the unlucky/not as talented 30%
>> 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of
>> 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected
>> overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long
>> ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on
>> those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us.
>> Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and
>> severe unfairness in side assignment.
>> JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans banquet, or the
>> sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options that have been suggested.
>> 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge
>> decision time and post-round discussion time.
>> JBH: agreed
>>
>> 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the
>> quantity of debates you are in.
>> JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more watching
>> either way.
>>
>> 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a
>> fair demand?
>> JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and coaches and
>> judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class? This is Mccain v Obama
>> here.
>> Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the Shirley is
>> whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have always been supportive
>> of debate in ways most people only wish to be......I may disagree this
>> once..but it happens,
>> Josh
>>
>> --
>> 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 <
>> http://www.debatescoop.org/>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CEDA-L mailing list
>> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>>
>>
> --
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081023/9c329b0c/attachment.htm
From smithr at wfu.edu Thu Oct 23 01:04:52 2008
From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:04:52 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure
In-Reply-To:
References: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu>
<48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu>
Message-ID: <49001404.5070002@wfu.edu>
No offense from Josh and none intended toward Josh. He has always been a
good person.
The only args of his (which I separate from him as a person (I hope I am
allowed to have bad args, too!)) which I was "hostile" to at all were
the analogies of McCain//Obama and "poor" or "middle class". These were
, in my opinion, underexplained.
Writ large, my post was not a "reply to Josh" in particular -- I just
replied to a bunch of stuff. In particular, my comments about coaches
who might not have considered how to make the most of the tournament
were directed not at Josh, but to the abstract coach at large who might
think that an extra debate round (absent pre-tround coaching, good
decision, etc.) was a be all end all for the education of their students.
On 10/23/2008 12:24 AM, Josh wrote:
> Obviously, I have done something to offend Ross, obviously not my
> intention. I made multiple Ross friendly caveats...and tried very
> hard to be measured and careful. I have no idea why my arguments were
> dismissed out of hand and little idea why the reaction included hostility.
>
> I will literally concede this debate rather than continue to piss Ross
> off, I have that much respect for him.
>
> BTW, I am also a huge Obama supporter and have been doing lots of
> things in Ann Arbor and in other places to debunk Mccain attacks etc.
> It was both written in a soft way and even said in joking
> tone.....apologies for whatever I did to piss you off.
>
> Josh
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Ross Smith > wrote:
>
> Big picture.
>
> OVERVIEW: If you cannot figure out, as a coach, how to get a
> highly educational experience for your debaters that is worth the
> money in three days at WFU, ask me for hints. Or do not come. A
> couple of hints: if they do not clear in either division (that's
> why there are at least 40 teams clearing, Hoe), have them watch
> and record rounds. Go back home and have them give speeches as if
> they were in that round. Have them record their own rounds. Have
> them redo speeches from those rounds. Jeepers. the"POOR AND THE
> MIDDLE CLASS" unwarranted jive analogy needs to be highlighted
> here at the top as one of the most ridiculous all time claims
> (claims, no warrants were provided).
>
> Other rebuttalish stuff:
>
> 1) The SQ is not an alt. 20+ hour days are wrong.
> 2) Being there in person, alert, awake, is qualitatively different
> and better for experiencing elim rounds, banquet speeches, and
> getting back to school.
> 3) Totally exhausted students, who cannot appreciate and
> participate in the to-and-for of an elim round, and totally
> exhausted coaches/judges who have questionable safety when driving
> and questionable decision making skills when coaching or judging
> are not red herrings. Not to mention the fact that the exhaustion
> does spill over into the next day and the day after when students
> miss classes or undereperform in school and teachers/coaches do
> the same. Question: after a tournament that ends on a Monday, when
> are folks really "recovered" and up and running at full speed? By
> Wednesday? How often are people sick?
> 4) I give 25%/33% FACTS and Josh calls it "cherry picking." Nope.
> Just the raw numbers. Low hanging fruit, perhaps, but that's what
> I get when the facts are on my side. How about it? Quality/quantity.
> 5) NDT will probably model our elim day before long, and end
> before midnight (unless someone has a compelling arg against our
> Monday schedule). Therefore, no reason to have our tournament and
> others be "good practice" (by abusing people and ending at 2 am)
> for an absurd event like the NDT has become.
> 6) The McCain thing is one of the dumbest and most offensive (to
> me) thing I have had directed my way on edebate. Hoe expects me to
> respond by accusing him of advocating debate socialism? WE HAVE
> THIS THING CALLED A TOURNAMENT WITH A WINNER. I AM NOW TAKING A
> BRIEF TIME OUT FROM MY OTHER JOB OF ARRANGING OBAMA RIDES TO POLLS
> FOR A TERRITORY OF A MILLION PEOPLE TO RESPOND TO THROW AWAY B.S.???
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/22/2008 11:10 PM, Josh wrote:
>
> I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross
> has earned the right to do whatever he wants with his
> tournament and that any tournament director should run
> whatever tournament they want to run. But, as I seem to be
> the "disagreeer"
> 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did
> when the
> 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable
> content if
> you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful
> inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the
> decision are of
> educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts
> only 25%.
> Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used
> to be.
> JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they
> are currently operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry
> picking. However, its true 6 is better than it used to
> be.....but 8 is still better.
> 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since
> finals makes
> next to no difference to the Copeland?
> JBH: Is that another proposal?
> 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks
> good social
> time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the
> year. That
> ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins
> it. The
> words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all
> coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"??
> JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2
> more debates. All of that could happen on the
> net/edebate/wherever and I would send just as many congrats
> letters to whoever won. As you said above "they have more
> valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions
> that include careful inspection of evidence, and post-round
> discussion of the decision are of educational value." In
> addition the "social events are good" thing flew the coop a
> long time ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in.
> People like free food. Coaches like being recognized but I
> suspect most of the non-director coaches move on to work.
> The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh
> 120 more debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever). As
> much as I would sometime love to win coach of the year...I
> would probably understand getting it without Greg Achten
> making fun of me in front of the 300 people (in the fantasy
> work in which I won).
> 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching
> elims we
> were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and
> late night
> elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7
> people
> participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I
> envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well
> suited to
> debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few
> people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I
> envision
> relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of
> which
> have known starting times.
> JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for
> monday leave when the tickets come up...the people who leave
> tuesday watch rounds...one, two, three, or whatever. I doubt
> very seriously that finals grows in audience much more with
> the change.....people start partying and play poker and hang
> out or watch rounds...The problem is never that a bunch of
> people would watch substantially more rounds if only there
> were less prelims.
> 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an
> audience. It
> helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The
> final
> round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why
> do we even
> use elims to determine the winner? S
> JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim
> debaters? When was the final round ever the best round of any
> tournament. In addition, and perhaps most important, the NDT
> is even more of an endurance contest....having a few
> tournaments that are equally as rigorous on the last day is
> probably a good thing.
> 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the
> tournament.
> JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just have missed
> something here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent
> argument....of course, my point is still those rounds would be
> good for the unlucky/not as talented 30%
> 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's
> Shirley of
> 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected
> overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky
> not so long
> ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but
> forced it on
> those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good
> for us.
> Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a
> banquet and
> severe unfairness in side assignment.
> JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans
> banquet, or the sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options
> that have been suggested.
> 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim
> judge
> decision time and post-round discussion time.
> JBH: agreed
>
> 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the
> quantity of debates you are in.
> JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more
> watching either way.
>
> 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them?
> What is a
> fair demand?
> JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and
> coaches and judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class?
> This is Mccain v Obama here.
> Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the
> Shirley is whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have
> always been supportive of debate in ways most people only wish
> to be......I may disagree this once..but it happens,
> Josh
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CEDA-L mailing list
> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> >
>
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
--
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 dperkins at fas.harvard.edu Thu Oct 23 09:45:32 2008
From: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu (Dallas Perkins)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:45:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament Structure
Message-ID:
This is a very interesting discussion. I agree with both sides.
One solution that everybody would like is to make the rounds go faster
without compromising prep and decision times.
I have two ideas on the subject, and I wonder what the community thinks
about them.
First, we could release the pairings for rounds five and six on Saturday
evening at 10PM, after most people are done with dinner. This would not
keep people from staying up all night working, but it might at least mean
that they are well-prepared to begin both rounds punctually, with minimal
time between the two. I wonder if the community sees this as a useful
innovation?
Second, we could reshape the post-round discussion following elims. As it
is, the minority judges usually speak first, telling the winners why they
really lost, then the majority judges tell the losers that in fact they
really lost, and everyone sits and listens and argues about it all. This
can take upwards of forty-five minutes after contentious debates. I
propose something like this: after the decision is announced, each judge
delivers a brief summary decision, lasting no more than 2 minutes. If the
winning team wishes to discuss specifics with any of the judges,
convention will allow them to go first, ask their questions, demand
amplification from the dissenters, whatever. Once they are satisfied, it
will not be considered discourteous or otherwise inappropriate if one or
both of the winning debaters excuse themselves from further discussion and
get on with prepping for the next round. Given this new convention, I
think that tournaments would be justified in pushing the schedule
considerably faster on elim day. This is especially true at the
increasing number of tournaments where the elim bracket is published
Sunday night.
I would be very interested in community input on either of these schemes,
as we might try to implement one or both at Harvard this year.
dp
From vikeenan at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 09:53:13 2008
From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:53:13 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure
In-Reply-To: <49001404.5070002@wfu.edu>
References: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu>
<48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu>
<49001404.5070002@wfu.edu>
Message-ID:
Just a little alternate perspective -
This isn't just a Wake issue or a National Tournament issue. If you're
unfamiliar with the peculiarities of most Northeast regional tournaments, we
tend to stick to 2 day tournaments, which results is the same exhausting
days for 6 prelims and everyone driving home. It's the only way our
students with jobs and no class choice (and many of them novice) can
participate, not to mention the number of coaches with have with "day jobs"
(little things like lawyers and non-profit ceo's).
Our days typically run 5 prelims on Saturday, 1 prelim Sunday, followed by
elims with usually at least one (if not more) divisions in some variation of
octos. Yes, we're crazy. But we also had 45 teams in novice last weekend
at West Point and 35 teams in novice this weekend at West Conn, and we
established that 2-days are what our community needs, so the question is
where do we go from here.
The issues of safety (because we DO drive everywhere to these tournaments),
of retention of learning in round 5, of post round educational
opportunities, of simple humanity, not to mention the ability to see each
other occasionally in a non-competitive light (in 8-3-5 world we even
squeezed a party in on Friday or Sat night), are important. They are
important as ends in themselves, and in our regional goals of retention.
And this needs to be balanced with getting the most "bang for your buck" as
dollars become tighter and our team and regional needs become more
competitively diverse.
So there is part of me that deeply understands what Ross is trying to do and
is supportive of it. Our own regional conversation will probably result in
a few "experiments" at our regional tournaments next year, trying to build a
better schedule. And that's the only way to test if new practices will
ultimately meet our goals - to test them out. Ross isn't alone in this
initiative or in his concerns.
I will say though, as a side note, one of the reasons we go to tournaments
such as Wake is the 8 rounds and who those 8 rounds could be against (okay,
and the comparitively leisurely schedule). Our region can be very insular,
and our students need exposure to diversity of argumentation AND judging.
It is two less rounds of practical experience at that, and my post rebuttal
redo impression of Russel is probably not the same educational experience.
It just seems to me that the extra rounds as well as the quality of
competition are what make it worth the investment to attend. I also think
Stefan, and others on edebate, highlight certain community practices that
would result in at least not solving the sleep/exhaustion problem.
I think I'm probably with the 7 rounders on this if we want to compromise -
Sunday may run a little later, but Monday is more humane. I'm still in
favor of more rounds for ALL debaters, but perpetuating the idea of "suck it
up" on Monday doesn't seem the ideal world either, even if I think it's
"only" 32 debaters.
-VIK
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:04 AM, Ross Smith wrote:
> No offense from Josh and none intended toward Josh. He has always been a
> good person.
>
> The only args of his (which I separate from him as a person (I hope I am
> allowed to have bad args, too!)) which I was "hostile" to at all were
> the analogies of McCain//Obama and "poor" or "middle class". These were
> , in my opinion, underexplained.
>
> Writ large, my post was not a "reply to Josh" in particular -- I just
> replied to a bunch of stuff. In particular, my comments about coaches
> who might not have considered how to make the most of the tournament
> were directed not at Josh, but to the abstract coach at large who might
> think that an extra debate round (absent pre-tround coaching, good
> decision, etc.) was a be all end all for the education of their students.
>
>
> On 10/23/2008 12:24 AM, Josh wrote:
> > Obviously, I have done something to offend Ross, obviously not my
> > intention. I made multiple Ross friendly caveats...and tried very
> > hard to be measured and careful. I have no idea why my arguments were
> > dismissed out of hand and little idea why the reaction included
> hostility.
> >
> > I will literally concede this debate rather than continue to piss Ross
> > off, I have that much respect for him.
> >
> > BTW, I am also a huge Obama supporter and have been doing lots of
> > things in Ann Arbor and in other places to debunk Mccain attacks etc.
> > It was both written in a soft way and even said in joking
> > tone.....apologies for whatever I did to piss you off.
> >
> > Josh
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Ross Smith > > wrote:
> >
> > Big picture.
> >
> > OVERVIEW: If you cannot figure out, as a coach, how to get a
> > highly educational experience for your debaters that is worth the
> > money in three days at WFU, ask me for hints. Or do not come. A
> > couple of hints: if they do not clear in either division (that's
> > why there are at least 40 teams clearing, Hoe), have them watch
> > and record rounds. Go back home and have them give speeches as if
> > they were in that round. Have them record their own rounds. Have
> > them redo speeches from those rounds. Jeepers. the"POOR AND THE
> > MIDDLE CLASS" unwarranted jive analogy needs to be highlighted
> > here at the top as one of the most ridiculous all time claims
> > (claims, no warrants were provided).
> >
> > Other rebuttalish stuff:
> >
> > 1) The SQ is not an alt. 20+ hour days are wrong.
> > 2) Being there in person, alert, awake, is qualitatively different
> > and better for experiencing elim rounds, banquet speeches, and
> > getting back to school.
> > 3) Totally exhausted students, who cannot appreciate and
> > participate in the to-and-for of an elim round, and totally
> > exhausted coaches/judges who have questionable safety when driving
> > and questionable decision making skills when coaching or judging
> > are not red herrings. Not to mention the fact that the exhaustion
> > does spill over into the next day and the day after when students
> > miss classes or undereperform in school and teachers/coaches do
> > the same. Question: after a tournament that ends on a Monday, when
> > are folks really "recovered" and up and running at full speed? By
> > Wednesday? How often are people sick?
> > 4) I give 25%/33% FACTS and Josh calls it "cherry picking." Nope.
> > Just the raw numbers. Low hanging fruit, perhaps, but that's what
> > I get when the facts are on my side. How about it? Quality/quantity.
> > 5) NDT will probably model our elim day before long, and end
> > before midnight (unless someone has a compelling arg against our
> > Monday schedule). Therefore, no reason to have our tournament and
> > others be "good practice" (by abusing people and ending at 2 am)
> > for an absurd event like the NDT has become.
> > 6) The McCain thing is one of the dumbest and most offensive (to
> > me) thing I have had directed my way on edebate. Hoe expects me to
> > respond by accusing him of advocating debate socialism? WE HAVE
> > THIS THING CALLED A TOURNAMENT WITH A WINNER. I AM NOW TAKING A
> > BRIEF TIME OUT FROM MY OTHER JOB OF ARRANGING OBAMA RIDES TO POLLS
> > FOR A TERRITORY OF A MILLION PEOPLE TO RESPOND TO THROW AWAY B.S.???
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/22/2008 11:10 PM, Josh wrote:
> >
> > I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross
> > has earned the right to do whatever he wants with his
> > tournament and that any tournament director should run
> > whatever tournament they want to run. But, as I seem to be
> > the "disagreeer"
> > 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did
> > when the
> > 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable
> > content if
> > you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful
> > inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the
> > decision are of
> > educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts
> > only 25%.
> > Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used
> > to be.
> > JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they
> > are currently operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry
> > picking. However, its true 6 is better than it used to
> > be.....but 8 is still better.
> > 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since
> > finals makes
> > next to no difference to the Copeland?
> > JBH: Is that another proposal?
> > 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks
> > good social
> > time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the
> > year. That
> > ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins
> > it. The
> > words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all
> > coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"??
> > JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2
> > more debates. All of that could happen on the
> > net/edebate/wherever and I would send just as many congrats
> > letters to whoever won. As you said above "they have more
> > valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions
> > that include careful inspection of evidence, and post-round
> > discussion of the decision are of educational value." In
> > addition the "social events are good" thing flew the coop a
> > long time ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in.
> > People like free food. Coaches like being recognized but I
> > suspect most of the non-director coaches move on to work.
> > The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh
> > 120 more debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever). As
> > much as I would sometime love to win coach of the year...I
> > would probably understand getting it without Greg Achten
> > making fun of me in front of the 300 people (in the fantasy
> > work in which I won).
> > 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching
> > elims we
> > were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and
> > late night
> > elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7
> > people
> > participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I
> > envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well
> > suited to
> > debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a
> few
> > people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I
> > envision
> > relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of
> > which
> > have known starting times.
> > JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for
> > monday leave when the tickets come up...the people who leave
> > tuesday watch rounds...one, two, three, or whatever. I doubt
> > very seriously that finals grows in audience much more with
> > the change.....people start partying and play poker and hang
> > out or watch rounds...The problem is never that a bunch of
> > people would watch substantially more rounds if only there
> > were less prelims.
> > 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an
> > audience. It
> > helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The
> > final
> > round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why
> > do we even
> > use elims to determine the winner? S
> > JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim
> > debaters? When was the final round ever the best round of any
> > tournament. In addition, and perhaps most important, the NDT
> > is even more of an endurance contest....having a few
> > tournaments that are equally as rigorous on the last day is
> > probably a good thing.
> > 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the
> > tournament.
> > JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just have missed
> > something here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent
> > argument....of course, my point is still those rounds would be
> > good for the unlucky/not as talented 30%
> > 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's
> > Shirley of
> > 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected
> > overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky
> > not so long
> > ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but
> > forced it on
> > those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good
> > for us.
> > Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a
> > banquet and
> > severe unfairness in side assignment.
> > JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans
> > banquet, or the sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options
> > that have been suggested.
> > 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim
> > judge
> > decision time and post-round discussion time.
> > JBH: agreed
> >
> > 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of
> the
> > quantity of debates you are in.
> > JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more
> > watching either way.
> >
> > 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them?
> > What is a
> > fair demand?
> > JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and
> > coaches and judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class?
> > This is Mccain v Obama here.
> > Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the
> > Shirley is whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have
> > always been supportive of debate in ways most people only wish
> > to be......I may disagree this once..but it happens,
> > Josh
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CEDA-L mailing list
> > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> > >
> >
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20081023/88a49d98/attachment.htm
From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Oct 23 09:53:36 2008
From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:53:36 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Tournament Structure
References:
Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB2C@castor.richmond.edu>
I for one, love these solutions, especially the "decision-time" shortener.
releasing 5 & 6 is a little frightening (everyone stays up all night?), but probably a good idea as well.
Thanks, Dallas.
kevin
________________________________
From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Dallas Perkins
Sent: Thu 10/23/2008 10:45 AM
To: edebate; EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Cc: ceda-l at ndtceda.com
Subject: [eDebate] Tournament Structure
This is a very interesting discussion. I agree with both sides.
One solution that everybody would like is to make the rounds go faster
without compromising prep and decision times.
I have two ideas on the subject, and I wonder what the community thinks
about them.
First, we could release the pairings for rounds five and six on Saturday
evening at 10PM, after most people are done with dinner. This would not
keep people from staying up all night working, but it might at least mean
that they are well-prepared to begin both rounds punctually, with minimal
time between the two. I wonder if the community sees this as a useful
innovation?
Second, we could reshape the post-round discussion following elims. As it
is, the minority judges usually speak first, telling the winners why they
really lost, then the majority judges tell the losers that in fact they
really lost, and everyone sits and listens and argues about it all. This
can take upwards of forty-five minutes after contentious debates. I
propose something like this: after the decision is announced, each judge
delivers a brief summary decision, lasting no more than 2 minutes. If the
winning team wishes to discuss specifics with any of the judges,
convention will allow them to go first, ask their questions, demand
amplification from the dissenters, whatever. Once they are satisfied, it
will not be considered discourteous or otherwise inappropriate if one or
both of the winning debaters excuse themselves from further discussion and
get on with prepping for the next round. Given this new convention, I
think that tournaments would be justified in pushing the schedule
considerably faster on elim day. This is especially true at the
increasing number of tournaments where the elim bracket is published
Sunday night.
I would be very interested in community input on either of these schemes,
as we might try to implement one or both at Harvard this year.
dp
_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
From stables at usc.edu Thu Oct 23 10:59:36 2008
From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:59:36 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Framing the conversation - Mananging time at tournaments
Message-ID: <01a901c93528$590c6bc0$0b254340$@edu>
Will opened this conversation by asking folks to look at tournament
schedules. I understand why the Wake change to six prelims is a big part of
this conversation, but as Vik, Aaron and others have mentioned this
conversation also needs to be about the importance of looking for innovation
across tournament schedules.
Our default tournament model is requiring more and more time over the three
days of competition. If you disagree I would ask you to consider when you
leave for a tournament in the morning and when you return at the end of the
day. This is in addition to the late-night work that Stefan spoke about. Our
days are growing longer. This is a real concern and there isn't a single
answer to the problem. We do ourselves a disservice to say that this was a
problem at one tournament.
What is great is that there isn't any requirement or need for a one-size
fits all solution. Much as Kevin and Ross can run tournaments differently -
we need to be encouraging tournaments to run in innovative ways that best
serve their participants.
I think we all appreciate our collective hesitation to change and I saw it
up close when we moved the Nichols tournament from 8 to 7 prelims a few
years ago. I also saw it this summer when Jon and I spent a great deal of
time trying to finally move the Cali swing away from New Years Eve.
Change is hard, but there is a need for our community to reflect on how the
changing nature of our competition rounds (including its pre and post round
time) are changing our tournament experiences.
The number of rounds is one important element. So is pre-round prep, judge
decision time, and oral critique time. The speech time in rounds aren't any
longer, but the expansion of time in these other areas has taken place and
one place where we need to look when deciding how tournaments should be
managed. I know we at the Nichols this year will be looking closely at how
long it takes rounds to be started, decided and announced.
Folks are welcome to provide Ross feedback to his tournament, but this
question is so much larger. The folks at Wake always do a lot to make their
schedule work, but we need to look at every one of our calendars and ask how
we can improve on providing an educational and competitive experience that
isn't also unreasonable. As satisfying as it is to say "sleep is
unnecessary" that isn't a productive part of this conversation. It is far
more productive to emphasize the importance of a certain quality in our
debates or our experiences.
I encourage folks to share their perspectives on how these days can work
better. Ross is suggesting a different schedule, Dallas has talked about
adjusting post-round decisions and Kevin argues for another schedule
altogether. Please share your perspectives and experiences. There is no
single motion to pass or fail. This is all about having a conversation about
improving tournament practice across the board.
We have a lot more to talk about as a community, but this is an important
start.
(Don't also forget to look back and read Gary's email about MPJ. Time to
talk about that soon as well.)
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/20081023/e030bcaa/attachment.htm
From joe.bellon at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 11:26:26 2008
From: joe.bellon at gmail.com (Joe Bellon)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:26:26 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Tournament Structure
In-Reply-To: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB2C@castor.richmond.edu>
References:
<3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB2C@castor.richmond.edu>
Message-ID:
I think I speak for the rest of the GSU folks when I say that we're happy to
see this conversation taking place. I, for one, am happy that Ross is
continuing to use the Shirley as a cite for experimentation with debate
format and broader debate issues. I'm not always happy about the decisions
they make, but I'm glad someone's jump-starting this issue.
Because we're one of the first big tournaments in the year, a lot of the
community's problems (and its virtues) are thrown into sharp relief at GSU.
I've heard it said that the sheer length of our elim day was the proximate
cause of Wake's move to a 6-round prelim format. I don't know if that's the
case or not -- and, honestly, I don't care. This is a real issue, it's a
serious issue, and I'm happy we're trying to find a solution. As the one
administrator at our tournament who has to be awake and available for the
entire four-day ordeal, I am squarely on the side of anyone who can make the
pain end faster.
My philosophy for our tournament has always been that we should provide
whatever the standard competitive opportunities the circuit expects from a
quality competition. While I have, at times, moved in a different direction
from community standards, I have been most comfortable when we can do what
people want from a format perspective. It would be wonderful if we could
come up with some new format (or combination of formatting changes) that
would satisfy most folks while addressing the various issues in this thread.
Failing that, we will probably look for solutions on our own.
My thanks to Ross for starting this, and to everyone else for contributing.
Dr. Joe Bellon
Director of Debate
Georgia State University
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Kuswa, Kevin wrote:
> I for one, love these solutions, especially the "decision-time" shortener.
>
> releasing 5 & 6 is a little frightening (everyone stays up all night?), but
> probably a good idea as well.
>
> Thanks, Dallas.
>
> kevin
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Dallas Perkins
> Sent: Thu 10/23/2008 10:45 AM
> To: edebate; EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> Cc: ceda-l at ndtceda.com
> Subject: [eDebate] Tournament Structure
>
>
>
> This is a very interesting discussion. I agree with both sides.
>
> One solution that everybody would like is to make the rounds go faster
> without compromising prep and decision times.
>
> I have two ideas on the subject, and I wonder what the community thinks
> about them.
>
> First, we could release the pairings for rounds five and six on Saturday
> evening at 10PM, after most people are done with dinner. This would not
> keep people from staying up all night working, but it might at least mean
> that they are well-prepared to begin both rounds punctually, with minimal
> time between the two. I wonder if the community sees this as a useful
> innovation?
>
> Second, we could reshape the post-round discussion following elims. As it
> is, the minority judges usually speak first, telling the winners why they
> really lost, then the majority judges tell the losers that in fact they
> really lost, and everyone sits and listens and argues about it all. This
> can take upwards of forty-five minutes after contentious debates. I
> propose something like this: after the decision is announced, each judge
> delivers a brief summary decision, lasting no more than 2 minutes. If the
> winning team wishes to discuss specifics with any of the judges,
> convention will allow them to go first, ask their questions, demand
> amplification from the dissenters, whatever. Once they are satisfied, it
> will not be considered discourteous or otherwise inappropriate if one or
> both of the winning debaters excuse themselves from further discussion and
> get on with prepping for the next round. Given this new convention, I
> think that tournaments would be justified in pushing the schedule
> considerably faster on elim day. This is especially true at the
> increasing number of tournaments where the elim bracket is published
> Sunday night.
>
> I would be very interested in community input on either of these schemes,
> as we might try to implement one or both at Harvard this year.
>
> dp
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20081023/82020a8b/attachment.htm
From EricMorris at MissouriState.edu Thu Oct 23 11:51:16 2008
From: EricMorris at MissouriState.edu (Morris, Eric R)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:51:16 -0500
Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Tournament Structure
References:
Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6E73@blue.EDUBEAR.NET>
I am intrigued by both of Dallas' suggestions.
On releasing pairings for Rounds 5/6 early, I think it is easy to justify sleep when you know you are ready for the debate the next morning than when you are trying to be ready for one of several debates that could occur. Friday pairing release helps make Saturday more humane, and knowing the bracket Sunday night helps with Monday. I'm not sure that making Sat night the exception is useful.
On decisions, I think the having the dissenter go last is coherent, given the model of how court decisions are structured. I think that judges, all of whom were pretty much former debaters, should be able to show the structure of their decision and highlight the key points in 6 minutes or less (that's all the rebuttalists get). Two minutes might be too tight in some cases.
I really think the norms of the basic decision + winning team is free to leave and losing team can stick around and chat would be helpful. Two logistical concerns are whether the judges need to leave to help coach and whether the losing team needs to pack up to make room. Some solutions to these problems would make Dallas' suggest a real time saver.
I also agree with Josh G that some decisions take too long. It is easy to have the process be timeless, even though we expect debaters to treat issues thoroughly under MUCH more time pressure. I am a repeat offender in this area, but there are others with far 'longer' rap sheets than I. I think the norm of growing impatience is better than a hard "decide now" dictate, particularly if a decision has been delayed by another judge taking off with the evidence or something.
Here's something radical enough that I'm not even sure I support it:
I wonder if we would be better served by a norm where debaters give the judges access to a small number of contested cards before the round is over. That would change the activity some, and perhaps too much, but I think there are lots of decisions where it's hard to think through the resolution of other issues until after a couple of central issues related to evidence are resolved. Even giving this privilege for 3 cards (yours or opponents) might increase the quality of debate, quality of decisions, and speed of decisions.
Dr. Eric Morris
Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics
Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication
Missouri State University
Springfield, MO 65897
(O) 417-836-7636
(H) 417-865-6866
(C) 417-496-7141
AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna
GMAIL:ermocito at gmail.com (please use for large attachments)
________________________________
From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Dallas Perkins
Sent: Thu 10/23/08 9:45 AM
To: edebate; EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Cc: ceda-l at ndtceda.com
Subject: [eDebate] Tournament Structure
This is a very interesting discussion. I agree with both sides.
One solution that everybody would like is to make the rounds go faster
without compromising prep and decision times.
I have two ideas on the subject, and I wonder what the community thinks
about them.
First, we could release the pairings for rounds five and six on Saturday
evening at 10PM, after most people are done with dinner. This would not
keep people from staying up all night working, but it might at least mean
that they are well-prepared to begin both rounds punctually, with minimal
time between the two. I wonder if the community sees this as a useful
innovation?
Second, we could reshape the post-round discussion following elims. As it
is, the minority judges usually speak first, telling the winners why they
really lost, then the majority judges tell the losers that in fact they
really lost, and everyone sits and listens and argues about it all. This
can take upwards of forty-five minutes after contentious debates. I
propose something like this: after the decision is announced, each judge
delivers a brief summary decision, lasting no more than 2 minutes. If the
winning team wishes to discuss specifics with any of the judges,
convention will allow them to go first, ask their questions, demand
amplification from the dissenters, whatever. Once they are satisfied, it
will not be considered discourteous or otherwise inappropriate if one or
both of the winning debaters excuse themselves from further discussion and
get on with prepping for the next round. Given this new convention, I
think that tournaments would be justified in pushing the schedule
considerably faster on elim day. This is especially true at the
increasing number of tournaments where the elim bracket is published
Sunday night.
I would be very interested in community input on either of these schemes,
as we might try to implement one or both at Harvard this year.
dp
_______________________________________________
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/20081023/a03f6b2c/attachment.htm
From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 12:59:11 2008
From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:59:11 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure
In-Reply-To: <48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu>
References: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu>
<48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu>
Message-ID:
Hello All,
Ross and I had a very nice phone conversation last night....We both agree
with two premises:
1. The tournament day is way too long
2. It is very hard to know what to value. Most of this discussion is about
different valid concerns that all have different unrelated impacts. For
instance, we want to find a way to BOTH reward competition and also create
the best environment for learning. We desire both to make sure the best and
brightest shine and that the young and learning get opportunities to test
their mettle. We want to be able to cut lots of cards and also have a
chance to socially recognize peers who deserve recognition.
The real question, is how to reconcile the desire for a more humane
tournament day with the many things we try to accomplish with our "national"
tournaments.
I am not sure there is a solution that will salve everyone's various needs
and desires. One option is for people to try different experiments (like
Wake going to 6 rounds) but to survey extensively during the tournament and
after the tournament to see what the majority of coaches, judges, and
participants feel. A good follow up would be for the other "national"
tournaments to try different methods (Dallas and others had very interesting
exciting proposals). In addition, if those other tournaments followed up
with coordinated surveys (with Wake) we might be able to generate meaningful
data about what people value more/most when it comes to what we try to
accomplish with tournaments.
Anyway, I certainly have made enough 15 hour van trips to be pretty
empathetic to a shorter tournament day. I just want to make sure that our
solutions to the longer tournament day do the best job of accomplishing the
most important goals we value.
Josh
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Ross Smith wrote:
> Big picture.
>
> OVERVIEW: If you cannot figure out, as a coach, how to get a highly
> educational experience for your debaters that is worth the money in three
> days at WFU, ask me for hints. Or do not come. A couple of hints: if they do
> not clear in either division (that's why there are at least 40 teams
> clearing, Hoe), have them watch and record rounds. Go back home and have
> them give speeches as if they were in that round. Have them record their own
> rounds. Have them redo speeches from those rounds. Jeepers. the"POOR AND THE
> MIDDLE CLASS" unwarranted jive analogy needs to be highlighted here at the
> top as one of the most ridiculous all time claims (claims, no warrants were
> provided).
>
> Other rebuttalish stuff:
>
> 1) The SQ is not an alt. 20+ hour days are wrong.
> 2) Being there in person, alert, awake, is qualitatively different and
> better for experiencing elim rounds, banquet speeches, and getting back to
> school.
> 3) Totally exhausted students, who cannot appreciate and participate in the
> to-and-for of an elim round, and totally exhausted coaches/judges who have
> questionable safety when driving and questionable decision making skills
> when coaching or judging are not red herrings. Not to mention the fact that
> the exhaustion does spill over into the next day and the day after when
> students miss classes or undereperform in school and teachers/coaches do the
> same. Question: after a tournament that ends on a Monday, when are folks
> really "recovered" and up and running at full speed? By Wednesday? How often
> are people sick?
> 4) I give 25%/33% FACTS and Josh calls it "cherry picking." Nope. Just the
> raw numbers. Low hanging fruit, perhaps, but that's what I get when the
> facts are on my side. How about it? Quality/quantity.
> 5) NDT will probably model our elim day before long, and end before
> midnight (unless someone has a compelling arg against our Monday schedule).
> Therefore, no reason to have our tournament and others be "good practice"
> (by abusing people and ending at 2 am) for an absurd event like the NDT has
> become.
> 6) The McCain thing is one of the dumbest and most offensive (to me) thing
> I have had directed my way on edebate. Hoe expects me to respond by accusing
> him of advocating debate socialism? WE HAVE THIS THING CALLED A TOURNAMENT
> WITH A WINNER. I AM NOW TAKING A BRIEF TIME OUT FROM MY OTHER JOB OF
> ARRANGING OBAMA RIDES TO POLLS FOR A TERRITORY OF A MILLION PEOPLE TO
> RESPOND TO THROW AWAY B.S.???
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/22/2008 11:10 PM, Josh wrote:
>
>> I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross has earned
>> the right to do whatever he wants with his tournament and that any
>> tournament director should run whatever tournament they want to run. But,
>> as I seem to be the "disagreeer"
>> 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the
>> 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if
>> you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful
>> inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of
>> educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%.
>> Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be.
>> JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they are currently
>> operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry picking. However, its true 6
>> is better than it used to be.....but 8 is still better.
>> 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes
>> next to no difference to the Copeland?
>> JBH: Is that another proposal?
>> 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social
>> time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That
>> ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The
>> words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all
>> coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"??
>> JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2 more debates.
>> All of that could happen on the net/edebate/wherever and I would send just
>> as many congrats letters to whoever won. As you said above "they have more
>> valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include
>> careful inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision
>> are of educational value." In addition the "social events are good" thing
>> flew the coop a long time ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in.
>> People like free food. Coaches like being recognized but I suspect most of
>> the non-director coaches move on to work.
>> The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh 120 more
>> debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever). As much as I would sometime
>> love to win coach of the year...I would probably understand getting it
>> without Greg Achten making fun of me in front of the 300 people (in the
>> fantasy work in which I won).
>> 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we
>> were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night
>> elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people
>> participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I
>> envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to
>> debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few
>> people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision
>> relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which
>> have known starting times.
>> JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for monday leave
>> when the tickets come up...the people who leave tuesday watch rounds...one,
>> two, three, or whatever. I doubt very seriously that finals grows in
>> audience much more with the change.....people start partying and play poker
>> and hang out or watch rounds...The problem is never that a bunch of people
>> would watch substantially more rounds if only there were less prelims.
>> 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It
>> helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final
>> round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even
>> use elims to determine the winner? S
>> JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim debaters? When was
>> the final round ever the best round of any tournament. In addition, and
>> perhaps most important, the NDT is even more of an endurance
>> contest....having a few tournaments that are equally as rigorous on the last
>> day is probably a good thing.
>> 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament.
>> JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just have missed something
>> here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent argument....of course, my point is
>> still those rounds would be good for the unlucky/not as talented 30%
>> 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of
>> 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected
>> overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long
>> ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on
>> those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us.
>> Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and
>> severe unfairness in side assignment.
>> JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans banquet, or the
>> sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options that have been suggested.
>> 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge
>> decision time and post-round discussion time.
>> JBH: agreed
>>
>> 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the
>> quantity of debates you are in.
>> JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more watching
>> either way.
>>
>> 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a
>> fair demand?
>> JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and coaches and
>> judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class? This is Mccain v Obama
>> here.
>> Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the Shirley is
>> whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have always been supportive
>> of debate in ways most people only wish to be......I may disagree this
>> once..but it happens,
>> Josh
>>
>> --
>> 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 <
>> http://www.debatescoop.org/>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CEDA-L mailing list
>> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>>
>>
> --
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081023/645c7b6b/attachment.htm
From sharris at ku.edu Thu Oct 23 14:21:43 2008
From: sharris at ku.edu (Harris, Scott L)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:21:43 -0500
Subject: [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID: <9632C3DAB675864EB0A9B7724D85DB79065E48AD@MAILBOXSEVEN.home.ku.edu>
Shortening the season by a couple of months would help a great deal. It
doesn't make much sense to me that debate has a season that lasts so
much longer than any sport.
-----Original Message-----
From: ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
[mailto:ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Josh
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:59 PM
To: Ross Smith
Cc: edebate; ceda-l at ndtceda.com
Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds
structure
Hello All,
Ross and I had a very nice phone conversation last night....We
both agree with two premises:
1. The tournament day is way too long
2. It is very hard to know what to value. Most of this
discussion is about different valid concerns that all have different
unrelated impacts. For instance, we want to find a way to BOTH reward
competition and also create the best environment for learning. We
desire both to make sure the best and brightest shine and that the young
and learning get opportunities to test their mettle. We want to be able
to cut lots of cards and also have a chance to socially recognize peers
who deserve recognition.
The real question, is how to reconcile the desire for a more
humane tournament day with the many things we try to accomplish with our
"national" tournaments.
I am not sure there is a solution that will salve everyone's
various needs and desires. One option is for people to try different
experiments (like Wake going to 6 rounds) but to survey extensively
during the tournament and after the tournament to see what the majority
of coaches, judges, and participants feel. A good follow up would be
for the other "national" tournaments to try different methods (Dallas
and others had very interesting exciting proposals). In addition, if
those other tournaments followed up with coordinated surveys (with Wake)
we might be able to generate meaningful data about what people value
more/most when it comes to what we try to accomplish with tournaments.
Anyway, I certainly have made enough 15 hour van trips to be
pretty empathetic to a shorter tournament day. I just want to make sure
that our solutions to the longer tournament day do the best job of
accomplishing the most important goals we value.
Josh
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Ross Smith
wrote:
Big picture.
OVERVIEW: If you cannot figure out, as a coach, how to
get a highly educational experience for your debaters that is worth the
money in three days at WFU, ask me for hints. Or do not come. A couple
of hints: if they do not clear in either division (that's why there are
at least 40 teams clearing, Hoe), have them watch and record rounds. Go
back home and have them give speeches as if they were in that round.
Have them record their own rounds. Have them redo speeches from those
rounds. Jeepers. the"POOR AND THE MIDDLE CLASS" unwarranted jive analogy
needs to be highlighted here at the top as one of the most ridiculous
all time claims (claims, no warrants were provided).
Other rebuttalish stuff:
1) The SQ is not an alt. 20+ hour days are wrong.
2) Being there in person, alert, awake, is qualitatively
different and better for experiencing elim rounds, banquet speeches, and
getting back to school.
3) Totally exhausted students, who cannot appreciate and
participate in the to-and-for of an elim round, and totally exhausted
coaches/judges who have questionable safety when driving and
questionable decision making skills when coaching or judging are not red
herrings. Not to mention the fact that the exhaustion does spill over
into the next day and the day after when students miss classes or
undereperform in school and teachers/coaches do the same. Question:
after a tournament that ends on a Monday, when are folks really
"recovered" and up and running at full speed? By Wednesday? How often
are people sick?
4) I give 25%/33% FACTS and Josh calls it "cherry
picking." Nope. Just the raw numbers. Low hanging fruit, perhaps, but
that's what I get when the facts are on my side. How about it?
Quality/quantity.
5) NDT will probably model our elim day before long, and
end before midnight (unless someone has a compelling arg against our
Monday schedule). Therefore, no reason to have our tournament and others
be "good practice" (by abusing people and ending at 2 am) for an absurd
event like the NDT has become.
6) The McCain thing is one of the dumbest and most
offensive (to me) thing I have had directed my way on edebate. Hoe
expects me to respond by accusing him of advocating debate socialism? WE
HAVE THIS THING CALLED A TOURNAMENT WITH A WINNER. I AM NOW TAKING A
BRIEF TIME OUT FROM MY OTHER JOB OF ARRANGING OBAMA RIDES TO POLLS FOR A
TERRITORY OF A MILLION PEOPLE TO RESPOND TO THROW AWAY B.S.???
On 10/22/2008 11:10 PM, Josh wrote:
I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I
really think Ross has earned the right to do whatever he wants with his
tournament and that any tournament director should run whatever
tournament they want to run. But, as I seem to be the "disagreeer"
1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct
than they did when the
8-round format was popularized (they have 33%
more valuable content if
you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that
include careful
inspection of evidence, and post-round
discussion of the decision are of
educational value), yet going from 6 to 8
prelims subtracts only 25%.
Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is
what 8 used to be.
JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round
tournament as they are currently operated so the 33% argument is kind of
cherry picking. However, its true 6 is better than it used to be.....but
8 is still better.
2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after
semis since finals makes
next to no difference to the Copeland?
JBH: Is that another proposal?
3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our
activity lacks good social
time, good celebratory time. We honor a national
coach of the year. That
ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the
person who wins it. The
words spoken in praise resound and reflect on
the efforts of all
coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just
words"??
JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as
much as 2 more debates. All of that could happen on the
net/edebate/wherever and I would send just as many congrats letters to
whoever won. As you said above "they have more valuable content if you
think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful inspection of
evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of educational
value." In addition the "social events are good" thing flew the coop a
long time ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in. People like
free food. Coaches like being recognized but I suspect most of the
non-director coaches move on to work.
The real question is does the banquet social
value outweigh 120 more debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever).
As much as I would sometime love to win coach of the year...I would
probably understand getting it without Greg Achten making fun of me in
front of the 300 people (in the fantasy work in which I won).
4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot
from watching elims we
were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim
schedules and late night
elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences.
Stefan says only 7 people
participate in the final round. That does not
sound good to me. I
envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms
that are well suited to
debate (as opposed to early morning cramped
hotel rooms with a few
people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the
neg block). I envision
relatively well rested people watching the
Monday elims all of which
have known starting times.
JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book
tickets for monday leave when the tickets come up...the people who leave
tuesday watch rounds...one, two, three, or whatever. I doubt very
seriously that finals grows in audience much more with the
change.....people start partying and play poker and hang out or watch
rounds...The problem is never that a bunch of people would watch
substantially more rounds if only there were less prelims.
5) High quality elims matter. Especially when
there is an audience. It
helps the audience learn more, and helps the
competitors. The final
round should be the best round in the
tournament. If not, why do we even
use elims to determine the winner? S
JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to
non-elim debaters? When was the final round ever the best round of any
tournament. In addition, and perhaps most important, the NDT is even
more of an endurance contest....having a few tournaments that are
equally as rigorous on the last day is probably a good thing.
6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30%
or so of the tournament.
JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just
have missed something here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent
argument....of course, my point is still those rounds would be good for
the unlucky/not as talented 30%
7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts:
this year's Shirley of
6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas
was rejected
overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and
at Kentucky not so long
ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round
and all but forced it on
those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to
rethink that. Good for us.
Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling
with a banquet and
severe unfairness in side assignment.
JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the
sq sans banquet, or the sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options that
have been suggested.
8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules
regarding elim judge
decision time and post-round discussion time.
JBH: agreed
9) Total quality of the experience is not solely
a function of the
quantity of debates you are in.
JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually
exclusive with more watching either way.
10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we
ask of them? What is a
fair demand?
JBH: Again, does making the night better for the
8 teams and coaches and judges ow the impact on the poor and middle
class? This is Mccain v Obama here.
Anyway, there was no real discussion of this -
I realize the Shirley is whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you
have always been supportive of debate in ways most people only wish to
be......I may disagree this once..but it happens,
Josh
--
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
_______________________________________________
CEDA-L mailing list
CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
--
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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081023/2e70cdb2/attachment.htm
From scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu Oct 23 15:14:03 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:14:03 -0500
Subject: [CEDA-L] Wake and 6 rounds
Message-ID: <1224792843.4900db0b0b481@webmail.grandecom.net>
The fact that Wake shifted to six rounds in the only reason I have even
considered sending a team. Eight rounds is excessive.
Scott Elliott
From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Oct 23 16:33:03 2008
From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:33:03 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure
References: <9632C3DAB675864EB0A9B7724D85DB79065E48AD@MAILBOXSEVEN.home.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB30@castor.richmond.edu>
Other possibilities....
1) Hidden Out-Rounds. Have doubles and octos during rounds 7 and 8. Once 8 prelims are over, you are in Quarters. Not hard to do--sometimes 1 judge is more preferred than 3.
2) TEN PRELIMS--straight to semis or finals. More debates for everyone.
Kevin
________________________________
From: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Harris, Scott L
Sent: Thu 10/23/2008 3:21 PM
To: Josh; Ross Smith
Cc: edebate; ceda-l at ndtceda.com
Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure
Shortening the season by a couple of months would help a great deal. It doesn't make much sense to me that debate has a season that lasts so much longer than any sport.
From lacyjp at wfu.edu Fri Oct 24 02:17:34 2008
From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:17:34 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Registering at CEDA Forum
In-Reply-To: <322415.35794.qm@web65504.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <322415.35794.qm@web65504.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4901768E.3020404@wfu.edu>
I read the tutorial about using cedadebate.org, but I don't know who to
contact for a registration code.
Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Thanks!
--JP Lacy
lacyjp at wfu.edu
Michael Antonucci wrote:
> I don't get what's up with the registration code?
>
> Somebody probably already posted this, and I probably missed it because I'm unsmart; apologies for wasted bandwidth, but...
>
> Some people might appreciate concise directions on registration. Forum structure is great; clearly obsoletes this one - just need guidance to switch over.
>
> Should I give a person some money or something?
>
> kthxbye
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
>
From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Fri Oct 24 08:13:58 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 06:13:58 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by John Carroll Univers
Message-ID:
Name:John Carroll Univ - Austin J. Freeley
Starts:12/5/2008
Ends:12/7/2008
Hosted by: John Carroll Univers
Contact: Brent Brossmann
Address: 20700 North Park Blvd, University Heights
Phone: 216-397-4365
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered:
Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.
From stables at usc.edu Fri Oct 24 15:34:19 2008
From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:34:19 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] FW: CEDA Forums, Registration Code and More
Message-ID: <017601c93617$e40636d0$ac12a470$@edu>
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Jarman [mailto:jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 7:04 AM
To: Undisclosed recipients:
Subject: CEDA Forums, Registration Code and More
Hello Everyone:
As many of you are now aware, CEDA has a new web site and we want to
encourage you, your students and any interested alums to register and
participate in debate-related discussions relevant to our community.
Good news: almost all of you already are registered at the new site.
We used the site for online payment for CEDA Nationals and for
balloting on this year's topic. The goal of signing coaches up first
was to simplify the process of assigning coaches a user status that
would enable them to vote, while everyone else could sign up and
participate in the conversation. Now, we are ready to allow everyone
else to register.
PLEASE FEEL FREE to pass along the registration code to any of your
debaters or alums who are interested in participating on the site.
The registration code is: CedaweB (caps sensitive).
Registration on the main CEDA site has many benefits:
* you are automatically registered for the topic committee site
(topic.cedadebate.org), a site where anyone can create user groups
(groups.cedadebate.org), and several other subdomains.
* you can post forum topics and reply to posts on the site
* you can pay CEDA dues and fees for CEDA Nationals
* you can post all kinds of tournament info and updates to insure
everyone can access the info they need
* the site is the location of all important CEDA-related information
In addition,
* the site has RSS feeds, so it is easy to follow the discussion, get
quick updates, etc.
* the site enables newsletter signup to receive important information
* the site social bookmarking for important pages
* the site is built on open source code, which means we can add all
kinds of features in the future to serve our needs.
If you have questions, please let me know.
Jeff
From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Sat Oct 25 20:50:32 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:50:32 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Miami (Florida)
Message-ID: <1C46DFC85E2F4969807DFAB1B65FB147@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>
Name:The Hurricane Debates
Starts:1/30/2009
Ends:2/1/2009
Hosted by: Miami (Florida)
Contact: David L. Steinberg
Address:
Phone: 305-926-8498
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered:
Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis
JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis
Open 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 delliott at kckcc.edu Sat Oct 25 22:39:04 2008
From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:39:04 -0500
Subject: [CEDA-L] Novice at CEDA Nationals 2009
Message-ID: <4903A008020000930001E14F@mymail.kckcc.edu>
Greetings friends!
I am pleased to announce a new addition to CEDA Nationals beginning 2009, and something I hope will continue beyond my year as President.
It strikes me as odd that part of our mission and purpose is to cultivate new debate programs, new debaters, and encourage and support Novice debate, yet as an organization we do not officially recognize Novice competition in its own right at the National Tournament. Many programs bring Novices to CEDA Nationals. For some programs, year to year, Novices may be the majority of their program. It seems like CEDA should make it a point to celebrate and reward Novice Debate by crowning a Champion among Novices at the CEDA National Tournament.
It is with that in mind that 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.
I have engaged this conversation during tournaments throughout the country. Some Directors wanted a separate Novice division. Others liked the idea of a breakout bracket. No one I have talked to was in opposition of having some sort of Novice elim rounds. For a few programs they indicated it would be the only way they could justify coming to CEDA in years when they only had Novices. It seems important to me to recognize and reward those Novices who come to the National Tournament. This, in my opinion, is long overdue.
Looking forward to Pocatello!
Sincerely,
chief
Darren Elliott
Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
CEDA President
From delliott at kckcc.edu Sat Oct 25 23:34:10 2008
From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:34:10 -0500
Subject: [CEDA-L] CEDA Meetings at NCA Nov. 21-24
Message-ID: <4903ACF2020000930001E15C@mymail.kckcc.edu>
Below is the list of CEDA Panels, Presentations, and CEDA Business Meetings for the NCA Convention in San Diego in November.
Note the Executive Council Meeting is on Friday morning at 8am.
The CEDA Business Meeting is on Saturday afternoon at 12:30pm.
The President's Round Table will follow the Business Meeting at 2pm.
If you are a Regional Rep and will not be in attendance, please find someone from your Region who can serve in your place, especially at the Exec Council and Business Meeting.
thanks,
chief
CEDA President
1. CEDA Executive Committee Meeting Session type: Business Meeting
Time: Fri, Nov 21 - 8:00am - 9:15am Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 734
2. CEDA Top Papers Session type: Paper Session
Time: Fri, Nov 21 - 3:30pm - 4:45pm Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 817
3. Unconventional Judge Preferences Session type: Panel Discussion
Time: Sat, Nov 22 - 9:30am - 10:45am Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 733
4. CEDA Business Meeting Session type: Business Meeting
Time: Sat, Nov 22 - 12:30pm - 1:45pm Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 824
5. CEDA President's Roundtable Session type: Business Meeting
Time: Sat, Nov 22 - 2:00pm - 3:15pm Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 824
6. (un)Conventional Perspectives on Switch Side Debating Session type: Panel Discussion
Time: Sat, Nov 22 - 5:00pm - 6:15pm Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 733
7. unCONVENTIONal Directing: A Panel Discussion of Female Policy Debate Directors Session type: Panel Discussion
Time: Sat, Nov 22 - 6:30pm - 7:45pm Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 733
8. CEDA Topic Meeting Session type: Business Meeting
Time: Sun, Nov 23 - 8:00am - 9:15am Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 605
9. Unconventional Debate: Experiences and Models Presented Session type: Panel Discussion
Time: Sun, Nov 23 - 12:30pm - 1:45pm Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 805
10. The State of Interscholastic Debate: A Debate About the Future of Debate (Part 1) Session type: Panel Discussion
Time: Sun, Nov 23 - 2:00pm - 3:15pm Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 805
11. The Future of Regions as Local Debate Organizations Session type: Panel Discussion
Time: Mon, Nov 24 - 8:00am - 9:15am Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Del Mar B
From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Sun Oct 26 17:15:20 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:15:20 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by U.S. Naval Academy
Message-ID:
Name:Philip Warken Memorial Debate Tournament (Navy)
Starts:1/23/2009
Ends:1/25/2009
Hosted by: U.S. Naval Academy
Contact: Danielle Verney
Address:
Phone:
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered:
Varsity with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.
From swhalen at sfsu.edu Sun Oct 26 19:03:28 2008
From: swhalen at sfsu.edu (Shawn Whalen)
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:03:28 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Novice at CEDA Nationals 2009
In-Reply-To: <4903A008020000930001E14F@mymail.kckcc.edu>
References: <4903A008020000930001E14F@mymail.kckcc.edu>
Message-ID: <8DEFD3E7-8939-4216-93C6-AB12C5C8E855@sfsu.edu>
I remember a day when the addition of an event at the national
tournament required a vote of the membership. My how things change.
Shawn
On Oct 25, 2008, at 8:39 PM, "Darren Elliott"
wrote:
> Greetings friends!
>
> I am pleased to announce a new addition to CEDA Nationals beginning
> 2009, and something I hope will continue beyond my year as President.
>
> It strikes me as odd that part of our mission and purpose is to
> cultivate new debate programs, new debaters, and encourage and
> support Novice debate, yet as an organization we do not officially
> recognize Novice competition in its own right at the National
> Tournament. Many programs bring Novices to CEDA Nationals. For
> some programs, year to year, Novices may be the majority of their
> program. It seems like CEDA should make it a point to celebrate and
> reward Novice Debate by crowning a Champion among Novices at the
> CEDA National Tournament.
>
> It is with that in mind that 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.
>
> I have engaged this conversation during tournaments throughout the
> country. Some Directors wanted a separate Novice division. Others
> liked the idea of a breakout bracket. No one I have talked to was
> in opposition of having some sort of Novice elim rounds. For a few
> programs they indicated it would be the only way they could justify
> coming to CEDA in years when they only had Novices. It seems
> important to me to recognize and reward those Novices who come to
> the National Tournament. This, in my opinion, is long overdue.
>
> Looking forward to Pocatello!
>
> Sincerely,
> chief
> Darren Elliott
> Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
> CEDA President
> _______________________________________________
> CEDA-L mailing list
> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Oct 27 07:32:45 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 05:32:45 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by George Mason Univers
Message-ID: <20B750EAC5534EE58A14480A44C00277@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>
Name:George Mason Patriot Debates
Starts:1/16/2009
Ends:1/18/2009
Hosted by: George Mason Univers
Contact: wdecker
Address: 4400 University Dr
Phone: 703-993-1093
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False
Divisions Offered:
with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.
From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Oct 27 11:40:01 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:40:01 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Louisiana-Lafayette
Message-ID: <0D5F6250BD4E45C7893E51054EED0F7B@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>
Name:UL-Lafayette Mardi Gras Policy Tournament
Starts:2/20/2009
Ends:2/23/2009
Hosted by: Louisiana-Lafayette
Contact: Scott Elliott
Address: Dept. of Communication, Lafayette LA 70503
Phone: 337-482-6090
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered:
Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
Junior Varsity with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis
Novice with 6 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 Mon Oct 27 11:48:11 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:48:11 -0500
Subject: [CEDA-L] Mardi Gras Policy Tournament Invite
Message-ID: <1225126091.4905f0cbc6d76@webmail.grandecom.net>
Dear Colleagues:
The University of Louisiana-Lafayette Debate Program invites you to attend the
Mardi Gras Policy Debate Tournament on February 20 through 23, 2009. Our intent
is to offer some Ragin? Cajun hospitality and some good competition. We have the
tournament scheduled to encourage participation in Mardi Gras festivities. We
also suggest that you stay over Monday night in order to celebrate Fat Tuesday
with us either in Lafayette or New Orleans.
A Humane Schedule
We do not believe that tournament have to be death marches to victory. When
possible, tournaments should strive to be more humane toward participants; and,
more importantly, to coaches. Friday February 20th will be registration. We
encourage you to register early enough so that you may then attend the Friday
night parade. Saturday has three rounds beginning at 9:00 a.m. We will strictly
enforce start times with forfeit rules. Our goal is to have you out in time to
watch the Bonaparte parade. Sunday rounds also begin at 9:00 a.m. and we hope
to end before 5:00 p.m. Monday elimination rounds begin at 10:00 a.m.
The CAFO?s support barbecue
Some schools have decided to agree with all of those teams running CAFOs
affirmatives this year (e.g. Harvard). We need healthy balance within the
debate community on the CAFOs issue. Sunday afternoon or evening, we will offer
a Cajun barbecue during the tournament. This will include jambalaya (with
chicken and pork sausage); sausage poboys, beef poboys, and ? pound hamburgers.
For vegans, we will have dirty rice
wait that has chicken livers in it. We will
have okra gumbo
no, that has crab, sausage or chicken. Collard greens
no, that
has fatback in it. Red beans and rice
.no, we put sausage in ours. Anyway, for
you vegans, we will boil some white rice and point you to the Taco Bell across
from campus. (Actually, we will come up with some virgin veggies if there is
enough of a demand.)
Parades in Lafayette
The schedule allows individuals time to attend the Lafayette Mardi Gras parades.
The Friday night parade begins at 6:30 p.m. The Saturday night Parade of
Bonaparte begins at 6:30 p.m. Given that the parade route runs right by campus,
persons attending the tournament will merely have to walk fifty yards from their
last debate round on Saturday to secure a prime bead catching location. There
are no parades in Lafayette on Sunday night. However, there are plenty of
festivities throughout Lafayette to celebrate. Monday?s Queen of Evangeline
Parade begins at 6:00 p.m. Mardi Gras really is a Louisiana official holiday
and, yes, we really do get four days off from school to celebrate. (When we
lived in Texas, my wife was appalled to find out that other states did not
recognize this holiday; another affront to Cajun culture).
We look forward to seeing you this February.
Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D. J.D.
Asst. Prof. and Dir. of Debate, UL-Lafayette
Sme2607 at louisiana.edu
Office: 337-482-6090
Cell 337-849-7487
Tournament Information:
Entry Fees:
$80.00 per team. $10.00 per person other than debate teams.
The fees will be used to cover the cost of the barbecue, awards, coffee and king
cake, and tournament administration costs.
Judging
Teams will only be allowed to enter if they have judging to cover them. As a new
program we do not have the alumni to hire as extra judges. Please bring judges
to cover your commitment.
Awards
Some of the old guard may remember the unique awards from the Southeastern
Louisiana University Mardi Gras Tournament. We hope to provide the same type of
awards, but with a Cajun flare. The Mardi Gras masks may come back. But we are
also looking into some support from the Tabasco company and local artist,
George Rodrigue (Blue Dog).
Hotel
The Tournament Hotel is the Hotel Acadiana, 1801 W. Pinhook Rd., Lafayette LA
70508. Ph. 337-233-8120. This will be a Crowne Plaza Hotel by February, 2009.
The Hotel Block Rate $109.00 per night. We have 40 rooms blocked. But the rate
will apply to rooms registered under our block code until they run out of
availability. The block rate is under ?UL Speech and Debate.? The tournament
hotel is only 10 minutes from Campus.
There are other hotels in the Lafayette. However, this is Mardi Gras in the
heart of Cajun country. Rooms tend to fill up quickly and prices will seldom go
below $90.00 per night.
Directions, location, airports
Lafayette, Louisiana is at located at the junction of Interstate 10 and
Interstate 49. The Lafayette Regional Airport is literally 10 minutes from
campus and less than ten minutes from the tournament hotel. We are 45 minutes
from Baton Rouge. We are two hours from the New Orleans airport. We are four
hours from Houston and approximately eight hours from Dallas.
Tournament Schedule
University of Louisiana-Lafayette Mardi Gras Policy Tournament Tentative
Schedule.
Friday February 20, 2009
Registration. Tournament Hotel. 5:00-8:00 p.m
Lafayette Mardi Gras parade from 6:30-9:00
Pairings for Rds. 1 and 2 released at Hotel and on edebate (as soon as possible
after registration.
Saturday Feb. 21
9:00 a.m. King Cake, coffee. Round 1.
11:00 a.m. Round 2.
Lunch break following Round 2.
2:30 p.m. (or earlier) Pairings for Rd. 3 released.
3:00 p.m. Round 3.
Sunday Feb. 22
8:00 a.m. Round 4 pairings released. Hotel and
edebate.
9:00 a.m. King Cake, Coffee. Round 4.
11:30 a.m. Round 5
Lunch Break following Rd. 5 (Depending on the University, we will have the
barbecue either for lunch after round 5; or a barbecue off campus for dinner;
after round 6)
3:00 p.m. Round 6
Breaks Posted
Monday Feb. 23
10:00 a.m. First Elimination Rounds
12:30 p.m. Awards
1:30 p.m. Second Elimination Rounds
4:00 p.m. Third Elimination Rounds
From ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu Tue Oct 28 11:28:34 2008
From: ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu (Sandoz, M L)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:28:34 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [CEDA-L] Novice at CEDA Nationals 2009
In-Reply-To: <8DEFD3E7-8939-4216-93C6-AB12C5C8E855@sfsu.edu>
References: <4903A008020000930001E14F@mymail.kckcc.edu>
<8DEFD3E7-8939-4216-93C6-AB12C5C8E855@sfsu.edu>
Message-ID: <1951.129.59.250.146.1225211314.squirrel@vuwebmail.vanderbilt.edu>
My memory is that the previous vote to which you are probably referring
was to establish the support of a different category of debate -
Non-policy. This required amending the resultion process and perhaps
points calculations. I don't think this is the same.
-------------------------------------------------
Sandoz, M L
Director of Debate
Vanderbilt University
Email: mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu
On Sun, October 26, 2008 7:03 pm, Shawn Whalen wrote:
> I remember a day when the addition of an event at the national
> tournament required a vote of the membership. My how things change.
>
> Shawn
>
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2008, at 8:39 PM, "Darren Elliott"
> wrote:
>
>> Greetings friends!
>>
>> I am pleased to announce a new addition to CEDA Nationals beginning
>> 2009, and something I hope will continue beyond my year as President.
>>
>> It strikes me as odd that part of our mission and purpose is to
>> cultivate new debate programs, new debaters, and encourage and
>> support Novice debate, yet as an organization we do not officially
>> recognize Novice competition in its own right at the National
>> Tournament. Many programs bring Novices to CEDA Nationals. For
>> some programs, year to year, Novices may be the majority of their
>> program. It seems like CEDA should make it a point to celebrate and
>> reward Novice Debate by crowning a Champion among Novices at the
>> CEDA National Tournament.
>>
>> It is with that in mind that 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.
>>
>> I have engaged this conversation during tournaments throughout the
>> country. Some Directors wanted a separate Novice division. Others
>> liked the idea of a breakout bracket. No one I have talked to was
>> in opposition of having some sort of Novice elim rounds. For a few
>> programs they indicated it would be the only way they could justify
>> coming to CEDA in years when they only had Novices. It seems
>> important to me to recognize and reward those Novices who come to
>> the National Tournament. This, in my opinion, is long overdue.
>>
>> Looking forward to Pocatello!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> chief
>> Darren Elliott
>> Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
>> CEDA President
>> _______________________________________________
>> CEDA-L mailing list
>> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
> _______________________________________________
> CEDA-L mailing list
> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>
From scottelliott at grandecom.net Tue Oct 28 12:41:40 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:41:40 -0500
Subject: [CEDA-L] Novice at CEDA Nationals 2009
In-Reply-To: <1951.129.59.250.146.1225211314.squirrel@vuwebmail.vanderbilt.edu>
References: <4903A008020000930001E14F@mymail.kckcc.edu>
<8DEFD3E7-8939-4216-93C6-AB12C5C8E855@sfsu.edu>
<1951.129.59.250.146.1225211314.squirrel@vuwebmail.vanderbilt.edu>
Message-ID: <1225215700.49074ed4dbd9c@webmail.grandecom.net>
If it is determined that a vote is required, this can be easily dealt with at
the NCA CEDA business meeting. But, I think the Constitution gives the
President, as Tournament Director, the authority to make this change:
"Section 6: The President, assisted by the First and Second Vice Presidents and
a tournament committee selected by the President, shall be responsible for all
tournament operations, such as invitations, computer matching arrangements,
schedules and schematics, etc."
Scott Elliott
Quoting "Sandoz, M L" :
> My memory is that the previous vote to which you are probably referring
> was to establish the support of a different category of debate -
> Non-policy. This required amending the resultion process and perhaps
> points calculations. I don't think this is the same.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Sandoz, M L
> Director of Debate
> Vanderbilt University
> Email: mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu
>
> On Sun, October 26, 2008 7:03 pm, Shawn Whalen wrote:
> > I remember a day when the addition of an event at the national
> > tournament required a vote of the membership. My how things change.
> >
> > Shawn
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 25, 2008, at 8:39 PM, "Darren Elliott"
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Greetings friends!
> >>
> >> I am pleased to announce a new addition to CEDA Nationals beginning
> >> 2009, and something I hope will continue beyond my year as President.
> >>
> >> It strikes me as odd that part of our mission and purpose is to
> >> cultivate new debate programs, new debaters, and encourage and
> >> support Novice debate, yet as an organization we do not officially
> >> recognize Novice competition in its own right at the National
> >> Tournament. Many programs bring Novices to CEDA Nationals. For
> >> some programs, year to year, Novices may be the majority of their
> >> program. It seems like CEDA should make it a point to celebrate and
> >> reward Novice Debate by crowning a Champion among Novices at the
> >> CEDA National Tournament.
> >>
> >> It is with that in mind that 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.
> >>
> >> I have engaged this conversation during tournaments throughout the
> >> country. Some Directors wanted a separate Novice division. Others
> >> liked the idea of a breakout bracket. No one I have talked to was
> >> in opposition of having some sort of Novice elim rounds. For a few
> >> programs they indicated it would be the only way they could justify
> >> coming to CEDA in years when they only had Novices. It seems
> >> important to me to recognize and reward those Novices who come to
> >> the National Tournament. This, in my opinion, is long overdue.
> >>
> >> Looking forward to Pocatello!
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> chief
> >> Darren Elliott
> >> Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
> >> CEDA President
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CEDA-L mailing list
> >> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > CEDA-L mailing list
> > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CEDA-L mailing list
> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>
>
From swhalen at sfsu.edu Tue Oct 28 13:33:05 2008
From: swhalen at sfsu.edu (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:33:05 -0700
Subject: [CEDA-L] Novice at CEDA Nationals 2009
In-Reply-To: <1951.129.59.250.146.1225211314.squirrel@vuwebmail.vanderbilt.edu>
Message-ID:
I'm not against the idea at all. I am against these decisions being made
without the input of the full membership. I don't believe that the
president has such authority, but even if he did it should not be used
without sharing a complete proposal with the membership first and allowing
time for feedback.
As I said, I support this idea generally, but this edict poses significant
changes that might be unpalatable to many. For example, will judge
commitments be altered to ensure a pool of judges for the break outs? When
will rounds be run (simultaneously with other elims etc)? How might that
impact pre-round coaching for teams in the elims? What is the capacity of
the facility hosting the elim rounds? How much will we spend on
additional awards etc.? Are there competing alternatives that might
recognize novice competitors but minimize the cost?
These are all discussions that the membership has been a part of in the
past.
Shawn
"Sandoz, M L"
10/28/2008 09:28 AM
To
"Shawn Whalen"
cc
"Darren Elliott" , edebate at ndtceda.com,
ceda-l at ndtceda.com
Subject
Re: [CEDA-L] Novice at CEDA Nationals 2009
My memory is that the previous vote to which you are probably referring
was to establish the support of a different category of debate -
Non-policy. This required amending the resultion process and perhaps
points calculations. I don't think this is the same.
-------------------------------------------------
Sandoz, M L
Director of Debate
Vanderbilt University
Email: mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu
On Sun, October 26, 2008 7:03 pm, Shawn Whalen wrote:
> I remember a day when the addition of an event at the national
> tournament required a vote of the membership. My how things change.
>
> Shawn
>
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2008, at 8:39 PM, "Darren Elliott"
> wrote:
>
>> Greetings friends!
>>
>> I am pleased to announce a new addition to CEDA Nationals beginning
>> 2009, and something I hope will continue beyond my year as President.
>>
>> It strikes me as odd that part of our mission and purpose is to
>> cultivate new debate programs, new debaters, and encourage and
>> support Novice debate, yet as an organization we do not officially
>> recognize Novice competition in its own right at the National
>> Tournament. Many programs bring Novices to CEDA Nationals. For
>> some programs, year to year, Novices may be the majority of their
>> program. It seems like CEDA should make it a point to celebrate and
>> reward Novice Debate by crowning a Champion among Novices at the
>> CEDA National Tournament.
>>
>> It is with that in mind that 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.
>>
>> I have engaged this conversation during tournaments throughout the
>> country. Some Directors wanted a separate Novice division. Others
>> liked the idea of a breakout bracket. No one I have talked to was
>> in opposition of having some sort of Novice elim rounds. For a few
>> programs they indicated it would be the only way they could justify
>> coming to CEDA in years when they only had Novices. It seems
>> important to me to recognize and reward those Novices who come to
>> the National Tournament. This, in my opinion, is long overdue.
>>
>> Looking forward to Pocatello!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> chief
>> Darren Elliott
>> Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
>> CEDA President
>> _______________________________________________
>> CEDA-L mailing list
>> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20081028/00be603b/attachment.htm
From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 13:49:26 2008
From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:49:26 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] Novice at CEDA Nationals 2009
In-Reply-To:
References: <1951.129.59.250.146.1225211314.squirrel@vuwebmail.vanderbilt.edu>
Message-ID:
I havent been as active in CEDA as I used to be (hahahaha - cue
Jackie)...But my memory is that things like this used to start as an
amendment at a Business Meeting and then were sent out as a vote to the
community (if they passed at the business meeting).
Certainly have no horse in thise race (cue Tuna)....but usually we at least
tried Democracy first in matters such as this...CEDA is an organization
grouped around a tournament..its procedures and practices regarding that
tournament should probably be vetted democratically.
Again, not meaning to step on any toes or accidentally agree with the
Whaler,
Josh
2008/10/28 Shawn T Whalen
>
> I'm not against the idea at all. I am against these decisions being made
> without the input of the full membership. I don't believe that the
> president has such authority, but even if he did it should not be used
> without sharing a complete proposal with the membership first and allowing
> time for feedback.
>
> As I said, I support this idea generally, but this edict poses significant
> changes that might be unpalatable to many. For example, will judge
> commitments be altered to ensure a pool of judges for the break outs? When
> will rounds be run (simultaneously with other elims etc)? How might that
> impact pre-round coaching for teams in the elims? What is the capacity of
> the facility hosting the elim rounds? How much will we spend on additional
> awards etc.? Are there competing alternatives that might recognize novice
> competitors but minimize the cost?
>
> These are all discussions that the membership has been a part of in the
> past.
>
> Shawn
>
>
>
>
> *"Sandoz, M L" *
>
> 10/28/2008 09:28 AM
> To
> "Shawn Whalen" cc
> "Darren Elliott" , edebate at ndtceda.com,
> ceda-l at ndtceda.com Subject
> Re: [CEDA-L] Novice at CEDA Nationals 2009
>
>
>
>
> My memory is that the previous vote to which you are probably referring
> was to establish the support of a different category of debate -
> Non-policy. This required amending the resultion process and perhaps
> points calculations. I don't think this is the same.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Sandoz, M L
> Director of Debate
> Vanderbilt University
> Email: mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu
>
> On Sun, October 26, 2008 7:03 pm, Shawn Whalen wrote:
> > I remember a day when the addition of an event at the national
> > tournament required a vote of the membership. My how things change.
> >
> > Shawn
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 25, 2008, at 8:39 PM, "Darren Elliott"
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Greetings friends!
> >>
> >> I am pleased to announce a new addition to CEDA Nationals beginning
> >> 2009, and something I hope will continue beyond my year as President.
> >>
> >> It strikes me as odd that part of our mission and purpose is to
> >> cultivate new debate programs, new debaters, and encourage and
> >> support Novice debate, yet as an organization we do not officially
> >> recognize Novice competition in its own right at the National
> >> Tournament. Many programs bring Novices to CEDA Nationals. For
> >> some programs, year to year, Novices may be the majority of their
> >> program. It seems like CEDA should make it a point to celebrate and
> >> reward Novice Debate by crowning a Champion among Novices at the
> >> CEDA National Tournament.
> >>
> >> It is with that in mind that 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.
> >>
> >> I have engaged this conversation during tournaments throughout the
> >> country. Some Directors wanted a separate Novice division. Others
> >> liked the idea of a breakout bracket. No one I have talked to was
> >> in opposition of having some sort of Novice elim rounds. For a few
> >> programs they indicated it would be the only way they could justify
> >> coming to CEDA in years when they only had Novices. It seems
> >> important to me to recognize and reward those Novices who come to
> >> the National Tournament. This, in my opinion, is long overdue.
> >>
> >> Looking forward to Pocatello!
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> chief
> >> Darren Elliott
> >> Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
> >> CEDA President
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CEDA-L mailing list
> >> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > CEDA-L mailing list
> > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20081028/278276cc/attachment.htm
From delliott at kckcc.edu Tue Oct 28 15:00:27 2008
From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:00:27 -0500
Subject: [CEDA-L] Needing to hire UCO judging
Message-ID: <4907290B020000930001E4E1@mymail.kckcc.edu>
KCKCC needs to hire judging for the UCO tournament. Please backchannel if interested. We pay cash at the tournament.
thanks,
chief
From jmgreen at ksu.edu Tue Oct 28 15:02:44 2008
From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:02:44 -0500
Subject: [CEDA-L] Novice at CEDA Nationals 2009
In-Reply-To:
References: <1951.129.59.250.146.1225211314.squirrel@vuwebmail.vanderbilt.edu>
Message-ID: <5a6e2a80810281302s79d9d17ei4dd661d7c6c9ca94@mail.gmail.com>
I agree it would be beneficial if this would have come up for a vote. Yes,
the Pres probably does have the power to simply administrate a decision
about the national tournament - but he also has the decision to decide to
put it up for a vote - I ask him and others to simply do that.
As a school who has novice teams - I and much of our coaching staff stand in
opposition to a Novice Break-out
1 - We crown a National Champion for a reason - The focus of CEDA nats is to
represent the best of our activity. We don't offer a JV division and in the
past there has not been a novice - this is because we want to feature the
best in debate. KSU novi and JV debaters are instructed to watch, watch,
watch, and learn from the others who have done well. All of them develop a
little GDS and then we talk about what to steal from speech patterns on the
way home. This might be one tournament where watching good rounds is more
valuable to novices at the end of the year than debating in them.
2 - JV/Novice Championships already exist - The West Coast, Midwest, and
East Coast all host at least one. There are a substantial number of schools
who attend the East and West coast tournaments. I think these tournaments
are uniquely valuable because they make JV and Novice the singular focal
points for the weekend. If there is any risk that CEDA Nats trades off with
attendance at these, then the CEDA Nats division is not desirable.
3 - Previous Experimental divisions have done harm - When in 2001 KSU won
the "Non Policy National Championship" (8 teams competed), we had a choice:
not tell our administration OR tell our administration that we just won a
pseudo-national championship that shouldn't count as much as the CEDA Nats
we got in 1991 or 1993. It was confusing and after an initial set of
conversations, we just kept it quiet.
4 - The schools this is targetted to help already are recognized - New-comer
awards are given to those attending for the first time.
5 - It is a poor way to determine a Novice National Champion - the prelim
road at CEDA is not the same for everyone. Some novices will debate other
novice teams, others will have a much harder draw. This is why other
schools host a NOVICE ONLY championship division. We are probably looking
at clearing teams that will go 2-6 and ties broken on points. It's just a
sloppy way to have it happen.
At least as a caveat - Only judges with teams registered as novice should be
forced to judge elimination rounds in the Novice division. One can make a
choice whether or not to attend the Kentucky (open only) or the KCKCC
tournament (3 divisions). When coaches decide to bring their teams to a
tournament with multiple divisions, they should understand their obligations
to potentially judge all three. Because this decision was not made by the
public and teams do not have an alternate CEDA nats to attend this should
not be placed as a requirement for coaches without novices. I know just as
many coaches that watch elim debates at CEDA because it represents some of
the finest examples of what debaters should aspire to do. We also want to
be there to potentially watch "so-and-so's" last speech.
As far as I can tell, others say
- "Novices would get more experience" - there are other better places to
have that happen. We don't bring everyone on our team to CEDA Nats, just
those who are ready to go and compete. They might be better off watching
out rounds.
- "Some schools might attend who otherwise would not" - Would those schools
be better off going to multiple JV/Novice Nationals or better off at CEDA
Nats?
Please don't take this as any personal affronts - it is simply a
disagreement about policy.
Justin Green
2008/10/28 Josh
> I havent been as active in CEDA as I used to be (hahahaha - cue
> Jackie)...But my memory is that things like this used to start as an
> amendment at a Business Meeting and then were sent out as a vote to the
> community (if they passed at the business meeting).
>
> Certainly have no horse in thise race (cue Tuna)....but usually we at least
> tried Democracy first in matters such as this...CEDA is an organization
> grouped around a tournament..its procedures and practices regarding that
> tournament should probably be vetted democratically.
>
> Again, not meaning to step on any toes or accidentally agree with the
> Whaler,
>
> Josh
>
> 2008/10/28 Shawn T Whalen
>
>
>> I'm not against the idea at all. I am against these decisions being made
>> without the input of the full membership. I don't believe that the
>> president has such authority, but even if he did it should not be used
>> without sharing a complete proposal with the membership first and allowing
>> time for feedback.
>>
>> As I said, I support this idea generally, but this edict poses significant
>> changes that might be unpalatable to many. For example, will judge
>> commitments be altered to ensure a pool of judges for the break outs? When
>> will rounds be run (simultaneously with other elims etc)? How might that
>> impact pre-round coaching for teams in the elims? What is the capacity of
>> the facility hosting the elim rounds? How much will we spend on additional
>> awards etc.? Are there competing alternatives that might recognize novice
>> competitors but minimize the cost?
>>
>> These are all discussions that the membership has been a part of in the
>> past.
>>
>> Shawn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *"Sandoz, M L" *
>>
>> 10/28/2008 09:28 AM
>> To
>> "Shawn Whalen" cc
>> "Darren Elliott" , edebate at ndtceda.com,
>> ceda-l at ndtceda.com Subject
>> Re: [CEDA-L] Novice at CEDA Nationals 2009
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> My memory is that the previous vote to which you are probably referring
>> was to establish the support of a different category of debate -
>> Non-policy. This required amending the resultion process and perhaps
>> points calculations. I don't think this is the same.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> Sandoz, M L
>> Director of Debate
>> Vanderbilt University
>> Email: mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu
>>
>> On Sun, October 26, 2008 7:03 pm, Shawn Whalen wrote:
>> > I remember a day when the addition of an event at the national
>> > tournament required a vote of the membership. My how things change.
>> >
>> > Shawn
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Oct 25, 2008, at 8:39 PM, "Darren Elliott"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Greetings friends!
>> >>
>> >> I am pleased to announce a new addition to CEDA Nationals beginning
>> >> 2009, and something I hope will continue beyond my year as President.
>> >>
>> >> It strikes me as odd that part of our mission and purpose is to
>> >> cultivate new debate programs, new debaters, and encourage and
>> >> support Novice debate, yet as an organization we do not officially
>> >> recognize Novice competition in its own right at the National
>> >> Tournament. Many programs bring Novices to CEDA Nationals. For
>> >> some programs, year to year, Novices may be the majority of their
>> >> program. It seems like CEDA should make it a point to celebrate and
>> >> reward Novice Debate by crowning a Champion among Novices at the
>> >> CEDA National Tournament.
>> >>
>> >> It is with that in mind that 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.
>> >>
>> >> I have engaged this conversation during tournaments throughout the
>> >> country. Some Directors wanted a separate Novice division. Others
>> >> liked the idea of a breakout bracket. No one I have talked to was
>> >> in opposition of having some sort of Novice elim rounds. For a few
>> >> programs they indicated it would be the only way they could justify
>> >> coming to CEDA in years when they only had Novices. It seems
>> >> important to me to recognize and reward those Novices who come to
>> >> the National Tournament. This, in my opinion, is long overdue.
>> >>
>> >> Looking forward to Pocatello!
>> >>
>> >> Sincerely,
>> >> chief
>> >> Darren Elliott
>> >> Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
>> >> CEDA President
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> CEDA-L mailing list
>> >> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>> >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CEDA-L mailing list
>> > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>> >
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CEDA-L mailing list
>> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20081028/1e54b38e/attachment.htm
From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 15:23:36 2008
From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:23:36 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] Novice at CEDA Nationals 2009
In-Reply-To:
References: <1951.129.59.250.146.1225211314.squirrel@vuwebmail.vanderbilt.edu>
<5a6e2a80810281302s79d9d17ei4dd661d7c6c9ca94@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:
With all due respect, that is why it should be an issue the community votes
on....Hopefully, you can make arguments that are persuasive and people will
vote yes on your proposal/s.
I am simply saying, this seems to exceed the authority of the President (no
offense)....I am saying that as a former office holder and long time member
of CEDA with literally no stake in the fight. To me its a prior issue to if
its a good idea to have novice or jv divisions at all,
That said, I certainly dont mean to offend anyone, just pro-Democracy ;)
Josh
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Douglas Roubidoux wrote:
> We were one of the programs that requested a novice division. It is the
> only way I can justify us going to CEDA most years, our program is almost
> always made up of all novices. Participation at the recognized national
> tournament is good for our program. Its also good for our novice students
> to see top level debates. We don't go to most national level tournaments
> unless there is a novice division, so this is a rare chance for our debaters
> to model top level open debaters.
>
> That being said, we will always go the JV/Novice tournament hosted at
> JCCC. The option of novice division or breakout at CEDA is a reason for us
> to go to CEDA, not a reason to not go to JCCC.
>
> If the goal is to get more programs involved in CEDA I think it is
> important to have a national tournament that values all levels of debate.
>
> Douglas
>
> 2008/10/28 Justin Green
>
> I agree it would be beneficial if this would have come up for a vote. Yes,
>> the Pres probably does have the power to simply administrate a decision
>> about the national tournament - but he also has the decision to decide to
>> put it up for a vote - I ask him and others to simply do that.
>>
>>
>>
>> As a school who has novice teams - I and much of our coaching staff stand
>> in opposition to a Novice Break-out
>>
>> 1 - We crown a National Champion for a reason - The focus of CEDA nats is
>> to represent the best of our activity. We don't offer a JV division and in
>> the past there has not been a novice - this is because we want to feature
>> the best in debate. KSU novi and JV debaters are instructed to watch,
>> watch, watch, and learn from the others who have done well. All of them
>> develop a little GDS and then we talk about what to steal from speech
>> patterns on the way home. This might be one tournament where watching good
>> rounds is more valuable to novices at the end of the year than debating in
>> them.
>>
>> 2 - JV/Novice Championships already exist - The West Coast, Midwest, and
>> East Coast all host at least one. There are a substantial number of schools
>> who attend the East and West coast tournaments. I think these tournaments
>> are uniquely valuable because they make JV and Novice the singular focal
>> points for the weekend. If there is any risk that CEDA Nats trades off with
>> attendance at these, then the CEDA Nats division is not desirable.
>>
>> 3 - Previous Experimental divisions have done harm - When in 2001 KSU won
>> the "Non Policy National Championship" (8 teams competed), we had a choice:
>> not tell our administration OR tell our administration that we just won a
>> pseudo-national championship that shouldn't count as much as the CEDA Nats
>> we got in 1991 or 1993. It was confusing and after an initial set of
>> conversations, we just kept it quiet.
>>
>> 4 - The schools this is targetted to help already are recognized -
>> New-comer awards are given to those attending for the first time.
>>
>> 5 - It is a poor way to determine a Novice National Champion - the prelim
>> road at CEDA is not the same for everyone. Some novices will debate other
>> novice teams, others will have a much harder draw. This is why other
>> schools host a NOVICE ONLY championship division. We are probably looking
>> at clearing teams that will go 2-6 and ties broken on points. It's just a
>> sloppy way to have it happen.
>>
>> At least as a caveat - Only judges with teams registered as novice should
>> be forced to judge elimination rounds in the Novice division. One can make
>> a choice whether or not to attend the Kentucky (open only) or the KCKCC
>> tournament (3 divisions). When coaches decide to bring their teams to a
>> tournament with multiple divisions, they should understand their obligations
>> to potentially judge all three. Because this decision was not made by the
>> public and teams do not have an alternate CEDA nats to attend this should
>> not be placed as a requirement for coaches without novices. I know just as
>> many coaches that watch elim debates at CEDA because it represents some of
>> the finest examples of what debaters should aspire to do. We also want to
>> be there to potentially watch "so-and-so's" last speech.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, others say
>> - "Novices would get more experience" - there are other better places to
>> have that happen. We don't bring everyone on our team to CEDA Nats, just
>> those who are ready to go and compete. They might be better off watching
>> out rounds.
>> - "Some schools might attend who otherwise would not" - Would those
>> schools be better off going to multiple JV/Novice Nationals or better off at
>> CEDA Nats?
>>
>> Please don't take this as any personal affronts - it is simply a
>> disagreement about policy.
>>
>> Justin Green
>>
>> 2008/10/28 Josh
>>
>> I havent been as active in CEDA as I used to be (hahahaha - cue
>>> Jackie)...But my memory is that things like this used to start as an
>>> amendment at a Business Meeting and then were sent out as a vote to the
>>> community (if they passed at the business meeting).
>>>
>>> Certainly have no horse in thise race (cue Tuna)....but usually we at
>>> least tried Democracy first in matters such as this...CEDA is an
>>> organization grouped around a tournament..its procedures and practices
>>> regarding that tournament should probably be vetted democratically.
>>>
>>> Again, not meaning to step on any toes or accidentally agree with the
>>> Whaler,
>>>
>>> Josh
>>>
>>> 2008/10/28 Shawn T Whalen
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm not against the idea at all. I am against these decisions being
>>>> made without the input of the full membership. I don't believe that the
>>>> president has such authority, but even if he did it should not be used
>>>> without sharing a complete proposal with the membership first and allowing
>>>> time for feedback.
>>>>
>>>> As I said, I support this idea generally, but this edict poses
>>>> significant changes that might be unpalatable to many. For example, will
>>>> judge commitments be altered to ensure a pool of judges for the break outs?
>>>> When will rounds be run (simultaneously with other elims etc)? How might
>>>> that impact pre-round coaching for teams in the elims? What is the capacity
>>>> of the facility hosting the elim rounds? How much will we spend on
>>>> additional awards etc.? Are there competing alternatives that might
>>>> recognize novice competitors but minimize the cost?
>>>>
>>>> These are all discussions that the membership has been a part of in the
>>>> past.
>>>>
>>>> Shawn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *"Sandoz, M L" *
>>>>
>>>> 10/28/2008 09:28 AM
>>>> To
>>>> "Shawn Whalen" cc
>>>> "Darren Elliott" , edebate at ndtceda.com,
>>>> ceda-l at ndtceda.com Subject
>>>> Re: [CEDA-L] Novice at CEDA Nationals 2009
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My memory is that the previous vote to which you are probably referring
>>>> was to establish the support of a different category of debate -
>>>> Non-policy. This required amending the resultion process and perhaps
>>>> points calculations. I don't think this is the same.
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>>> Sandoz, M L
>>>> Director of Debate
>>>> Vanderbilt University
>>>> Email: mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, October 26, 2008 7:03 pm, Shawn Whalen wrote:
>>>> > I remember a day when the addition of an event at the national
>>>> > tournament required a vote of the membership. My how things change.
>>>> >
>>>> > Shawn
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Oct 25, 2008, at 8:39 PM, "Darren Elliott"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Greetings friends!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I am pleased to announce a new addition to CEDA Nationals beginning
>>>> >> 2009, and something I hope will continue beyond my year as President.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It strikes me as odd that part of our mission and purpose is to
>>>> >> cultivate new debate programs, new debaters, and encourage and
>>>> >> support Novice debate, yet as an organization we do not officially
>>>> >> recognize Novice competition in its own right at the National
>>>> >> Tournament. Many programs bring Novices to CEDA Nationals. For
>>>> >> some programs, year to year, Novices may be the majority of their
>>>> >> program. It seems like CEDA should make it a point to celebrate and
>>>> >> reward Novice Debate by crowning a Champion among Novices at the
>>>> >> CEDA National Tournament.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It is with that in mind that 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.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I have engaged this conversation during tournaments throughout the
>>>> >> country. Some Directors wanted a separate Novice division. Others
>>>> >> liked the idea of a breakout bracket. No one I have talked to was
>>>> >> in opposition of having some sort of Novice elim rounds. For a few
>>>> >> programs they indicated it would be the only way they could justify
>>>> >> coming to CEDA in years when they only had Novices. It seems
>>>> >> important to me to recognize and reward those Novices who come to
>>>> >> the National Tournament. This, in my opinion, is long overdue.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Looking forward to Pocatello!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Sincerely,
>>>> >> chief
>>>> >> Darren Elliott
>>>> >> Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
>>>> >> CEDA President
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> CEDA-L mailing list
>>>> >> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>>>> >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > CEDA-L mailing list
>>>> > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>>>> >
>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CEDA-L mailing list
>>>> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CEDA-L mailing list
>>> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20081028/adbfe1f7/attachment.htm
From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Wed Oct 29 11:25:19 2008
From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:25:19 -0500
Subject: [CEDA-L] Harvard - prefs & judge conflicts
Message-ID: <524839830810290925q30d88feev2e22bfbffde6b43e@mail.gmail.com>
1) Harvard prefs are open. Prefs due Friday by 2pm ET.
2) Pairings will be released approx. 6pm ET Friday. If you have ANY judge
conflicts, please make sure those conflicts are noted at debateresults or
email them to me.
3) If you have any last minute changes on Friday, please email them to DP &
I as soon as you can. We really need to receive any changes by 4pm ET or so
so pairings can be accurate.
--
Stefan Bauschard
President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com
Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools
Debate Coach, Harvard Debate
(c) 781-775-0433
(fx) 617-588-0283
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081029/422068c9/attachment.htm
From eskinner at towson.edu Thu Oct 30 17:29:52 2008
From: eskinner at towson.edu (Skinner, Elizabeth)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:29:52 -0400
Subject: [CEDA-L] Directors Only: Travel Budget Survey
Message-ID: <342F38353BA7744192D5DB1B08752CD673A312004F@OAK.towson.edu>
I'm gathering data on travel budgets and policies in college policy debate programs. If you can take 5 minutes to complete this survey it would help out - it's only 10 questions. I hope that the results will be useful for budget planning and program justification. A summary of the results will be reported on edebate.
In order to avoid duplication, I'm asking that only one representative from each program (i.e. the director or their designee) provide info.
The survey asks you to identify your program as well as potentially sensitive information (travel budget amount). When the results are released, no particular program's budget numbers will be identified. The purpose in gathering this information is to check correlations between different variables (travel budget to national ranking, for instance). Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. Thanks, Beth
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=3wxP_2besBTQkt85yT6NRmWA_3d_3d
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20081030/76b711a5/attachment.htm