From stables at usc.edu Fri Jan 2 18:59:16 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:59:16 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] USC Alan Nichols Updates Message-ID: <39c1ac890901021659x24355390v59c085c2f221d100@mail.gmail.com> Greetings all. We hope you enjoyed New Year's Eve and are ready for the tournament. We will be having registration in the lobby of the Sheraton from 7-9 pm. Our goal is to release pairings by the conclusion of registration. We will do so on edebate and have printed copies available in the lobby. We can only meet this goal, however, if teams have registered and submitted their preferences. If you are having any travel problems (say half of your program is stuck in the snow in Spokane) just let us know and we will work with you. Thanks. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090102/55a04beb/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Fri Jan 2 19:16:16 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:16:16 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Missing USC prefs Message-ID: <39c1ac890901021716m27bbbae0idf864d2d78f47573@mail.gmail.com> This is our current list of all teams who haven't fully submitted preferences. Please contact us if you are having any difficulties with the system. Gordon ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adam Symonds Date: Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 5:12 PM Subject: Unfinished prefs To: stables at usc.edu Open Teams: CSUF RaSt CSUF RoSa CSUF BG East LA RR GMU HO GMU MR Harvard BP Kentucky CG Kentucky GG Mary Washington KS Michigan LZ Northwestern BS Northwestern MS Northwestern FW Northwestern FG Northwestern BK Redlands LM SFSU EW JV Teams: Binghamton BC Binghamton FT Cal Poly SLO GY CSUF MT CSUF KS CSUF SW CSUF CP CSUN AS CSUN AW East LA NP GMU GP GMU LJ SFSU GS Western Connecticut BS Western Connecticut GG Adam Symonds Director of Forensics Arizona State University -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090102/24c8d00f/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Fri Jan 2 23:10:56 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 21:10:56 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] USC Pairings - 10 pm Message-ID: <39c1ac890901022110w22f6f21al41e508da04800e4c@mail.gmail.com> All of the teams have entered and we are now adjusting the presets to match the judges and all remaining prefs. We estimate the prefs will be posted here (and printed in the lobby) at 10 pm pst. Thanks. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From stables at usc.edu Sat Jan 3 00:28:38 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 22:28:38 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] USC Pairings - 6:45 am Message-ID: <39c1ac890901022228s229d7812xf314243c54f64537@mail.gmail.com> Sorry for all of the confusion. We attempted to move up the release to tonight but that is not realistic due to a variety of factors. Rather than keep people up tonight and rush the data, we will return to the original schedule and release printed copies in the lobby of the Sheraton and posted on the lists at 6:45 am. Copies will be on campus at 7 am. Thanks for all of your patience and cooperation. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From stables at usc.edu Sat Jan 3 08:35:15 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 06:35:15 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] USC Alan Nichols Pairings Message-ID: <39c1ac890901030635v7eef0813s89dd7b2c48bc710d@mail.gmail.com> Thanks to everyone for their patience. The pairings are attached as pdfs and also available on our website http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_1_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_2_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_1_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_2_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Thanks and good luck. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com nce -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_1_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12835 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090103/f4079f8b/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_1_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 4710 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090103/f4079f8b/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_2_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12900 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090103/f4079f8b/attachment-0002.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_2_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 4731 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090103/f4079f8b/attachment-0003.pdf From shahall at comcast.net Sat Jan 3 11:04:07 2009 From: shahall at comcast.net (shahall at comcast.net) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 17:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [CEDA-L] NDT Subscription Dues In-Reply-To: <1502268100.2075051231001956982.JavaMail.root@sz0147a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <1134890657.2075811231002247789.JavaMail.root@sz0147a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> Greetings and Happy New Year: I am writing to remind everyone that the final deadline for subscribing to the NDT is January 15, 2009.? If you wish to participate in the district qualifier, and/or the NDT you must subscribe by that date.? The current amount due is $150.00. I had hoped to provide everyone with an updated list of paid dues but I have been unable to reach James Pratt to get the most recent list of payments made to the AFA website.? I am trying to get that list and will post it as soon as I can. The Debateresults.com site now contains updated information on your subscription status.? When you log into your account you will see a message saying that your dues have been received, or that you have not paid and owe $150.00.? Schools that paid via the AFA website in the month of November are not included in that update because I left my written records of that in Cambridge.? I am in California and will not be back in Cambridge until January 11.? I am also trying to get a list of those schools from Pratt so that I can update that site before my return on January 11. I have also been asked to communicate to anyone who will be subscribing via the AFA website, that you should select the NDT subscription option three times in order for the site to charge you $150.00. If you have not yet paid here are your options: You can pay me directly at the USC or Cal State Fullerton tournaments. You can send a check for $150.00 made out the National Debate Tournament to: 324 Franklin St., Cambridge, MA, 02139 You can pay via the AFA website (only way to pay using a credit card). Sherry Hall NDT Treasurer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090103/d6896b9a/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Sat Jan 3 16:27:37 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 14:27:37 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] USC Round 3 pairings Message-ID: <39c1ac890901031427i5d5e4be2w903387c342722a2e@mail.gmail.com> Attached and linked below. Start time 3:00 pm http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_3_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_3_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_3_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12852 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090103/abe1e92d/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_3_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 8290 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090103/abe1e92d/attachment-0001.pdf From stables at usc.edu Sat Jan 3 20:22:25 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:22:25 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] USC Pairings - Rd 4 Message-ID: <39c1ac890901031822r20f5bbc4y7a48f453fa685b3c@mail.gmail.com> Pairings attached and pasted below. http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_4_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_4_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Records available by clicking the 'real time' link on the tournament calendar on debateresults. Evidence storage in the rooms tonight. Pairings available online and at the Sheraton at 7:00 am, Anyone wanting to judge additional debates for payment should just let me know. Good luck! Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From stables at usc.edu Sun Jan 4 08:40:16 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 06:40:16 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] USC Round 5 Pairings Message-ID: <39c1ac890901040640y41d8fb15ie44b8cfd932df2b8@mail.gmail.com> Pairings attached and linked below. www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_5_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_5_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Help us out today by turning your ballots in online as soon as your decision is complete. Lunch served after round 5. Good luck! Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_5_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12902 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090104/ea2e6448/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_5_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9935 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090104/ea2e6448/attachment-0001.pdf From stables at usc.edu Sun Jan 4 13:50:02 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 11:50:02 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] USC Rd 6 Message-ID: <39c1ac890901041150t740cb018q30b1dae133089d16@mail.gmail.com> We would very much like to hire folks to judge debates beyond their commitment in Rd 7 to improve our mutuality. We would happily compensate for folks being willing to help. Just let me know. Pairings attached and linked below http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_6_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_6_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Thanks Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_6_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12841 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090104/87c44c27/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_6_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9882 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090104/87c44c27/attachment-0001.pdf From stables at usc.edu Sun Jan 4 17:29:59 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:29:59 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] USC Rd 7, dinner and awards info Message-ID: <39c1ac890901041529i33355238s6f81fb2d9d3d9aee@mail.gmail.com> Attached and linked below. http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_7_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_7_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf All debates are flip for sides. Sides must be determined by 3:35 pm. Dinner to follow Round 7. Food will be served in Taper Hall. Awards to follow in THH 101. Open doubles and JV Quarters tonight immediately after awards. Good luck to all! Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_7_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 11348 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090104/24dcb040/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_7_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 10020 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090104/24dcb040/attachment-0001.pdf From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:07:11 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:07:11 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] 2ND Vice President Questions Message-ID: <4960FACF02000093000228E3@mymail.kckcc.edu> Here is the list of questions that were asked of the VP candidates. The agreement was they would all be collected by me then posted here before any candidate had a chance to see another candidate's responses. Some answers may be posted elsewhere. Once I post the list of questions, I will post each candidate's answers individually. Thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President Question #1-- Several national tournaments have recently enacted policies that preclude the public posting of video-recorded debates, but allow for "private sharing". Whether that sharing is limited to the college community, or might include interested high school debaters, etc., remains unclear. 1. What is your opinion about having a similar policy for CEDA Nationals? 2. What limitations do you think should exist, if any, on sharing video with high school debaters or others outside the CEDA community? 3. How should such policies intersect with programs who assert their policy is not to allow their debaters to be video-recorded? Question #2-- Assume there is some glimmer of possibility for a program to emerge (students seeking to establish one, a faculty member trying to get it started, etc.). What sort of support, in the form of information, letter writing, sending in outsiders, etc., should CEDA provide? Question #3-- Some would like to see CEDA Nationals attended by most or all NDT 1st round teams. 1. Do you think this is an important objective? 2. What actions would you take to pursue it? 3. What changes in the tournament would you be open to make in order to make it happen? Question #4-- How do you feel about having electronic business meetings to allow those of us who cannot attend nca an opportunity to participate more in ceda? (eg via an online bulletin board, via edebate/ceda-l, etc.) Question #5-- What will each of you do to help revive progams at smaller colleges who have lost their programs either by funding shortfalls or administration apathy? Question #6-- Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? Question #7-- What should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?" Question #8-- Describe your ideal debate round, team, squad, tournament, and community. Question #9-- What would you do to try and increase the number of teams participating at CEDA Nationals? Question #10-- What should CEDA do to revitalize Regional Debate? Question #11-- What experience do you have to make you qualified to be in charge of a National Organization that fulfills both academic and competitive needs of its members? Question #12-- 4 of the 5 years that you serve CEDA, 2 as a VP and 2 as a Past President, you have to work well with others who are the actual President. Whichever one of you wins will have to work well as a unit with Gordon Stables and Sue Peterson (the 2 who will assume the Presidency before you). What do you bring to the table to ensure a smooth and complementary leadership role? Question #13-- Do you feel CEDA should abandon its current leadership structure and move towards another structure? If so, what should the new structure look like? Question #14-- Recently CEDA has discussed moving from Regions to self-selecting Conferences. Do you favor the conference format and if not, why? Question #15-- Do you favor a continued use of edebate for ceda business and discussion, or should the organization move towards a list serv that is controlled by the organization? Question #16-- Do you favor the current amendment before the membership on professionalism and ethics? Question #17-- How should CEDA respond and under what time table should CEDA respond in the face of publicity or press that puts the organization in a bad light? Who should be consulted? Question #18-- Should CEDA have the ability to sanction its own members for behavior unbecoming a professional, such as verbal, physical, or sexual harassment? Whether CEDA sanctions the offender or not, should CEDA report complaints to the home institution of the offender and if so, how should that report be made and by whom? Question #19-- Finally, why do you want to be President of the organization? From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:10:09 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:10:09 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] 2nd VP answers from Scott Elliott Message-ID: <4960FB8102000093000228E7@mymail.kckcc.edu> Question #1-- Several national tournaments have recently enacted policies that preclude the public posting of video-recorded debates, but allow for "private sharing". Whether that sharing is limited to the college community, or might include interested high school debaters, etc., remains unclear. 1. What is your opinion about having a similar policy for CEDA Nationals? 2. What limitations do you think should exist, if any, on sharing video with high school debaters or others outside the CEDA community? 3. How should such policies intersect with programs who assert their policy is not to allow their debaters to be video-recorded? I disagree with these policies. Let me preface the more detailed answer by explaining a few qualifications. Because I was a lawyer and because I teach 1st Amendment and Communication law courses, I tend to look at all of these issues from a legal perspective first, then I have my personal opinions. There is a distinction between what people this the law is and what the law really is. 1. CEDA should not have a policy prohibiting the videotaping and publication of debates conducted at CEDA Nationals?nor should it condone the censorship of videotaping debates at CEDA sanctioned tournaments. Those policies are absurd and unenforceable given the ability (constitutionally protected) to post material on the internet anonymously. To clarify two points of law on this issue, first, there is no expectation of privacy in the communication acts at tournaments. These are public events hosted by public institutions, with students from public institutions. Second, the ?appropriation of likeness? without permission is a non-starter for a number of reasons. Similar to having your picture taken on a public sidewalk having an argument with a traffic cop, you have no expectation of privacy. As long as the person posting is not deriving financial gain from its publication, you do not have much a of trademark or copyright claim. So, the legal basis for preventing the publication of these public speech acts is on shaky legal ground. My opinion is that these debates should be open to taping. It begs the question of what policy debate is in the first place. Is college policy debate a series of private moments of student self-exploration, or is policy debate supposed to be a serious discussion of policy issues facing the nation. Millions of taxpayer dollars are spent on policy debate. My assumption is that most people would see policy debate?s justification as a serious discussion of policy issues. Save the self-exploration for your therapist. The underlying educational function of policy debate means that we have an obligation to our various ?publics? when we debate. The more ways in which policy debate is transmitted to the public serves the overall educational goals of the organization. There is also a question of insularity. I am troubled by the same people that want absolute freedom of speech for debaters within rounds, but then want to engage in the worst form of censorship?prior restraint?regarding the videotaping of debate rounds. The inconsistency baffles me. 2. No limit on sharing videotapes with anyone?including the news media. If you are embarrassed by the stunts you pull in a debate round, or the language you use, clean up your act or be willing to defend your actions to the public. 3. They can make the claim and you can try to persuade people not to videotape. However, I do not think they have an expectation of privacy. I do not think CEDA should have a policy of banning videotaping. They can forfeit the round if they are in a twist on the issue. One caveat, there may be a claim on religious grounds, but that would be an exception to the principle.. Question #2-- Assume there is some glimmer of possibility for a program to emerge (students seeking to establish one, a faculty member trying to get it started, etc.). What sort of support, in the form of information, letter wCEDA has been making several improvements on recruiting and supporting new programs. Without giving a huge list, I will be the first to give credit the Mike Davis, Vik Keenan and M.L. Sandoz for their work on this issue. I think M.L.?s example of Vanderbilt helping the University of Houston serves as a model that can be scaled up. I think that CEDA should be more aggressive in recruiting programs. We need a few things to do this: 1. A new coach training seminar; 2. Evidence made available for new programs; 3. Designation of a mentoring school with incentives for that program to help the new program (reduced fees; etc.); 4. A professionally produced recruiting packet for university administrators. Programs require funding. That requires institutional support. They requires a marketing campaign involving academic and institutional justifications for policy debate. Question #3-- Some would like to see CEDA Nationals attended by most or all NDT 1st round teams. 1. Do you think this is an important objective? 2. What actions would you take to pursue it? 3. What changes in the tournament would you be open to make in order to make it happen? 1. No. Not important. My program?s value in attending CEDA Nationals has never been based on the NDT. 2 and 3. I would not pursue it unless the majority of the CEDA community voted on the issue. So, how would that vote come down? It is pretty obvious to me why those who NDT teams do not attend CEDA Nationals?it conflicts with their prep for the NDT. The solution, and you all know what it is already, is that CEDA will have to change its Nationals scheduling priorities. This means we would have to guarantee that CEDA would be hosted after the NDT. That is what it will come down to. Consequently, CEDA will further identify itself as an organization that is of secondary importance to the NDT. The whoring out will be virtually complete. If that is the overwhelming desire of CEDA, I guess I will carry out its actions. This means, of course, hosting Nationals sometime in April?which is impossible because we have to host Nationals on some school?s spring break. You folks better think of the logistics of your choices before you make that decision. One alternative suggestion?we suggest that the NDT be run at CEDA Nationals. How would that work? People can still get their Copeland award and still be recognized as an NDT top seed. Then, they participate in CEDA Nationals. No NDT. Now, you all know this is never going to happen. But it does illustrate an important point. Why is it CEDA always has to be the organization that rolls over to the NDT? What has the NDT EVER compromised on in favor of CEDA? Question #4-- How do you feel about having electronic business meetings to allow those of us who cannot attend nca an opportunity to participate more in ceda? (eg via an online bulletin board, via edebate/ceda-l, etc.) I am in favor of electronic participation. The video conferencing for the Topic Committee this summer was an excellent example of how this can be done. Question #5-- What will each of you do to help revive programs at smaller colleges who have lost their programs either by funding shortfalls or administration apathy? See my answer on Question #2. A real marketing campaign with a professionally produced brochure package and a mentoring program that rewards existing programs for bring new schools into the organization. Question #6-- Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? The Professionalism Amendment answers most of this issue. So, I will answer that issue here at the same time. The answers to this question will probably demonstrate the distinction between what people think Freedom of Speech means and what FOS really is in the United States. There are some people who think that public debate tournaments are laboratories for students to try anything they wof intellectual inquiry. That is wrong. It is a public forum and standard first amendment law applies. The same people who make these broadstroke pronouncements of absolute freedom start to shy away when confronted with reality. I can give too many examples of ?content-regulation? that will make even the most committed free speech anarchist cringe. If a student wants to engage in self-immolation to protest CAFO?s?do we prevent it or at least punish the act after the fact? I say yes. What about a student reading evidence from some ?expert? who claims that real acts of violence are justified?then proceeds to knock the hell out of the debater from the opposing school? What about defecating on the 1AC and handing it back to the First Affirmative Speaker. There was a QJS article on the Rhetoric of Shit. Does this justify the behavior. What about simulating a rape (Yeah, we know it already happened) to the point that it creates a hostile environment? What about use of racist language in order to humiliate or intimidate an opponent of a protected class (race, religion, gender)? Where do we stand as a community on an unprotected class such as gays, lesbians, and transgenders? Are we going to condone, under absolute FOS, someone humiliating a student because of her sexuality? What about destruction of real property?.tearing up a room, or ripping down a wall map because it has ?evil borders?? There are some clear-cut lines that can be drawn and we should enforce to the point of prior restraint: 1) Obscenity under the current case law (huge leeway); 2) Violence against other persons and against oneself; 3) Acts of intimidation and/or humiliation based on currently identified protected groups; 4) Acts of intimidation and/or humiliation based on a person?s sexuality; 5) Acts of property destruction. Acts censured (not censored) after the fact based on due process under the proposed Professional Responsibility Amendment. Question #7-- What should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?" I like computers. I like the internet. I like communicating via the internet. The CEDA website is a great start. We need to shift away from edebate to the CEDA website. I would like more content on the website. I would like the caselist to move to the website. I would like to have the Brushke system integrated into the website. I would like to have videos of debate posted on the website. I would like a virtual tour of policy debate available on the website to aid in program recruitment and retention. I would like a lot of the material Tuna has on his WDI website incorporated in to CEDA. And, if he does not like it, we can start from scratch and model his groundbreaking efforts in this area. Regarding the second part of the question. I do not think the organization should be involved in creating videographers out of debaters. We have a lot on our plate already Question #8-- Describe your ideal debate round, team, squad, tournament, and community. My ideal round: The 1AC presents a plan that is pretty close to being topical, but I am not sure. The case has real would impacts and some critical ground implications. The 1NC presents a conditional counterplan, a case specific disad and then thirty case turns. 2AC runs an add-on to give more weight to the plan minus the c-plan; impact turns the disad, and gets out of the case turns. All hell breaks loose in the block. The 1AR does a stand up series of discoes to get out of the case turns and goes for the impact turns on the disad for the easy win. 2NR goes for the case turns and the impacimpact the impact turns to her own disad. 2AR makes a brilliant time frame and impact analysis. My team is the ideal team. I have a mix of National caliber debaters and debaters who will probably never break at a tournament. The one?s who will never break will gain more from debate over the long run than the debaters who make to finals most weekends. Open to all, but feisty in terms of challenging each other?s assumptions on all aspects of life. Tournament: The Mardi Gras Tournament, of course. A humane schedule, plenty to do after debate rounds. Community. The Community is not edebate, I can tell you that for sure. When I meet people in face to face discussions, the change in attitudes is amazing. There is a reason why we travel to certain tournaments out of our region..it is because we are meeting with members of our extended debate family. We disagree on issues all the time, but we still love to hang out with people that like to argue and that love to show students new ideas and new visions of the world, as it is now or how it could be. Question #9-- What would you do to try and increase the number of teams participating at CEDA Nationals? Free Beer-pong after round 8. I think we officially incorporate some form of Novice and JV division, or break out division. Darren Elliott?s decision this year meant a big difference for my squad. Instead of just two teams traveling to Idaho, we will be bringing four teams. Question #10-- What should CEDA do to revitalize Regional Debate? See my previous answers on recruitment. We need more regional schools in order to have a regional circuit. As I noted in my 2nd VP statement. Louisiana went from 10 schools participating in CEDA zero, and now just one. We could travel to eight tournaments within our own state. Now we have to drive all the way to Dallas. Bring back CEDA Regionals. Question #11-- What experience do you have to make you qualified to be in charge of a National Organization that fulfills both academic and competitive needs of its members? Directing one or more debate programs for over ten years. Participating and or coaching in debate for almost thirty years. My experience as an attorney and as a professor gives me a unique background to address the emerging challenges. Beat Jason Russell in a beer chug contest in 1996. Question #12-- 4 of the 5 years that you serve CEDA, 2 as a VP and 2 as a Past President, you have to work well with others who are the actual President. Whichever one of you wins will have to work well as a unit with Gordon Stables and Sue Peterson (the 2 who will assume the Presidency before you). What do you bring to the table to ensure a smooth and complementary leadership role? I can take Gordon Stables in a physical brawl. Sue?not so sure who will win. I think you will be surprised that I work well with others on an interpersonal level. I am usually focused on how to solve a problem, regardless of my personal views on the situation. For example, I worked with Ede Warner this summer during the business meeting. You all know that I will get into it with people on issues on edebate. But, when it comes to getting work done, I sit down with people and try to work out a solution that we can all live with. Another example, I attended the NDT D3 meeting this fall. I did not call for bolwing up the NDT, or anything else. Rather, I tried to help find some workable solutions to problems raised by members of the NDT District. My wife thinks I am quite charming. Question #13-- Do you feel CEDA should abandon its current leadership structure and move towards another structure? If so, what should the new structure look like? No. Having the 2nd VP work for two years before becoming President allows for a smoother transition. Watch what happens with Obama in his first 100 days, then ask yourself?wouldn?t it be better if he would have had a little on the job training first? Question #14-- Recently CEDA has discussed moving from Regions to self-selecting Conferences. Do you favor thexclusion. I am worried about people gaming the system. I am not really sure what purpose either regions or conferences serve anymore given that some regions do not hold regional championship tournaments or regional meetings. Question #15-- Do you favor a continued use of edebate for ceda business and discussion, or should the organization move towards a list serv that is controlled by the organization? I think edebate should be abandoned. It served its purpose. We should shift discussions to the CEDA website. Have a student forum section. I think this will also cut down of the conspiracy theorists posting ?Obama is not a real American? garbage every five minutes. Question #16-- Do you favor the current amendment before the membership on professionalism and ethics? Yes. I worked on the original draft of the proposal. I think Gordon Stables and the others that worked on it did fantastic revisions. I have posted my reasons for support in my VP statement and on edebate. In a nutshell, we have to protect the organization first. We have to protect students and we have to protect programs. It is about time that CEDA move to become an association of professionals. Part of being a profession is having enforceable standards of conduct. Question #17-- How should CEDA respond and under what time table should CEDA respond in the face of publicity or press that puts the organization in a bad light? Who should be consulted? We should respond as quickly as possible. We should be proactive. I will use the most recent example/debacle. And, if members of the current CEDA organization get defensive, then so be it. Chief and Gordon can jump me in the parking lot at Idaho State in March. When things got out of hand at the conclusion of the Ft. Hays/Towson round, CEDA dropped the ball. In typical insularity fashion?they thought that we could all ?wish it away.? Well, the audacity of hope might get you elected to the Presidency of the United States, but it will not prevent the publication of such a juicy incident. CEDA dropped the ball in three fundamental ways: 1. It did not move to censure the two culpable actors. Silence was not the best option. 2. It did not take any action on claims made by certain individuals regarding the event. My guess is that this failure to take action may have been part of the reason why the mooning video was placed on YouTube. 3. Ft. Hays and Pitt were not informed of the incident. This was a serious error that I believe resulted in the loss of a great program. Jason and Andy talk a good game about public relations. But, I have yet to see any specifics. Here is a specific example of classic public relations failure. A critical aspect of PR is damage control. Our organization?s failure to provide Pitt and Ft. hays with a ?heads-up? on this left the President?s of the respective schools wrong-footed. They had to overreact because the story had spun out of hand before they could do damage control. A letter to the respective schools would have gone a long way toward institutional damage control. The respective schools could have been prepared. More importantly, they would not be able to point the finger back at CEDA. We got scapegoated because we failed to act. Next time, when I am Imperial Ruler of all that is real debate, we will put the ball in the schools? courts. Question #18-- Should CEDA have the ability to sanction its own members for behavior unbecoming a professional, such as verbal, physical, or sexual harassment? Whether CEDA sanctions the offender or not, should CEDA report complaints to the home institution of the offender and if so, how should that report be made and by whom? That is the Professional Responsibility Amendment. Please take time to read it. I helped draft those portions that the question seeks answers. The PRA will sanction violations of those listed in this question, after due process. There is an investigation and adjudication procedure. Thfired. Maybe they should be fired. How that report is drafted and sent is covered by the PRA. Question #19-- Finally, why do you want to be President of the organization? My priorities in life are as follows. My daughter is first. My wife is second. My debate team is third. Shadow, my Pomeranian is fourth. My family is fifth. Debate is sixth. I have been engaged in the activity since 1981. I have been a member of CEDA since 1984. My only goal is to provide more access of research based debate to as many students as possible. I think CEDA serves a vital function of promoting research based debate. Despite my rhetoric on some issues, I only want CEDA to succeed and to flourish as an organization. I want it to regain it prominence as the Nation?s leading forensics organization. From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:11:09 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:11:09 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] 2nd VP answers from Andy Ellis Message-ID: <4960FBBD02000093000228EB@mymail.kckcc.edu> Question #1?Taping "Several national tournaments have recently enacted policies that preclude the public posting of video-recorded debates, but allow for "private sharing". Whether that sharing is limited to the college community, or might include interested high school debaters, etc., remains unclear. 1. What is your opinion about having a similar policy for CEDA Nationals? 2. What limitations do you think should exist, if any, on sharing video with high school debaters or others outside the CEDA community? 3. How should such policies intersect with programs who assert their policy is not to allow their debaters to be video-recorded?" I believe the policy should be as follows. The default assumption is that during official activities at CEDA nationals you can and likely will be taped and it will potentially be produced and posted by anybody attending, including CEDA. CEDA Nationals is and should be a public event. Individual participants have the opportunity to opt out. An opt out will prevent you from being taped or appearing in any CEDA Video. If it is a public space an agreement to opt out with CEDA does not mean someone will not tape you, that as always wherever you are is largely between you and them, and perhaps the campus, but with friendly video takers it will probably suffice, and for unfriendly vidographers it gives you something more to use. But everybody needs to be vigilant. If there is a video camera on don't forget its on. Don't think it wont get shared. I'm really not sure how you could say its ok to digitize this but dont share this with high school kids(Well ok I have an idea) but still its kinda bizarre. And pretty absurd. I mean really, what better way to want to make high school kids see something than slapping an age verification system on it. Coaches do not and should not be making rules for their team about who can be on video, but thats not ours to legislate. Individuals are the unit that should opt in and out of image control, and exempt "my whole team" wont do, you as a coach can be sure to enforce that rule, but ceda in this instance should deal with individuals. Without a bunch of sanctions that we can't legally back up we can't stop video from coming in. There are litterly 1000s of video photo and audio devices at any ceda nationals we can regulate our own video production, but really don't want the job of clamping down on internet video. Question #2?Emerging Programs "Assume there is some glimmer of possibility for a program to emerge (students seeking to establish one, a faculty member trying to get it started, etc.). What sort of support, in the form of information, letter writing, sending in outsiders, etc., should CEDA provide?" I have worked with new and emerging programs at every step of my time in ceda. If i was elected second vice president I would make the direct provision of services to help start up new programs a top priority. New programs do not need letters, or calls from CEDA officers, they need some of the same things we all need, cheap local tournaments with good competition, help strecthing the budget(even if they don't have an official one everybody has one) dedicated coaching, and talented debaters. They also often need help training coaches and new debaters, plans for organizational growth, and budgetary supplements. Almost all of my opponents have experience with emerging programs, and who ever wins i am sure will make this a highlight of their administartion. Mike Davis's work to get the new and emerging program amendment in to law has opened up the membership in radical new ways, but if we can't put together a program that supports new and emerging programs with direct services we wont be able to take advanateg of the opportunities he provides. We need to provide a variety of free and contracted services that can put us to work building new programs. A $5000 package where CEDA directly works with a school interested in debate is not out of the question, neither is one tailored to less. CEDA should provide the following services and resources through a centralized website and through direct on site work : New Program Guides-Real step by step checklists, guides, timlines, and strategies from people who have done it. Coach and Debater Training-Real & Virtual Pooled Resources-Coaching, evidence, judging and more can be bundled together and save costs for everybody. Funding-Not yet but down the road? One Day tournaments-Encourage particpation with flexible tournament structures/ Digital Debate-Get people debating even if they can not leave their campus. New Research into institutional motivations-What russel should chair if he doesnt win this election. Question #3?NDT 1st Rounds at CEDA Nats "Some would like to see CEDA Nationals attended by most or all NDT 1st round teams. 1. Do you think this is an important objective? 2. What actions would you take to pursue it? 3. What changes in the tournament would you be open to make in order to make it happen?" This is not that high of a priority to me mainly because i think there is very little ceda can do to account for the vast array of reasosn that some first rounds don't attend. I do however think that making ceda better for its own sake will bring more teams of all skill and experience levels to the tournament. Question #4?Electronic Business meetings "How do you feel about having electronic business meetings to allow those of us who cannot attend nca an opportunity to participate more in ceda? (eg via an online bulletin board, via edebate/ceda-l, etc.)" Absolutly. I think all offical business should take place electronicaly as well as in person(though i think phasing out the current in person meetings is a possibility worth looking in to. There are a lot of forums that could facilitate very effective online meetings , and a lot of their are free. For very little resources we could make the video in the meetings two way and take advanatge of the vast numbers of web cams our members have. Chat exists for people without webcams, and so do a whole lot of other things, the how is the fun part and we will get to it, but it is immenantly doable. The Why is tougherl, but not that tough. Many of us cannont afford either the travel or the time to attend business meetings, if we don't have department or some one to pay for the trip it is one more expense out of pocket, and while particpation in those meetings is worth a lot, its not worth a trip across the country. But organizational business is important to a lot of members and we should encourage particpation, it builds stake and community, and often provides resources the organization never knew it had amongst its members. Furthermore having open forums and transparent virtual meetings, creates a record that can allow members to go back and asseses decisons made by the ec and the membership. In addition to existing business i would encourage ec members to blog, podcast, chat, and what ever else they like on the ceda site. If elected i will host at least one monthly online forum, where i present the work i am doing, and seek feedback, advice, and discussion from members, and i would strongly encourage the other members of the ec to do so. Question #5?Revive Small Programs "What will each of you do to help revive progams at smaller colleges who have lost their programs either by funding shortfalls or administration apathy?" Several intiatives i have proposed would substaintially benefit small college programs. 1) Localization and flexible tournament sanctioning can decrease costs and reduce travel burdens 2) Resource pooling and member services can stretch a small programs budget 3) An executive director could work to adapt the message ceda promotes to a variety of different type of schools. The thread uniting all of these is that CEDA needs to provide service and leadership that not only creates opportunity for small programs but also provides the direct services they often need in order to function. Administration aporganization come to rest on our time tested ideas of what excites administrators, but we need to rethink what makes debate good, beyond notions of "they wouldnt understand" or " we can't tell them about that" because the excitement we bring to our activity is a powerful sales point and we need to be willing to make it to our administrators. Many in the organization are doing this well all ready and need no help from the organization, but all of us can use the good ideas of others. As a ceda leader i would reach out to the people who have had the most success and seek their stories, these are not trade secrets, other programs succeding help all of us. I over the years have found that those who have successful models for engaging administrators are not only excited to talk and share but are often amazed by the lack of ways to share that knowledge. One of the many information initiatives i would launch would be a directors dialouge, blog and resource corner where amongst other things directors could share their sucesses and failures with administration innovations. Question #6?Content Regulation "Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate?" I do not favor content regulation of ceda debates beyond the laws that exist that always already govern us. Question #7--Convergence "What should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?"" CEDA needs a centralized web site that provides content people need and function that people will use. We should from the centralized site push out to as many social networks as we like the content and announcements from the site. I have written more extensivly about this on edebate. Question #8?Ideal Debate World "Describe your ideal debate round, team, squad, tournament, and community." The ideal debate round is one where both teams are well prepared to disagree intelligently. The ideal team can make an argument that they enjoy while listening and refining their argument. The ideal squad combines different skills and resources to work together to be greater than the sum of its parts. The ideal tournament is one with good judges, a humane schedule, reasonable accomodations, and competition suited for all particpants. I cringe at the idea of ideal communities, but would say that one in which all particpants can disagree and still come back to do it again. Question #9?Teams Participating at CEDA "What would you do to try and increase the number of teams participating at CEDA Nationals?" 1) I would implement my new program and regional revitalization initatives to increase the number of teams participating in debate. 2)Fundraising would be a priority of my administration and one of the key goals would be to provide a pool of support to get new and re-emerging programs to CEDA nats. 3) A long term goal is to bring down the cost of CEDA nationals for all. 4) I would initaiate a dialouge amogst the membership about the date of the tournament and find the solution that worked best for the membership 5)For the nationals that i was responsible for hosting i would seek partnerships with the municipalities that host and reach out to civic and corporate leadership in the area where we are hosting. Question #10?Regional Debate "What should CEDA do to revitalize Regional Debate?" One Day Tournaments Five Round Tournaments Direct Support to New and Emerging Program Focus on two regions per year Create incentives for regions not vested in ceda to be ceda regions recruit and work with qualified"What experience do you have to make you qualified to be in charge of a National Organization that fulfills both academic and competitive needs of its members?" I have worked in the debate community as a coach since 1999. I have worked with Big state schools with storied traditions and re-emerging programs, small liberal arts colleges with programs new and old. I have coached in 4 different regions, and worked with students from brand new novices to high school champions. I have coached teams that have won CEDA nationals and teams that are excited just to attend. All of these experiences have given me the opportunity to see how competition and education coexist in a wide variety of settings. Furthermore my experience launching the 20 school middle school debate league in Baltimore and the follow on experience launching the Baltimore College Debate Intiative, have developed my ability to balance competition and education signifigantly. In addition to my debate experience I bring 5 years of non profit program management to my candidacy. By combining the three aspects i can successfully guide CEDA toward organizational growth, better comepetition, and better education. Question #12?Working Well With Others "4 of the 5 years that you serve CEDA, 2 as a VP and 2 as a Past President, you have to work well with others who are the actual President. Whichever one of you wins will have to work well as a unit with Gordon Stables and Sue Peterson (the 2 who will assume the Presidency before you). What do you bring to the table to ensure a smooth and complementary leadership role?" Despite what many may think, I actually work pretty well with others, even if i don't always agree or even like them. When i have a job to do I can put aside disagreements and implement a solution even if i don't agree that it is the best one. The key hint i would give to Gordon and Sue is this: I like to debate, argue, disagree, even fight, to me its part of the brainstorming process, but once you are done with the discussing and you want me to get to work just let me know. I have a lot of respect for Gordon, Sue and all of the leadership of CEDA and am eager to work with them. I have a lot of ideas for how i think the organization can get better, that is the fun of a campaign, but once its time to work, i will consult with Gordon and Sue to figure out what roles they want me to have. If they are interested in impelmenting ideas that i come up with i have no problem handing control over, if they are uninterested or opposed, i will work with them to figure out a way to support their visions and work toward mine when i am the president. Those that really know me, know that i am a hard and committed worker who will selflessly work to get the goal achieved. If the goal is important it may be more important to me than the feelings of the people involved, however if the feelings of the people involved are a key component of achieving the goal, then working together becomes part of completing the project. Question #13?Leadership Structure "Do you feel CEDA should abandon its current leadership structure and move towards another structure? If so, what should the new structure look like?" To put it bluntly CEDA needs to grow up and get a day job. NO im not saying the leadership structure is not grown up or doesnt have day jobs. But what i am saying is that CEDA as on organization maybe does 20 hours of work a week plus signifignat work around certain events. But the mission of the organization is expansive, and simply cannont be fufilled effectivly based on the valient volunteering of the dedicated few. In Order to fufill our mission we need to invest a little bit in the organization. CEDA should hire an executive director. I'm not talking about a $100,000 year john edwards needs a new job type of executive director, i'm talking about 30 k plus benefits for some one to work full time for ceda with salary incentives to get to the 100k salaray eventually. But the simple fact is that despite having 100s of stake holders all over the country the organa 100,000k worth of business management. I for example would think that Gordie Miller would be a great executive Director of CEDA. The Executive Director Should Build the organization, including structres for fundraising and development, programs and services, products, recruiting, as well as all aprropraite business practices. The exact details of the executive directors job is to be negotiated by the ec and commented on by the mebership but thats the begining of an outline. The EC, an over worked bunch of people, already should provide leadership and specfic resources for the vision of the ed, and let the ed be responsible for getting the business stuff done. In turn the ED works for the board, which means there is some sort of checks and balances. The EC loses some power in this setting, it is no longer the final say on all calls, but it is on important ones. There is all sorts of very exciting literature on ways that a board(the ec) intereacts with the hiring and continued employment of an executive director. If any body wants to read it ask me and ill send some links Question #14--Conferences "Recently CEDA has discussed moving from Regions to self-selecting Conferences. Do you favor the conference format and if not, why?" I think Conferences are a great way to go. (If i think that do i not have to explain? or not get to explain? I'll go with the first one) I Like the idea of conferences, there are some connections that cross geographical barriers that could foster better stronger regional communities. And While geography is a good starting point. The line is always harshest when you are on the other side of it. I think Conferences could create their own governing, organizational, fee, benefit and recruiting structures not to mention the ways they could innovate tournaments, coaching, and other debate practice. Sports conferences cost money to be a part of but bring back resources to the school, it is mutually benefical to both particpants (at least it should be). Debate conferences should have the fleibility to follow that model or the regional model currently in effect. I think the first stage in getting to conferences is to make the current regions no longer held together by geograpgy (and exemptions).In other words in the first year of conferences, the only conferences would be the existing regions. During the Second and third years after conference implementation a select number (can't make this decison on my own) would be started. 3 Years After a conference is founded it must be reviewed by the executive committee. If the conference wants to continue to exist (some may not) they have to present a plan to the ec and the community to go forward. This applies to the regions and the charter conferences as well as all new confereces created after the intial process. Question #15--Edebate "Do you favor a continued use of edebate for ceda business and discussion, or should the organization move towards a list serv that is controlled by the organization?" Edebate as long as it exists should be a place where business is posted. Announcements about CEDA votes, meetings, tournaments, important dates, and awards should all be there. Each executive board member should communicate in this forum or any other within reasonable guidelines enacted by the executive committee. I believe our communication strategy should create internet content centrally and push it out to a variety of different forums our members are familiar with. Edebate for all of its flaws has facilitated some of the most democratic open conversations on the direction and shape of this activity that have ever existed. While the quality is not of the level of publications of previous decade the record of the public open discussion is amazing . It shows us all in some embarrasing moments, and some of our weekest moments as an organization, and a community. But it also shows the true willingness of many in the community to debate when they disagree, and it showsThink about it this way. Would facebook let people do the stuff that phil lets happen? If so would you trade your old stregas for a billion zombie invites? We need to use facebook and edebate and any other social network that people are good at communicating in, but we need to have a centralized information strategy that utilizes these components effectivly. The organization does not need to run edebate any more than it needs to run Facebook. What we do need to do is develop our own information and communication system that is useful enough to members and the public that they have a reason to use it. Question #16?Professionalism Amendment "Do you favor the current amendment before the membership on professionalism and ethics?" Yes. Even if it does not cover all situations, it is a huge improvement over the status quo and begins to address some of the shortcomings of the current system. We have along way to go to get it right, and we will without a doubt stumble along the way, but as this summer showed we need some mechansm to promote the values we hope we all share. Question #17?Bad Press "How should CEDA respond and under what time table should CEDA respond in the face of publicity or press that puts the organization in a bad light? Who should be consulted?" Proactivly! In the past year we have learned alot about how to respond to bad press. Much of what we have learned is that we are not ready to deal with bad press. After August and Sepetember's press the statements about the press where up on the main CEDA page for a long time. This meant if a user went to the CEDA site not because of bad press but out of interest all they saw was us responding to bad press. Who wants to join that organization. Press releases about bad press should not linger, they should do their job, and then be avialable to those who look, but it should not be how we say hello. We need to proactivly create good information and resources about ourself so when we do have to respond its not the only thing we are saying. Here is a formula that i would use to deal with Bad press: Acknowledgement, Concern, Initiative, Progress, Momentum. Acknowledge the problem, Show Concern for its severity, demonstrate the intiatives put in place to address and prevent reoccurances, explain the progress toward that goal, and highlight the momentum we have to get past it stemming from the good things we do. I would also seek pro bono public relations assistance prior to a crisis so that when time was sensitive we already had the partners and supporters to consult. I think it is essintial to recognize that we are not equipped to manage a major media crisis, or even an embarrassing you tube video. We need to increase our capacity to deal with such things, but we need help from those that do so as a profession. We need to identify people who are in this industry who have a connection to CEDA and see what we can do to create a partnership, that benefits them and helps us to have the professional resources we need. Question #18?Ceda Sanctions "Should CEDA have the ability to sanction its own members for behavior unbecoming a professional, such as verbal, physical, or sexual harassment? Whether CEDA sanctions the offender or not, should CEDA report complaints to the home institution of the offender and if so, how should that report be made and by whom?" Yes. CEDA needs to be able to sanction members and notify member institutions of violations. Its not pleasent and none of us want to do it, but not doing so puts the organization at serious risk, and puts members at serious risk. When Bill Shananahan was fired this summer the president of Ft. Hays indicated that if he had been informed earlier Bill might have been able to keep his job. When the organization has a safehouse mentality members who may have engaged in unprofessional behavior have no incentive to notify their institutions, even if their contract requires it. This creates a culture where things are tolerated and things happen. to our members. If bill can be taken down by an activity the community wouldnt have told on, so can others, and if we as a community encourage a anything goes mentality we are all responsible when someone loses their job. We need as a community to come to an agreement about what standards we will enforce and what sanctions we can take. If we don't have the ability to enact sanctions we have zero ability to enforce behavior stanards that the community agrees upon. A world where there is no way to enforce, is a world where only those that want to comply will. I don't take sanctions lightly and before we get there we need to consult similar organizations, legal professionals, and large groups of the membership, however if we can solidify some standards we have the poetnetial to grow substaintially. Professionalism is i believ a key compoennet in recruiting new people, this doesnt mean we need to wear ties and say sir and maam, but it does mean having standards and practices that are widely agreed upon. Question #19-- wHY "Finally, why do you want to be President of the organization?" I want to be the president of the organization because i think i have the combination of vison, leadership, and experience necessary to take the organization forward. I have been a member of CEDA every year since the merger and i have come to love the work, the mission, and the people. I have been frustrated by the incredible amount of work put in by the leadership and the relativly low buy in the membership has responded to that work with. I want to see CEDA fufill its mission, engage its members and stakeholders, and effectivly utilize its talented leadership in a way that doesnt use them up with little thanks. I think my experience prepares me for this challenge and i look forward to working with each member to make the organization the bets it can be. From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:15:42 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:15:42 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] 2nd VP answers from Jason Russell Message-ID: <4960FCCE02000093000228EF@mymail.kckcc.edu> Question 1: Video Sharing I?m not opposed to private sharing of video recorded debate content as long as all participants in the recording agree to the recording and its been shared. CEDA should prohibit public posting of debates that occur at CEDA nationals. Question 2: Support for New Programs CEDA should support new programs to the extent that it?s financially feasible. I believe that CEDA should express support to the departmental and university administrations involved in new programs and should provide logistical advice regarding where to find and how to use organizational resources. These resources should include information on finance, tournament procedure and administration, squad administration, best practices, and ?how to? debate research and skills advice. These resources should be bundled into a welcome package for new programs. Question 3: 1st-Rd Attendance at CEDA Nats I?m not concerned that any particular teams attend CEDA nationals. I think CEDA tournament procedures should not be changed to encourage attendance by these teams. I believe that CEDA should retain an ?open attendance? tournament as an alternative to the format used by the NDT. I certainly support teams attending both tournaments, but would not change anything about the national tournament to encourage their attendance. My teams, including any 1st-round at-large bids to the NDT have and will always attend CEDA nationals. Question 4: Electronic Business Meetings I?m for ?em. I think the webcast at the topic meeting last year was a great innovation. We should opt for utilizing facilities that allow more if not all of our official business to be conducted in view by those on the web. Question 5: Funding I?m not certain that CEDA is in a position to directly affect the situation of programs which have lost funding, but CEDA should encourage research into fund-raising strategies and tactics, including survey research directed at those programs that are developing and utilizing successful fund-raising methods. CEDA should also serve as a clearinghouse for ?advertisement? for the debate activity itself, succinctly and clearly demonstrating the value of debate for a university. These resources exist in disparate places on the web and in print today and consolidating this knowledge should be a priority of the organization. Question 6: What Content Regs are Ok? None accept those where the content violates laws or consists of sexual or cultural harassment or violence. Question 7a: Electronic Convergence At its base, this is a question of costs. Everyone wants CEDA to do more, but no one wants to pay more money to the organization. Technological convergence is likely to be a slow process for as long as CEDA is an underfunded organization. We neither charge much nor make much money. Therefore, we?re dependent on the work of volunteers to make improvements in our technological capacity. I would actively seek the support of the more tech savvy members of our community to assist in making improvements and will work with members of the CEDA leadership to adjust to using these new technologies to help our membership get a better product. I?m not tech expert, but I certainly support innovative communication technologies. Question 7b: The Real World Debate is two-sided. I support 100% the real world application of ideas gained from debate; it?s a large principle of the way that I personally teach and practice debate. Debate develops skills in students to communicate their ideas successfully in the form of research and public speaking; I think this is primarily a role performed at the team level, not the organizational level. I do not think that CEDA or the NDT is appropriately involved in picking the way that debate ideas are executed in the real world by its students. The social activism we should be involved in should be in support of education and the promotion of the debate activity itself, not particularized perspectives on aof debate ideas. I consider myself an outspoken advocate of the benefit of debate and education and will use my office to expand my audience for these ideas. Question 8: Ideals My ideal debate round is fun and educational. The students are smart and well-researched and prepared. The judge is competent, engaged, and critical, but helpful. The competition is fierce, but good-natured. My ideal debate team works hard and is intelligent. They?re fun to be around, have unique and innovative ideas, and take debate seriously, but enjoy the people they?re around. My ideal debate squad is large and well-rounded. I like to have students from all walks of life and all levels of experience around. The team works together and supports one another. They?re more like a big family than a club. They are serious, but have a good time with what they?re doing. My ideal tournament is focused on debate. The hotel is close to the tournament site. The tournament has fewer than 8 rounds. The pairings come out quickly after the culmination of the previous debate. Few buildings are used. The tournament starts a little later in the day and ends before 9pm. The level of competition is high. Getting food is simple. Wireless internet is available to all participants. My ideal community is big and diverse. People spend time getting to know one another when they have some downtime. They grab a drink together at night instead of cordoning themselves off to cut cards. Multiple argument styles are as accepted as different impact scenarios to the politics disad. Individuals are welcomed for their differences rather than chastised for them. We feel free to disagree about how we conduct our business, but we do so with respect and an eye toward understanding rather than demonizing others. Debate has many communities; all of them should support one another. Question 9: Attendance at CEDA CEDA should be as cheap and convenient to attend as possible. I believe that we should look into outside financing and sponsorship of the national tournament. When CEDA was hosted at our university a couple of years ago, I know that we found great enthusiasm for financing the tournament by university and private sources. Underwriting the costs of the tournament could help reduce fees. Hotel contracts should be examined from all sides. Multi-year siting and multi-year hotel contracts should be pursued if costs can be lowered as a result. CEDA siting decisions should lean heavily toward ease of travel and lower travel costs when possible. The organization, not the tournament host, should be the primary beneficiary of any hotel rewards. Beyond lowering costs, the entry barriers to CEDA attendance are low. The scheduling of CEDA relative to the NDT will always force some teams to make trade-offs in choosing which tournament to attend. The organization should be cognizant of the NDT?s scheduled dates, but should not make decisions regarding its tournament placement relative to the NDT but for avoiding direct date overlap. Question 10: Regional Debate I honestly believe that the problem for regional debate today lies not in CEDA, but in the NDT?s 1st-Round structure. I believe that this system should be changed and objectified to designate specific tournaments as those that count toward bid allocation and exclude other tournaments from bid relevance. 30-40 teams each year do not attend any regional tournaments for fear of the impact that attending these tournaments may have on their bid sheets. A regional rotating designate system would return these teams, their coaches, and likely some of their satellite teams (2nd or 3rd teams of 1st-round competitors) to the regionals. Until this change is made, CEDA can do little to encourage the return of these teams to the regionals. I have an will continue as CEDA VP to encourage the development of such a system. But for these ?top teams?, regional debate is doing pretty well in most regions not heavily impacted by attrition to parli omind, this is a quality, not a quantity, issue. Question 11: Experience My qualifications are both competitive and academic. I?ve been a member of CEDA for 15 years and actively involved in debate for 20 years. I?ve worked for two CEDA national tournament hosts and was coached and worked for a former CEDA president. I?ve been involved in business and topic meetings for most of the last 7 years. I actively follow and participate in conversations about organizational decision-making. I?ve coached teams of all different shapes and sizes and worked with a variety of different debate personalities. I think the diversity of my experience makes me uniquely capable of speaking to the multi-faceted needs of the membership. Academically, I will be an ABD PhD candidate at the end of spring 2009. I?ve been a representative to the student senate, a grade student association leader, and the director of my GTA teaching section. I?ve published. I?m an active researcher. I?ve taught 60 hours of college courses and teach 6 credit hours a semester at a minimum. I?m both an academic and a coach. The ?dual role? of many of our colleagues is something I feel everyday. While I?ve done some of my most competitive debate work, I?ve also been a day-to-day student and teacher at a major university. This balancing act is a challenge I understand first-hand. Question 12: Stables/Peterson I know both Sue and Gordon well. I work with both of them during the summer at the Arizona Debate Institute. I?ve known Sue since she was a debater and Gordon for the better part of the decade. Things won?t always go off without a hitch, but to demonstrate, while actively opposing the wording of the CEDA professionalism rule, I spent time talking to both Gordon and Sue at length regarding the amendment, its wording, and what could be done to make improvements. Anyone that knows me knows I will fight vociferously for what I believe in and will not hesitate to question the President if I think they?re wrong, but compromising and working with these two individuals is something I would not have any problems with. I consider them both friends and valued colleagues. Question 13: Leadership Structure I don?t think an overhaul of CEDA?s leadership is necessary, but would be open to examining suggestions if they were voiced. Question 14: Conferences I opposed self-selecting conferences because I avoid the frog pond model of debate. I think that there is a value to the mixing that is encouraged by geographic selection. I also believe that there is room for manipulation by individuals who are willing to buy themselves a seat at the CEDA leadership table by divising a dead-letter conference and naming themselves the head of that conference. I also oppose the ability of a conference to basically ?boot? a member because they don?t like their style or content. I think one of the great benefits of debate is odd mixture. I worry that conferences are a way to push us apart as opposed to bringing us together. Their benefits are relatively modest in my opinion compared to their potential costs. Question 15: eDebate I think posting CEDA business to eDebate is fine. I think the organization should also use its own website, as it does now. Surely, discussion via eDebate is also ok. People can talk about debate wherever they want to and CEDA should be involved in those discussions. Question 16: Professionalism I?m for professionalism; I?m opposed to this rule about professionalism. I think it?s telling that the AFA rule was tabled to improve the wording. We should heed their warning. This rule isn?t designed to create professionalism and frankly no rule can create professionalism. We should be professional because we care about debate, not because someone told us to be. Question 17: PR The organization should respond deftly. I don?t think a timetable is warranted and situations should be handled on a case-by-case basis. CEDA needs an in-house PR professional to handle their press. CEDA should be proactive in promoting debate everywhere possible, pushing positive stories about the community and its contributions. The CEDA leadership should be consulted, but ultimately the President?s name should be attached to any official organizational response. CEDA should respond with details and research, not just conjecture and spin. We should use the knowledge that we have of argument to fight for our public image. Question 18: Sanctions/Reporting I?m opposed to sanctions unless unwelcome behaviors are explicitly spelled out. Sexual harassment, for instance, is something CEDA already has the ability to sanction members for. This behavior is also well-established and known to any university employee and thus to CEDA members. ?Verbal harassment? is not a term of art and is unclear. I am opposed to the obscenity standard?s eyeball rule for what does or does not count as sanctionable behavior. Until we can more clearly explain to individuals what behavior they can be sanctioned for, we should not develop rules with sanctions. I support reporting, as long as this reporting is objective and the facts are agreed to by the individuals in question. It?s critical that CEDA get these details right or it could face legal challenges. Even reporting should be used sparingly to retain the value of the impact using the organizations force against its membership. Question 19: Why? I want to be the CEDA president because I want to give back to the organization that has given a lot to me. I?ve benefited from the deft decision-making of CEDA leaders for my professional career and I want to make similar contributions to debate for others. Debate is in my estimation the most valuable academic enterprise available to students and its best and brightest deserve to have their organization run by individuals that care as much about it as the kids do. I love debate, debaters, and debate coaches and want to offer my skills to make debate a better place for them. I want to lead CEDA because I have the idea and voice to help the organization face its greatest difficulties and improve on its biggest strengths. From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:20:50 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:20:50 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] 2nd VP answers (Ques 1-10) from Mike Davis Message-ID: <4960FE0202000093000228F3@mymail.kckcc.edu> Question #1-- Several national tournaments have recently enacted policies that preclude the public posting of video-recorded debates, but allow for "private sharing". Whether that sharing is limited to the college community, or might include interested high school debaters, etc., remains unclear. 1. What is your opinion about having a similar policy for CEDA Nationals? 2. What limitations do you think should exist, if any, on sharing video with high school debaters or others outside the CEDA community? 3. How should such policies intersect with programs who assert their policy is not to allow their debaters to be video-recorded? Response: This is a tricky question because I think what I would like is probably not practical in application in many ways. Let me start by explaining my team policy. We allow anyone to record us during any competition. The reason that I am comfortable with this policy is that I do not believe we should be doing anything in a debate that I would not want my administration to know about. What helps me make this statement is that debate has a great degree of political capital at JMU. We have worked very hard over the past 40 years to make sure debate is well respected and well supported. This allows me to leverage the positive image of debate against any negatives that would appear on tape. I would love it if, as a community, we could adopt that same standard, but I know that not every program is on the same stable ground that we are and could not take that same risk. So for CEDA I would favor an opt out policy of taping. The assumption would be that every debate could be taped unless one of the teams or judges asks that they not be taped. The portions of the debate and post-round discussion that they were not involved in could still be taped, but their portions of the debate could not. The assumption of these recordings would be that they could be distributed for educational, but not commercial uses. One of the most valuable teaching tools for new debaters is showing them rounds I have recorded over the years. I would like to see CEDA take the lead in collecting videos that have been recorded by individuals and distributing them so new programs or smaller programs that are not exposed to a variety of debate styles and arguments could watch them. The biggest problem I currently see is that no policy in regards to taping occurs. We need to have a policy spelled out that specifies rules for recording and distribution. The ad hoc nature of taping and distribution results in conflicts when teams ask not to be taped and when teams release those tapes without consideration for those were recorded. Question #2-- Assume there is some glimmer of possibility for a program to emerge (students seeking to establish one, a faculty member trying to get it started, etc.). What sort of support, in the form of information, letter writing, sending in outsiders, etc., should CEDA provide? I have been the chair of the CEDA Development and Retention Committee for four years. I am proud of the modest success that we have had thus far. I was successful in getting the Emerging Program Initiative passed. This initiative gives free CEDA membership and reduced entry fees to any team in their first three years of competition. I was also successful this year in negotiating with the Arizona Debate Institute to provide free access to their evidence for new programs. While those successes are something I am very proud of, they are only the beginning. We need to work harder to develop and sustain new programs. I think right now we are aiming too low when it comes to new programs. As chair of the committee I have asked each regional representative to appoint someone in their region to be in charge of new program development. New program development has to be a regional effort where existing programs help emerging programs survive. As a member of the executive council of CEDA, it would be my number one priority to increase the number of schools parcannot survive unless we increase the number of schools competing and make regional travel a realistic possibility for everyone. I would do everything in my power to expand the scope of emerging programs initiative. We should find ways to get new or struggling programs free housing, discounted travel and scholarship money to attend summer institute. Part of the reason why the regions must be invested in the development of new programs is because of the fact that the initial outreach should be tailored to what that school needs and the climate of regional debate in the region where the new program is located. The CEDA Development and Retention Committee should always write a letter when they hear of a new program (something that I currently do). CEDA should always provide evidence sets for new programs. The CEDA president should send letters to key administrators at the end of each commending the team?s success and encouraging further support of that program. Other than those efforts CEDA, the new school?s region and the Development and Retention Committee should be in constant contact with the new program so that it can be responsive to their needs. Finally, the end goal of new program development should be the eventual appointment of a full time debate coach. Student programs occasionally survive and are often a fantastic starting point for new programs, but the programs which have real staying power are those that employ full time debate coaches. Question #3-- Some would like to see CEDA Nationals attended by most or all NDT 1st round teams. 1. Do you think this is an important objective? 2. What actions would you take to pursue it? 3. What changes in the tournament would you be open to make in order to make it happen? I honestly could care less if most or all of the NDT First Round Team attend. What I actually care more about is that CEDA Nats is as big as possible. I would certainly encourage First Round Teams to attend, but I do not think that their attendance is any more important than any other team. My biggest concern about making changes to try to bring in First Round Teams could trade off with other teams attending. We should find ways to reduce entry barriers for everyone (not just sixteen team). One of the things I think can be done to make the tournament larger (and probably encourage more First Round Teams to attend) would be to have CEDA after the NDT. While I know this is not always possible due to scheduling issues, I believe that we should push to have CEDA second at least every other year. I will cover more of this on question nine about increasing the number of teams competing at CEDA Nats. Question #4-- How do you feel about having electronic business meetings to allow those of us who cannot attend nca an opportunity to participate more in ceda? (eg via an online bulletin board, via edebate/ceda-l, etc.) I think that increasing participation in our organization in any way possible is an excellent goal. I think that a lot of CEDA business can be conducted virtually. We should move more of our meetings to online formats using things like Illuminate where we can have the value of face to face communication without having to be in the same location. I have significant experience with Illuminate and this free tool would be a great way to conduct much of CEDA?s business. I would also like to see the further utilization of the CEDA website for information sharing. Too much of our information is shared on an ad hoc basis. Those who are on the EC or know someone who is know all of the information while those who are not are often left wondering what happened at our meetings. At a minimum we should post minutes from every meeting. That being said I think that there is still a need for traditional face to face meetings. I know some have called for us to no longer have in person meetings either at NCA or at the traditional summer meeting. I think that these meetings still serve a significant purpose for the organization. My experience with the virtual portion of our summer meetings is that there is not a great deal of virtual participation. There are certainly people who participate (Neil Berch seems to be omnipresent), but for the most part the contributions to those meetings are made by the people in the room. What we need to do instead is lower barriers for participation. As a graduate student I served as a regional representative and received not funding from my school to attend the summer meetings. This was a burden on me, but I was lucky enough to have a supportive spouse with a full time job for most of those years. Not everyone is that lucky. We rely on graduate students to fill our committees and EC positions and we need to find ways that they can attend. The same goes for undergraduates. I got my start with the CEDA EC traveling as an undergraduate to the CEDA summer meeting and the best way to get our students to become coaches who feel a connection to CEDA is to include them in our decision making process earlier. Another method of increasing participation is through the use of regional forums. I would encourage all regional reps to hold meetings that do not just discuss the business for that region, but communicate the important business of CEDA. I would also travel to as many regions as possible and conduct some regional forums of my own. For those regions I could not visit I would encourage other members of the executive council to conduct meetings on my behalf. Question #5-- What will each of you do to help revive progams at smaller colleges who have lost their programs either by funding shortfalls or administration apathy? This is probably the hardest question to answer and probably one of our biggest challenges as an organization. In many ways it is much easier to start a new program than it is to revive a previously existing program. I debated at a school that no longer has an active debate program (Syracuse University). The program was cut due to internal politics and even discussing its revival has been an uphill struggle. The first thing we need to do is try to do much more to prevent those schools from leaving in the first place. We need to find ways to create regional debate opportunities so that budgets can go further and so that coaches do not have to be away from home five days for every tournament they travel to. Additionally, like the new program initiative described in the answer to question number one we need an at risk program initiative that help save programs before they disappear. Finally, a CEDA alumni network that actively works to reinvigorate new programs may be our best hope. One thing I have learned as a director the past three years is how quickly a call from a well placed alumni can remedy a potential budget shortfall. We need to work to generate an alumni database that can be used to connect alumni with the school that they debated for to revitalize former programs, protect struggling programs and increase resources for existing programs. Question #6-- Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? The short answer is none. I don?t think as an organization we should be in the business of regulating what happens in a debate. One of the best parts of our activity is that it is one of the few places where the students get to make their own rules. I would worry that any content based restriction would be overly broad and stifle academic freedom. However, I would support any school that wanted to construct rules for their own tournament. Different schools and localities have different rules regarding student conduct. Schools should be able to restrict activities that they feel might jeopardize the future of their program, their ability to host future tournaments or simply that they feel are not appropriate. These criteria should be clearly stated in their invitation so that individual schools can choose whether or not they want to attend. This does not answer the question ohas to restrict illegal activities in debate rounds at the national tournament. Additionally, CEDA would have to negotiate with local hosts to ensure that potential hosts are not placed at risk. It is a delicate balance between academic freedom and the future of our organization. Question #7-- What should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?" We often do twice as much work as we have to because we pretend that CEDA and the NDT are still two separate organizations. As someone who spent over a dozen hours at NCA in CEDA/AFA/NDT business meetings I can tell you there is quite a bit of overlap in the leadership of each organization. The problem is we still pretend like we are different. CEDA Nats and the NDT are planned with reference to each other, but (with the exception of Kansas City a few years ago and Berkeley next year) there is little cooperation when planning these events. We serve the same constituency, but we pretend like we are different. This leads to us continually reinventing the wheel when we approach changes is our organizations. This question is more specific in that is asks about the electronic eloquence of our organization. I think that Jeff Jarman?s development of the new website is a good step. I would like to see the community use the website to its advantage more that it does. Executive council members, committees and regional representatives should post their reports prior to our business meetings to encourage greater public participation. Our students are often much more familiar with the different communication technologies at our disposal. Bringing the students into the fold by asking them to contribute to our organization is a great way to both increase our students involvement in the organization and allow them to develop marketable talents. I have experience with this at JMU as we have students create our alumni newsletter, materials for our summer institute and our team website. The students who have worked on these projects have been able to use those materials when applying for jobs and internships. This is an effort the could certainly be expanded to CEDA initiatives. Question #8-- Describe your ideal debate round, team, squad, tournament, and community. I think that one of the real strengths of what we do is the research that is required to compete. My ideal debate round would not be described by the arguments that are present, but instead my ideal debate round is one where the students have done in-depth research on the topic. I could restate my judging philosophy here, but in a nutshell I think debate should challenge students to explore issues at the same depth as they would if they were taking a senior level seminar on the issues they are debating. Many coaches would identify their ideal team as hard working or nationally competitive. While I certainly would like to see those characteristics in my debaters that is not the thing that I prize the most. I did not debate in high school. I discovered debate my freshman year in college and some of my favorite teams are those students who came from the same place I did because they seem to enjoy debating more. My ideal team is one that loves debating. My top team last year was certainly not my most successful, but they were certainly one of my favorites because they truly loved to debate. They loved going to tournaments, talking about debate and their fellow debaters. My ideal two person team is one that has some of the same passion and love of debate that I do. My favorite squad is easy to define. I am sure my debater get tired of hearing me say this because I talk repeateas the place where I wanted to spend my career. There were certainly programs out there with bigger budgets and more experienced debaters. I have heard people say repeatedly that you have to choose between a nationally competitive squad and a full service program that competes at all levels of debate. I refuse to make that choice. Since I have been at JMU we have had teams go 5-3 at national tournaments and in final rounds of all three divisions at regional tournaments. I am lucky in that I am coaching my ideal squad right now and that I am at a university that supported my vision from day one. I think the ideal tournament is one of the harder ones to define because I appreciate the diversity of tournament options that we have. I like the mix of eight round national tournaments, six round three day tournaments, six round two day tournaments and all of the other possible tournament layouts. When I choose our travel schedule I like to try to fin tournaments that will help my students see the diversity of the debate community. That is part of the reason why we tend to travel to multiple regions every year even though there are plenty of tournaments in close proximity. It is not because I love the eight hour drive to Nashville, but it is because certain tournaments demonstrate to my students why I love debate as much as I do. As for the ideal community, I think in many ways we are the ideal community. I disagree with many of the individuals in this community about arguments, the ways they run their programs, the ways they want to write topics, etc. However, the great part about our community is that we can have these disagreements, but I can still consider those individuals friends. We have a community of people who care deeply about the activity and that love of the activity means that intelligent people can disagree, but still agree about the importance of preserving debate for future generations. The one change I would like to see in our community is that I would like to see it be much larger. We need more programs and more teams from those programs. The best way to ensure a diverse and self-sustaining community is to ensure continued growth. Question #9-- What would you do to try and increase the number of teams participating at CEDA Nationals? New program development is the easy answer to this question. See my answers above for more on this. The more programs we have debating the more teams we will have at CEDA Nats. Creating new programs is not enough. We need to find ways to make CEDA Nats affordable for new programs. Finding things like free housing and sharing transportation can decrease entry barriers for new and struggling teams. Additionally, I would like to see CEDA Nats be after the NDT some years. Those years CEDA tends to be slightly larger. It also helps if CEDA and the NDT are in the same geographical region (or even the same city/school) as it eliminates some of the costs that prohibit teams from attending both. While it may not increase attendance at CEDA Nats, I also think we should do whatever we can to encourage rotation of our national tournament across regions of the country. Even if this does not increase the size of the tournament it would allow new teams to attend the tournament. Everyone should be able to drive to CEDA Nats once in a while. Question #10-- What should CEDA do to revitalize Regional Debate? I think I am starting to sound like a broken record on this, but new programs are the single best way to encourage regional debate. It is simple math if there are not enough teams in your region to host a regional tournament then those tournaments are not an option. Additionally, regional representatives need to work to designate regional options that might be attractive to members of our community outside of their region. A few teams from outside of the region can make or break a regional tournament. As president I plan on leading by example and attempting to attend tournaments in as many regions as pWe also need some coordination between regions that border each other when it comes to tournament schedules. We should try not compete with each other for potential entrants whenever possible. The establishment of an official national calendar that is constructed by regional representatives would be a good start to this type of coordination. From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:21:43 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:21:43 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] 2nd VP answers (Ques 11-19) from Mike Davis Message-ID: <4960FE3702000093000228F7@mymail.kckcc.edu> Question #11-- What experience do you have to make you qualified to be in charge of a National Organization that fulfills both academic and competitive needs of its members? I believe I may be the only candidate to serve a full term as regional rep. I am currently in my fifth term. I have served on half a dozen committees and have attended every CEDA summer meeting except one since 1994. I know what CEDA is, I understand it?s history and it is because of this context that I want to serve. In addition to my service to CEDA, I am in the perfect position to lead this organization. I have tremendous administrative support from my university and they have promised even more if I am elected. As a tenure track member of our faculty I have access to numerous other faculty members who I can consult about issues important to the organization, a legal department that is willing to provide me with free advice and our Office of Sponsored Programs that is eager to find new sources of funding for the organization. Additionally, I have presented repeatedly in the CEDA division at NCA. I have done this because I believe it is important to support the organization and present the organization as an academic one. Universities are not likely to continue to support debate unless we can demonstrate that our organization is not just a service organization, but that we are an academic one as well. As a director of debate, I am asked to complete many of the same duties as the vice president of our organization is asked to. I have to make monthly reports to our faculty, manage difficult and conflicting personalities, manage a budget and negotiate hotel and car rental contracts. I can bring this experience to my role as vice president. Dave Steinberg once gave me backhanded compliment that I consider one of the nicest things that anyone has ever said about me. Dave said, ?Mike can be a pain in the ass, but he is that way no matter who you are.? I pride myself on the fact that I try to get to know a diverse group of people in our community. I know directors and coaches from coast to coast and I try to learn the names of all of the debaters I come in contact with whether they are top level varsity debaters or brand new novices. The reason I feel that everyone has value in the debate community relates directly to my experience. I have coached at programs where we have had some of the top debaters in the country, programs where we have only had one or two team and programs with dozens of novices. These experienced have helped shaped who I am and how I would lead. Everyone?s experience is important and I can not pretend to understand where each individual is coming from, but I will do my best (whether I am elected or not) to make sure that debate can be the experience that each individual would like it to be. Question #12-- 4 of the 5 years that you serve CEDA, 2 as a VP and 2 as a Past President, you have to work well with others who are the actual President. Whichever one of you wins will have to work well as a unit with Gordon Stables and Sue Peterson (the 2 who will assume the Presidency before you). What do you bring to the table to ensure a smooth and complementary leadership role? I have worked with Sue and Gordon (as well as Darren and Joe who will be our immediate past presidents for a long time. Sue and I were competitors against each other and have worked together in the CEDA leadership for quite a while. Gordon and I have worked together very closely at the University of Georgia where we were both graduate students. Part of the reason I am running is because I am enthusiastic about the types of changes that both Gordon and Sue have discussed as CEDA moves forward. I also have worked with our treasurer, ML Sandoz, and our executive secretary, Jeff Jarman, for a long time. I am interested in serving this organization because I appreciate the work that these individuals have put into the organization. I know that some people have complained that useful or that the executive council is some sort of secret cabal that makes decisions out of the view of the public. This is an insult to the people who give of themselves to serve this organization. I know that this statement might cost me some votes, but if you think that the individuals who serve CEDA have anything but the best interest of the organization at heart then I?m probably not the person you want to vote for anyway. Question #13-- Do you feel CEDA should abandon its current leadership structure and move towards another structure? If so, what should the new structure look like? Maybe. I voted for the change to two year terms that was proposed a few years ago. I think that there is too much learning on the job in our current structure. There are a few ways to solve this problem. The first would be to move to longer term than are currently served. I understand that there were many who felt that we would have a hard time recruiting future vice presidents if this was the case and that may be the case. A better solution (and the one that I would favor) would be the establishment of permanent committees that would take some of the load off of the vice presidents and president. The establishment of the national tournament committee is a good start. We need more committees that can help to create institutional memory. Too often we rely on ML or Kelly to remember how we did things in the past. This is an unfair burden on them and guarantees that each president has to learn on the job. Permanent committees with multi-year appointments would make for a much better solution. That being said ? I do not think the current structure is broken. We should not abandon this structure which has worked for years unless we are sure that the new structure is one that will function more fluidly. Question #14-- Recently CEDA has discussed moving from Regions to self-selecting Conferences. Do you favor the conference format and if not, why? I voted for the conference proposal each time. I saw it as a way to revitalize regional debate by allowing schools to self-associate. I also saw it as a way to encourage new schools to participate. I saw it as a way that existing programs could draw natural alliance with new programs. If Big Ten schools like Iowa, Northwestern, MSU, Michigan, etc have programs then CEDA, along with the regional reps could approach other Big Ten schools about joining their conference. Also, some regions are just not working. There are some regions that have only four or five schools in them. These are not currently viable regions. We need some alternative that would more accurately reflect our current travel patterns. I am not sure if conferences is the only viable solutions, but it was certainly the best one that I had heard in a while. Question #15-- Do you favor a continued use of edebate for ceda business and discussion, or should the organization move towards a list serv that is controlled by the organization? I think we are in a tough spot as an organization when it comes to edebate. I do not think that it should be the primary means of communication for the organization. Attaching CEDA?s name to the URL creates more problems than it is worth. Conducting business on a listserv that allows anonymous posting of whatever slanderous material someone wants to post is not the proper way to conduct business for a professional organization. I know some of you think it is no big deal, but as some who had an anonymous post of me mentioned during a job interview this is a serious concern that we need to address. Additionally, as I understand it Phil does not have much interest in continuing the listserv. He is still willing to do it for now, but it should not be the responsibility of a single individual not associated with the organization to run our professional listserv. We need to start to move towards a more formal means of communication that is run by our national organization. I am not calling for the shuttas an organization we should distance ourselves from it as a formal means of communication. Obviously, CEDA cannot and should not shut down a privately run listserv, but we should find ways to distance ourselves from it professionally. Question #16-- Do you favor the current amendment before the membership on professionalism and ethics? I voted for the amendment. I am not sure that it is the best that we can possibly do and I am sure it will be amended several times in the first few years if passed, but we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This policy is without question better than the ad hoc policy that currently exists. My university attorney was shocked when I talked with her this summer that as an organization we had not policy that could deal with unprofessional conduct. Whether we like it or not what we do is often examined under a microscope by administrators looking to cut budgets and we cannot pretend like we can do whatever we want to each other with no consequences. We need to have some way to deal with members of our community who refuse to treat each other in a respectful manner. It is simple to say that the current amendment is flawed, but the truth is that the former policy was more flawed as it included an ethics clause with no official process for enforcement. So if anyone says that this amendment is flawed ask yourself is it better than a process where the accused has no due process. Question #17-- How should CEDA respond and under what time table should CEDA respond in the face of publicity or press that puts the organization in a bad light? Who should be consulted? I answered this question in part in response to Neil Berch on edebate. Reflecting upon it I think in many ways this is the wrong question. By the time we are painted in a bad light it is often too late. We need to be proactive. The reason I don?t worry about the future of the debate team at JMU is because it is unlikely that a single negative incident would outweigh all of the goodwill that we have on campus. We need to do this for our national organization. We only talk about CEDA to the national media now when we are defending ourselves. We need to have a presence in the media that demonstrates what is good about what we will do. I already have a commitment from our Associate Vice President of Communication and Marketing, in conjunction with other CEDA leaders, to assist in the development of a communication strategy that can work to spread all of the great things that we do. This way when negative light is shed upon us we are already on the offensive. I realize that we certainly cannot predict all of the negative publicity and when it arrives we should be ready. This is one of the permanent committees I discussed above that I would like to see formed. Kathyrn has done a great job with PR, but it is a job that is too much for one person. We need a committee made of individual both in the debate community and alumni who are willing to help out. This committee should be charged with both responding to criticism and proactively pushing the positive image of CEDA. Question #18-- Should CEDA have the ability to sanction its own members for behavior unbecoming a professional, such as verbal, physical, or sexual harassment? Whether CEDA sanctions the offender or not, should CEDA report complaints to the home institution of the offender and if so, how should that report be made and by whom? I think that CEDA should be able to sanction its members if the professional conduct amendment passes. We cannot allow members to harass other members and take no action. It places our organization at too much risk. Currently, our constitution allows for sanctioning with no provision for how that sanction is determined. The new conduct policy formalizes that policy and makes it more transparent than the current ad hoc policy. The problem I have with the current process and the reason that suspensions or contacting the host ithat there is no due process. Currently, we can sanction anyone we want without contacting them and allowing them to defend themselves. If the amendment does not pass then I would only vote to send a letter to the accused offender informing them that there were complaints against them. If they refused to respond or respond in an unfavorable manner then I would vote for further action. Ideally, I would like to see CEDA deal with infractions internally and not contact the host institution. When we contact the host we immediately put programs at risk. So if it is a close call I think dealing with things internally might work better. However, we can certainly all image offense so serious that we would contact host institutions or law enforcement. I think it is the job of the president of the organization to report any allegations that are serious enough to rise to level of contacting the host institution. The president is the face of our organization and should be the one to deal with university officials. Question #19-- Finally, why do you want to be President of the organization? Why would anyone want to be? It is a thankless job and everyone has different demands that you cannot easily meet. That being said I am willing and excited to serve because of everything that CEDA has given to me. I am a CEDA person. I was a CEDA debater before the merger. I attended the summer conference as an undergraduate. I have only missed a single CEDA Nats in 17 years. I hold those who have served before me in high regard and I would be humbled and honored to serve in the same office. Too many people in our community bemoan the death of debate, but I don?t think we are in as much trouble as many people do. I think the fundamentals of the debate community are strong, but we can only survive if we continue to expand debate opportunities for new programs and new debaters, as well as existing programs and existing debaters. I love debate and I love CEDA. Each year I attend the CEDA national tournament because it reminds me what is great about this activity. Of there are any of you who have lost faith in our community I will do everything in my power to make our organization more responsive to your needs and concerns so that you too will feel the same pride that I do in serving our organization. From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:23:21 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:23:21 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] 2nd VP answers (Ques 1-10) from Vik Keenan Message-ID: <4960FE9902000093000228FB@mymail.kckcc.edu> Question #1-- Several national tournaments have recently enacted policies that preclude the public posting of video-recorded debates, but allow for "private sharing". Whether that sharing is limited to the college community, or might include interested high school debaters, etc., remains unclear. 1. What is your opinion about having a similar policy for CEDA Nationals? CEDA Nationals should definitely have a ?recording and usage? policy for its tournament, and should make available a sample ?recording consent form? for others running tournaments to use as a source document when creating their own policies. It was my understanding that we had begun discussion of such a policy for CEDA Nats as last summer?s meeting in the hope of having a clear policy for the 2009 tournament. Regardless of individual views on the needed breadth or limits of video recording at CEDA Nats and other tournaments, as our ?product?, and as the only event that the EC has direct authority over, CEDA should establish a policy regarding the distribution of its ?debates? from that particular event, similar to the way other educational and non-profit institutions exercise their rights over their events. 2. What limitations do you think should exist, if any, on sharing video with high school debaters or others outside the CEDA community? I think individual participating schools, who are probably governed by their own university policies, and host schools, who are probably governed by their own events policies, should be given an understanding of how video is to be used, and should be able to establish limitations if the intended use goes beyond ?closed? team usage. I think there has been an assumption of ?personal use? for a long time in our community that has been exceeded by the technology to distribute recorded material. While there is a great educational value to being able to share debates across regions, levels, and time through video, it should always be tempered with the individual needs and limitations of programs and the institutions that fund and support them. As a former high school teacher and coach, I don't think there will be a large uproar if the college debate community had one less influence on the high school debate community based on the decade of feedback I received from my colleagues. Finally, anyone who uses debate videos in a potentially profit generating venue (i.e.: camps), should make that clear to the potential participants. 3. How should such policies intersect with programs who assert their policy is not to allow their debaters to be video-recorded? I think any debater and any program has the right to decide not to be recorded. When I attended a series of the NDT Committee meetings where the original SCTV contracts were discussed, it became apparent that there are a variety of conditions that affect the desirability of filming for individual students. One obvious example is establishing the parameters of when the ?debate? occurs ? for SCTV pre-round prep was the issue of contention, more recently it has been the post-round critiques. Other issues that were discussed included psychological impacts and safety concerns for certain students. As someone who was under 18 when they joined debate in college, I had issues signing my own travel consent forms under university policy, which leads me to believe that we probably haven?t explored all of the implications of filming students who are potentially legal minors. Most importantly, while under no circumstances do I think we have something to hide as an activity, I think protecting the safe space of debate rounds as laboratories of free speech for our students from all our member institutions means protecting them from the misappropriation or miscontextualization of the content of their speeches. A simple example is how a ?politics? debate may be interpreted out of context for one of our students who attends one of the military academies. They debate in uniform, they have long term careers in the armed forces, let alone the immediate five year minimum, and they are not always going to have the luxury of an audience who understands ?commander-in-chief bad? is a block required by switch side debate. Also, as someone who has had a school?s ?no video? policy intentionally ignored this year, I can speak to how difficult it is to ?un-ring the bell? once video has been distributed (and honestly, it wasn?t a bad video, it?s more an issue of principle for us). The only way to ensure that a debate video isn?t published is to not have it in the first place, which is why the right to not be taped should be presented. The issue is more nuanced than free speech and PR, and the policies we create and endorse should recognize that. Anyone who thinks there is a clear brightline or this is a simple issue of freedoms and standing behind what we do is kidding themselves. Question #2-- Assume there is some glimmer of possibility for a program to emerge (students seeking to establish one, a faculty member trying to get it started, etc.). What sort of support, in the form of information, letter writing, sending in outsiders, etc., should CEDA provide? The first kind of support that CEDA should provide is the type of support that is requested, because the answer is NOT the same for all institutions. At a minimum, CEDA should alert potential new programs to the existing types of support we provide: constitutionally waived fees, the backfile project, and the leadership sample documents we have provided in the past. We should also identify the most logistically feasible tournaments for the program based on the calendar for the year. CEDA should ensure that the Regional Representative is aware of the emerging program, and facilitate contact if that has not already occurred. Also, identifying either a local program or a willing electronic mentor to assist the new program with more immediate questions would be beneficial. Finally, if those who are beginning the program feel it would be beneficial, the CEDA EC should write a letter to the significant administrative office for the program (i.e.: student activities, department, President, etc.). In general, it might be advisable for CEDA to have an official ?welcoming? document, letter, or kit for new programs from the EC. Question #3-- Some would like to see CEDA Nationals attended by most or all NDT 1st round teams. 1. Do you think this is an important objective? Honestly, of all of the things we could be focusing on (new programs, more debaters, better PR, debate in a world of emerging technology, the need for professional opportunities, budget cuts, increasing research in our field, diversity, etc), this is probably not my first priority for CEDA. It would be nice to have closer to 16 than 6 First rounds attend, but two (or three) National championships is incredibly expensive, and a lot to ask of programs. And why do we only care about the first rounds? I think the other 50-someodd teams are important too. I'm not the person to ask to acquiesce for the sake of the death drive. 2. What actions would you take to pursue it? I believe the general consensus is that when CEDA occurs after the NDT it does increase attendance by ?NDT? teams because it?s another chance for those who didn?t quite finish the season the way they wanted to. I?m not sure if the data holds up, but I think obviously having CEDA Nats and the NDT in the same city would probably assist the cause by eliminating some travel costs for those teams. I think the recent initiative to confirm CEDA Nats hosts earlier would assist in this as well, and I would hope to have initial bids for the 2012 CEDA Nats by the end of my year as 2VP. These are things that would probably have a positive result in this area, but that would not be the goal. I just happen to think ending the year on the all-inclusive tournament makes competitive and community sense. 3. What changes in the tournament wouI?m not sure changes in CEDA Nats itself would solve the perceived problem, beyond the scheduling issues discussed above. Question #4-- How do you feel about having electronic business meetings to allow those of us who cannot attend nca an opportunity to participate more in ceda? (eg via an online bulletin board, via edebate/ceda-l, etc.) It would be fantastic to have the same electronic access for our membership at NCA that we have during the Summer Meeting. I think a discussion board or blog via the CEDA website would be a good initial start, potentially being updated as we go by the recording secretary. Establishing a video feed would be ideal, but I also think updates from officers posted at the end of each day, in addition to Regional Rep updates would assist in giving more access to those not able to attend. This year I tried a very low-tech implementation of regional involvement and updates because the Northeast was both geographically distant from NCA and the majority of schools were attending a tournament that weekend. I not only sent an update after the EC meeting on Friday to my region, and highlighted agenda items for the following day?s business meeting, but I used my gmail/AIM status message to post what items we were covering in real time in case anyone wanted to indicate an immediate comment or question. I was then able to receive feedback from other directors through both email and chat, and I solicited direct opinions when I thought they were relevant. Additionally, we may want to inquire about the size of the room assigned for both the EC and Business Meetings at NCA by those in charge. I?m not sure we would have had room for video capabilities this year, although it?s one way to encourage community bonding. Question #5-- What will each of you do to help revive programs at smaller colleges who have lost their programs either by funding shortfalls or administration apathy? This is why I emphasized a need to focus on program retention in my original candidate statement, because while I think we?ve made admirable improvements in development initiatives, those don?t necessarily translate to retention measures. The first thing is to identify the specific reasons for individual program loss ?because ameliorating a loss of support is a very different proposition if it?s administrative priority versus fiscal. For programs who have lost funding, perhaps reestablishing them as ?new programs?, creating non travel debate opportunities, or assisting them with increasing funds through hosting would be of assistance. For those who have lost administrative support, perhaps identifying another part of the school to administer the program (department versus student activities) or working with local allies to allow some opportunities for students to regenerate interest through participation would be the starting points. And of course, if all else fails, I can always invite them to join the Coalition. (This is a joke solely for my amusement at Will Baker?s expense). Question #6-- Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? I don?t think CEDA should regulate argument content beyond established evidentiary ethics considerations. Fundamentally, that is not how the activity is perceived in ?CEDA? historically. Debaters can debate about the content issues ? and I?ll double check the profanity K links are in the backfile project. I think there are different educational models that debate can follow, and the history of CEDA is one of open discourse. I think content limitations would be more appropriate in the educational and organizational model that the ADA is founded upon (for the record, it?s rule #6 in their standing rules that says T is a voter, although the criteria for voting on a kritik advocated by the aff are not listed. Uniqueness and alternatives seem to only be a burden of the neg). I think harassment issWhat should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?" (Hi Jimbo.) The best place to work with the NDT on the issues of convergence and electronic eloquence are at the topic meeting, which is our only "official" cooperative action and which has seen the most progress in these fields over the last 3 years. Using the Topic Meeting, the CEDA Summer Meeting (and potentially NCA), and the upcoming conference hosted by Wake may be the best option to serve as a "testing ground" in these fields. More students, perhaps using the Presidential Intern model established in 2005, could be involved in the technological production aspects of these existing approaches, rather than simply seen as a "host" duty. I think the biggest obstacle for CEDA programs in this area is that what we are seeing is a reflection of the larger comm community focus - it's departmental and curricular priorities. I think encouraging programs to engage in public debates about issues of importance to their communities, and to explore inter-school electronic debates, as some programs do, may be the best approach within those limitations. One other suggestion would be to target emerging programs or those with reduced budgets to explore electronic production to expand debate opportunities from their school to other campuses. Finally, I think it is important to emphasize the eloquence and production value component of any such initiatives - the point is to develop better skills than most amateur youTube postings, right? Doing production for production's sake is irrelevant unless actual skills are developed. Multiple individuals have advocated positive PR measures for our activity, including promoting debates, advertising our "success stories", and using our awards ceremonies as source material for positive press. These initiatives would also be excellent opportunities to provide production experiences for our community in conjunction with broader goals. Question #8-- Describe your ideal debate round, team, squad, tournament, and community. I think for the role of CEDA 2VP (and eventually 1VP and Pres), my opinion on community is probably the most important. I suppose my ideal debate community would be much like my favorite Coalition bus trips - the Ivy league team, the "private" institution, a Jesuit school, some village hippies, and the City University packing uniqueness updates, Zizek, Heg good, and wacky critical arg du jour learning from each other and enjoying some friendly competition (although, ideally, without the bus). It makes me very fortunate, because in many ways the team(s) I work with already is my ideal squad - valuing new debaters and continuing debaters, and trying to provide opportunities for as many students from as many backgrounds as possible. Every time we have a team party or picture, I am immensely proud of the organizations and students I work with, most of which is possible because of our dedication not only to education and excellence, but to diversity of student experiences and ideas. As for my ideal round - there is a reason I like judging novices, and it's not about my flow. My favorite rounds are the ones where you can literally see the light bulb go off for a debater, where they realize something for the first time. That's the exciting part of this activity year after year. The first time a new strat really works, or a new debater "gets" the game or really learns something - those are the best rounds (although I'll take a well informed K throwdown, or some solid DA internal links any day, as long as no oneMy ideal tournaments have large novice divisions, emerging JV debates, and top level open argumentation (yes, that's 3 divisions). I'm ok without MPJ (I like teaching adaptation), but limited strikes are probably ideal. Time for educational opportunities is important - be it post round discussions, diversity of args, or novice teach-ins. We also need a chance to get to know each other as a community, although I think down time is probably more efficient for that than banquets. In an ideal world, my team needs to do limited navigation at a tournament, but that's just because we're a little unfamiliar with the idea of a proper campus. Question #9-- What would you do to try and increase the number of teams participating at CEDA Nationals? This issue is one of the reasons I volunteered for the reconstituted Hosting Committee this fall at NCA. First, we need early planning to maximize cost options. Second, as mentioned on the NDT question above, timing and travel cost minimization so that70+ teams don?t have to choose between their national championships would also help. Included with that, the overall scheduling conversation that Gordon has suggested needs to be pursued, not just because of the NDT issue, but also because ADA Nationals scheduling can have an effect (and I want bonus points for ADA inclusion twice in my answers even though no one remembered them in the questions). Third, I think Pocatello?s multiple housing options and Berkeley?s discussions related to local transportation are the beginning of the kind of productive and innovative cost reduction strategies offered by hosts that we need to pursue EVERY year, and we need to identify potential hosts we could assist with cost effective ideas. But most importantly, increasing the number of teams actually DEBATING, not only at a National Championship, but over the year, and increasing our membership, are really the important goals, because CEDA is about much more that running a national tournament. The novice break-out this year was one measure instituted to assist programs in justifying CEDA Nats for their budget, but I think CEDA Nats is about more than awards. I think it should be about not only celebrating our community, but allowing our students and our coaches to connect as part of that community. My most important memories from the only CEDA Nats I attended as a debater were not about the rounds I won or lost, but they were about confirming my connection to my peers and celebrating with those I had learned from. Debate should be fun, and CEDA Nats should be a place where we come together and celebrate with each other. I have a simple assumption about debate - you need opponents to have another side. That means no matter the competitive nature of our activity, at some point we need to always remember we need each other. Question #10-- What should CEDA do to revitalize Regional Debate? Oh, where to start? As a preface, I don?t think it should be ?Coalitions for all? (because most of you are not that masochistic). But I do think it requires working together, as I mentioned above. I think it requires targeting new program development to a degree, looking at geography so that existing programs acquire more regional opportunities, which also would guarantee support for the emerging program. I think a larger calendar discussion needs to occur with CEDA ? a process I?m familiar with regionally and would be more than happy to assist with nationally. I think we need to accept that the world of ?merger 2.0? means asking for accountability from the ?National? schedule in how it affects ?regional? schedules ? something that might be possible if the proposal for a ?tournament committee? that was suggested at the NDT Committee meeting at NCA moved forward (and so I?ll add that the NDT Chair nominations should not only include the qualification of TACT, but also of understanding the bigger debate picture, and CEDA should in some sense lobby to be included in this discussion if it comes to pass). Ultimately, I think it will tournaments are nice, but if there are 6 prelims you won?t be able to attract many open teams who are looking for rounds for their District Qualifier, so tweaking schedules can't be the only answer (even if you can go home to your puppy more). I know from the multiple conversations I?ve had at national meetings that my particular regional experiences don?t translate across geography, so other approaches may be needed. It may be as simple as giving existing schools an incentive to host for others (such as Idaho did in preparation for Nationals this year creating a new local debate opportunity); it may be as complicated as working to build entire new programs. Most importantly, I will go on record to say that I think the Regional Rep role should be not only empowered, but encouraged to move debate in their region forward. At NCA it was clarified that the official role of the regional rep was simply a democratic representation guarantee ? I think it needs to be more than that. I think those of us who are fortunate to be in communities where there is strong regional debate have expectations of their rep that fall into the categories of scheduling and program support, and I think one of the most important things that needs to occur over the next 5 years is establishing protocols and procedures for Reps to assist them in this process. From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:24:02 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:24:02 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] 2nd VP answers (Ques 11-19) from Vik Keenan Message-ID: <4960FEC202000093000228FF@mymail.kckcc.edu> Question #11-- What experience do you have to make you qualified to be in charge of a National Organization that fulfills both academic and competitive needs of its members? I knew that story about taking Ricky and Nate to their very first college tournament would come in handy some day! Kidding. But I have coached my share of successful debaters, either tangentially or directly (some of them even request me), so I get what it means to be ?competitive?. (I also think someday someone should do a study on the ?sports psychology? of competitive debate). I also run a rather large University tournament at NYU for a scholarship program, where all of the competitive parameters are at my discretion. I?ve hosted tournaments, and travel regionally and nationally, so I understand the needs of a variety of programs. I view myself as an educator. I became a debate coach because as a teacher I believed in debate as a unique pedagogical opportunity. Freire was my hero for lesson planning before he was an argument to most of you. Educational goals, curriculum development, and pedagogical techniques so ALL students can learn are what I do. People talk about callings, passions, and vocations, and education is mine. I think we should do MORE with how we promote ourselves as an academic pursuit, and working in University administration gives me a perspective on how to communicate our needs to those who control our resources. (I also have a 5 year stint in project management training just to round out my background in admin, and it would be nice to use it more often). One of my stated goals as CEDA 2VP and beyond is to refocus the coordination of research and professional opportunities for our graduate coaches to make their time in debate seen as professionally beneficial in their larger academic fields. I do also coordinate multiple schools on a regular basis. Seriously, what?s another 80 or so programs and their admins to learn about? I also perform miracles, but only in association with running a debate tournament. (Reserving an entire street in NYC for parking and getting a Giants Super Bowl victory in conjunction with our regional tournament are the latest examples. I'll work on loaves and fishes in conjunction with breakfasts at CEDA Nats). Actually, I think my best qualification is my willingness to listen to others, and to learn from others, because this national organization serves so many types of schools. But there?s another question that speaks more to that point next, so ? Question #12-- 4 of the 5 years that you serve CEDA, 2 as a VP and 2 as a Past President, you have to work well with others who are the actual President. Whichever one of you wins will have to work well as a unit with Gordon Stables and Sue Peterson (the 2 who will assume the Presidency before you). What do you bring to the table to ensure a smooth and complementary leadership role? I think my ability to work well with others, to listen and respect different views and different program needs, and to accept that I need to learn from others are my best qualifications for the role of 2VP and beyond. I believe in first trying to reach consensus through reason. I think diplomacy and tact are the first approaches to creating resolution. This isn?t to say I?m not argumentative occasionally, or I haven?t used an adversarial approach to reach understanding (I am an actual debate coach afterall), but I?m willing to admit when I?m wrong, and I?m willing to try to mend bridges if there has been misunderstanding. I understand the need to talk to people individually when pushing forward and agenda, and I understand when it?s necessary to present a united front for the good of a group, even if it?s not my own personal agenda. I think I?m on the same page as Gordon on a lot of his ideas for the next year (in fact, I?m pretty sure Gordon wishes I would ask his opinion about policy stuff a little bit less). I respect Sue deeply, and usually find myself mentally going ?extend? for points she has made in EC conversations. I don?t think my vision of CEDA is radically different than theirs. For those who would be 2VP after me, I would make sure that my long term goals with the organization are clearly articulated so that implementation wasn?t a surprise. Finally, I will underscore that working with others, and forwarding individual as well as collective goals is essentially what already do as the Assistant Director of the New York Coalition. My entire coaching career has prepared me for working and leading with others (and demonstrating those skills were exactly why I was elected to exec board of the BQCFL when I was a high school coach - even speech people thought I was uniquely good and playing with others to get things accomplished and write new policies that served the best interests of all our member institutions). And if my interactions with you don?t involve hybrid policies or locating the charter bus that is 7 hours late for a tournament in a place including the name "Virginia", I'm usually pretty laid back about most debate issues. Question #13-- Do you feel CEDA should abandon its current leadership structure and move towards another structure? If so, what should the new structure look like? I think it?s more an issue of minor repair. I think the EC needs to be smaller, which redistricting may do inevitably, and which could conceivably alter the larger national dynamic. I think the 5 National officers need to be empowered for some direct action a bit more. I think Regional Reps should have more than a purely democratic function in official regional policy, because program growth initiatives work better on a local level. I think it is a professional job to lead this organization ? but I?m not yet sure a different kind of management structure is what is right for us. There may be a better way to structure our organization, but it?s not a whim, and we?re an organization that actually has the skills to research the pros and cons of alternatives. I would probably not initiate a large restructuring in my leadership position, but I would be willing to consider and support a proposal brought to me that seems to have merit. Question #14-- Recently CEDA has discussed moving from Regions to self-selecting Conferences. Do you favor the conference format and if not, why? Honestly, I'm indifferent with conferences individually, but I recognize they may be needed nationally, which is why I voted in favor of them. I debated and coach is a very geographically blessed area that allows for real regional travel, but I understand why there is a real need for restructuring for others. Honestly, for my program, geography can continue to be destiny, or Andy and I can finally create the I-95 conference. At a minimum, I support all of Jeff?s proposed realignments for regions, because there needs to be some kind of change. Question #15-- Do you favor a continued use of edebate for ceda business and discussion, or should the organization move towards a list serv that is controlled by the organization? I think we do need an official "CEDA" or debate business communication mechanism. This is why I have supported moving certain business to the website discussion boards when possible (such as topic paper conversations). Any change is going to require retraining those of us who are in the habit of checking the edebate archives, or having them emailed to us, and I think we still need to have a space for "community socialization" (and maybe revamped DCA, poker tournament results, and fantasy league requests ...). However, I think "business" needs to be moved to account for the emerging fluidity of electronic communication and its long term implications. This may be as simple as a division between CEDA-L, edebate, and discussion threads, rather than a new communication mechanism. I understand the need to balance freedom of expression and inclusion with our prthink the solution ultimately may not be one source of communication. Question #16-- Do you favor the current amendment before the membership on professionalism and ethics? I certainly favor it more than the AFA version, and I favor having such an amendment in general. I think the current version is sufficient, and as I said in my candidate statement, I think we need to be leaders in this, not followers. I would be willing to revisit and to amend the amendment after it passed if we identify a significant way to improve it, but I don't want to wait to see what other organizations decide for us. I would rather initiate action now. Question #17-- How should CEDA respond and under what time table should CEDA respond in the face of publicity or press that puts the organization in a bad light? Who should be consulted? I think I've discussed some of this on the edebate post related to this topic (Neil's Question: It's 3AM ...http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-December/077119.html), but I'll add that my experience over the past year has been that when possible, preferably we should respond in writing to allow for convenient vetting by the National EC officers and a PR person. The response time should not ever be longer than a week, but preferably as immediate as possible. I think when time allows the entire EC should be consulted, and if time does not allow for that, the entire EC should be informed that an immediate response was required so that they are not caught off guard. At a minimum, an official PR officer and the CEDA President should be the default leaders of the response. More importantly, we should be creating our own press, and we should be identify potential bad PR points to have a response proactively at the ready, rather than "waiting" to see if it's an issue. Question #18-- Should CEDA have the ability to sanction its own members for behavior unbecoming a professional, such as verbal, physical, or sexual harassment? Whether CEDA sanctions the offender or not, should CEDA report complaints to the home institution of the offender and if so, how should that report be made and by whom? 1) Yes for 2/3. 2) Sometimes. Look, we already have a sexual harassment policy (which also needs to be updated a bit) which allows sanctioning to a degree, or at least action to address the issue. In general, I?m a fan of us having a sexual harassment policy where we can ask people to leave so we can encourage our debaters to stay. (And I'm a little disturbed very few other forensics organizations have a similar policy ? in fact I?ve been working with some APDA students who are interested in creating that as their legacy to their activity). I think a policy related to other offenses should involve a tiered system of tournament and school based conversations, investigations, or actions as appropriate that could possibly lead to sanctioning action if the offense were serious enough. I think we should encourage hosts to establish parameters that they feel comfortable with as educators, academics, and hosts to encourage discussions. I don't think it's CEDA's job to report a number of things to an individual's home institution - that should be left to the Director of the program once CEDA has been in contact with that Director regarding the issue, potential further inquiry, and any action. In the case when it is a Director in question, then we may need to examine further action of alerting the individual's home institution (whomever is their "supervisor" or appropriate department) directly, at a minimum indicating that an investigation is under way. I'm not sure what "physical harassment" was meant to encompass, but I'm reasonably sure assault and battery are criminal offenses. Somehow, I think criminal behavior may be something we want to discourage, but depending on where we are, campus security and host institutions may not let it be just up to us. I had 8 years teaching in high schools in Brooklyn - and I've engaged in my share of "conflict resolution", to use an encompassing euphemism. The lesson I learned fare variety of approaches, and engaging in reasonable conversation is the first step, and that having a series of procedures is essential. I think "Verbal Harassment" may be too vague in a speech activity beyond what is encompassed in the other areas (sexual harassment, threat of violence). As I said in a previous question, I support a professional conduct amendment in some manner to clearly articulate CEDA's role and the limits of its authority, in part because it delineates CEDA's jurisdiction/authority better and because it does create reasonable procedures. I think this issue is identifying that there are some things that will not be left to us in the long run anyway, and prioritizing the ways we want to control our own destiny for our members in this area. The EC will not act without authority to do so, but in an ideal world, I think CEDA's organizational structure requires some such authority for the good of our community. Question #19-- Finally, why do you want to be President of the organization? Being nominated at NCA was a bit of a surprise (I was quite insistent that Mike Davis had me confused with someone else when he told me). But as I considered the opportunity and discussed it with others, it seems a natural extension of my increasing involvement in the organization. I'm currently the Regional Rep for the largest Region in CEDA. I have been attending or viewing the Topic Meetings for the past 3 years to understand the process and because I believe our resolutions can be better. I have attended more NDT Committee meetings than some of its members over the past 5 years because I think we need to take action when our organizations have competing policies that hinder participation in the world of the "merger". I want to be CEDA President because I think we are at a point as an organization that we need continue the progress we've made with accountability, while still moving forward with initiatives that encourage the growth of debate. I think this will require building bridges and understanding the needs of many different kinds of programs and schools, and I think I have a willingness to follow through and succeed with that very necessary work, and to take the initiative in creating cross-organizational discussions about policies (a concern for others it seems based on the number of mentions of the NDT is the previous questions). I have a respect for what we do well as an organization, but a recognition of where we can improve, and I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater just for the sake of perceived progress. I have seen how much work it takes to be CEDA President, and I recognize that I am in a position professionally to dedicate myself to the position over the next 5 years to accomplish the goals I set forward. I also feel that the immediate future of our organization requires an understanding not only of debate, but of University admin, which I have. Mostly, I really believe in our community, and I would consider it a privilege to work at advancing our goals together. From stables at usc.edu Sun Jan 4 23:48:23 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 21:48:23 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] USC E-Packet Message-ID: <39c1ac890901042148n7768a145j9b2c513ace44a761@mail.gmail.com> We have posted the prelim results, top speakers, and team seeds at our website, linked below. http://www.usctrojandebate.com/college_tournaments.html Elim results to follow tonight. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From stables at usc.edu Mon Jan 5 02:46:47 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 00:46:47 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] USC Elim Results and Judges for Monday Message-ID: <39c1ac890901050046o7636a2f6s6b105b9b98777a5@mail.gmail.com> Open Doubles UGA CS def. Cal BJ (a) 2-1 Cram*, Buntin, Anders Cal BP (a) def. Kansas SW 3-0 Murillo, Saez, Abelkop Dartmouth AH def. Cal BG (a) 3-0 Walters, P.Johnson, Gonzalez Emory MS advances over Emory IN Emory SW def. Whitman CS (a) 3-0 Durkee, Reed, Clark Gonzaga BC (a) def. Wake CC 3-0 Chestnut, Chalfont, Achten Harvard JP (a) def. Iowa SV 3-0 J.Peterson, Cram Helwich, Turner Harvard RS advances over Harvard KK Wake SS (a) def. Kansas BR 2-1 Strauss, Stahl, Meiches* Michigan St. AW (a) def. Gonzaga HJ 3-0 Lee, Halll, Kall Harvard BP (a) def. North Texas CP 2-1 Odekirk, Spring, Hamraie* West Georgia BS (a) def. Northwestern FW 3-0 B.Johnson, Philips, Gerber Towson CL (a) def. Missouri State FW 3-0 Olsen, Murray, Lacy Mary Washington KW (a) def. Northwestern MS 2-1 Arnett*, Harrigan, Petit Towson HM (a) def. Texas-Dallas BR 2-1, Olney, Topp, Garner Wake GL def. Gonzaga MM (a) 3-0 Hardy, Keenan, Repko JV Quarters Binghamton CF def. CSUN AW (a) 3-0 Alvarez, Litzky, Martin Whitman CF (a) def. Houston GM 3-0 Fitzmeir, Jennings, Turoff George Mason LJ def. SFSU GS (a) 3-0 Holland, Maritato, Pastrana Houston JK advances over Houston FM Judges for tomorrow - Pairings at 7:00 am - Round must begin at 8:00 am All rounds (and all of the evidence from the shuttles) are on the banquet and conference floor of the Sheraton (two floors below the lobby and one floor below the valet parking) Achten Arnett Buntin DeLong Dunn Durkee Fitzmier Gonzalez Grove Hamraie Hardy Harrigan Jennings Johnson, P. Kall Keenan Lacy Lee Murillo Murray Olney Olsen Petit Reed Repko S.Hall Strait Topp Turner Vats Thanks Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Jan 5 12:43:41 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:41 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Baltimore College Debate Message-ID: <7BA369FBD8464AB3B68C65667439FFCC@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Harriet Tubman Debates Starts:2/7/2009 Ends:2/8/2009 Hosted by: Baltimore College Debate Contact: Andy Ellis Address: 1800 n. charles street suite 906 baltimore, md 21218 Phone: 240-285-0843 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos 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 dave at miami.edu Tue Jan 6 15:14:37 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:14:37 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Hurricane Debates (and hotel info) Message-ID: Today's weather in the Gables: 78 degrees, fair with slight breeze We hope you will join us in Miami for this year's Hurricane Debates on January 30-February 1. Come for the weather, the pastelitos, rice and beans, Caribbean chicken and pork, healthy (and unhealthy) snacks, excellent debate competition, efficient tab room and more. Make hotel reservations NOW! I know it seems expensive, but this is Miami at peak season! You won't do better on Hotels.com Holiday Inn, University of Miami 1350 S Dixie Hwy Coral Gables, FL 33146 (305) 667-5611 http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/hi/1/en/hotel/miaum Rate is $119, Code is UMD You may also wish to check: Best Miami Hotel 5959 SW 71st Street Miami, FL, 33143 866-539-8430 David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090106/34f0488b/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Tue Jan 6 15:54:01 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:54:01 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] Re-Post 2nd VP Answers 6 and 7 from Vik Keenan Message-ID: <49637E990200009300022B0F@mymail.kckcc.edu> In the formatting, it looks like Vik's answers to 6 and 7 copied over with one running into the other. Apologies to Vik. Here are her answers to 6 and 7 correctly formatted. thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President Question #6-- Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? I don?t think CEDA should regulate argument content beyond established evidentiary ethics considerations. Fundamentally, that is not how the activity is perceived in ?CEDA? historically. Debaters can debate about the content issues ? and I?ll double check the profanity K links are in the backfile project. I think there are different educational models that debate can follow, and the history of CEDA is one of open discourse. I think content limitations would be more appropriate in the educational and organizational model that the ADA is founded upon (for the record, it?s rule #6 in their standing rules that says T is a voter, although the criteria for voting on a kritik advocated by the aff are not listed. Uniqueness and alternatives seem to only be a burden of the neg). I think harassment issues are separate from content issues. Question #7-- What should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?" (Hi Jimbo.) The best place to work with the NDT on the issues of convergence and electronic eloquence are at the topic meeting, which is our only "official" cooperative action and which has seen the most progress in these fields over the last 3 years. Using the Topic Meeting, the CEDA Summer Meeting (and potentially NCA), and the upcoming conference hosted by Wake may be the best option to serve as a "testing ground" in these fields. More students, perhaps using the Presidential Intern model established in 2005, could be involved in the technological production aspects of these existing approaches, rather than simply seen as a "host" duty. I think the biggest obstacle for CEDA programs in this area is that what we are seeing is a reflection of the larger comm community focus - it's departmental and curricular priorities. I think encouraging programs to engage in public debates about issues of importance to their communities, and to explore inter-school electronic debates, as some programs do, may be the best approach within those limitations. One other suggestion would be to target emerging programs or those with reduced budgets to explore electronic production to expand debate opportunities from their school to other campuses. Finally, I think it is important to emphasize the eloquence and production value component of any such initiatives - the point is to develop better skills than most amateur youTube postings, right? Doing production for production's sake is irrelevant unless actual skills are developed. Multiple individuals have advocated positive PR measures for our activity, including promoting debates, advertising our "success stories", and using our awards ceremonies as source material for positive press. These initiatives would also be excellent opportunities to provide production experiences for our community in conjunction with broader goals. From luvmarissa at hotmail.com Tue Jan 6 16:55:22 2009 From: luvmarissa at hotmail.com (Marissa Silber) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 22:55:22 +0000 Subject: [CEDA-L] Debate Graduate Assistantship at The University of Florida - Coach Debate and Study in Any Academic Department Message-ID: Debate Graduate Assistantship at The University of Florida Coach Debate and Study in Any Academic Department ****Apply soon---Graduate Admission Deadlines Approaching Quickly!!!!!**** The University of Florida Speech and Debate Team would like to invite candidates to apply for a graduate coaching/teaching assistantship to work with our policy debate program beginning fall 2009. The position would not require any teaching, just assisting with the debate program. However, teaching opportunities may be available for additional funding. Because there is no graduate program in Speech Communication at UF, assistantships can be awarded to either MA or PhD students studying in any academic department! There is also the potential for using the assistantship?s tuition waiver to cover a portion of Law School tuition if the student is enrolled in a joint degree program. The assistantship includes a full-time (9 credit hours per semester) tuition waiver, a salary stipend, graduate student health insurance, and a tournament travel stipend. The Graduate Assistant coach is expected to supervise and provide models for research and argument writing, oversee practice debates and speaking drills, manage research assignments, judge at and travel to at least three tournaments per semester. Kellie Roberts, our Director of Forensics, takes care of most of the administrative responsibilities such as travel arrangements and paperwork, so your responsibilities are much more focused on coaching the debaters. Candidates are required to complete the admission application for the department they are interested in studying in by the department?s deadline (go to UF?s homepage at www.ufl.edu to link to academic departments and the graduate school). Please complete this process soon as several departments? application deadlines are fast approaching. In order to apply for the assistantship, please supply Kellie Roberts with the following information no later than February 1, 2009. Please email Kellie at robertsk at ufl.edu with the following information: your name, address, email, phone number, name of school you completed your Bachelors Degree at and Major. Please also include contact information for three references as well as a one page coaching philosophy statement. This statement should include information about your coaching style and goals for a small yet competitive program like ours that is tailored to all levels of policy debate. If you are interested in more information about graduate assistantships with the University of Florida Debate Team, feel free to contact Marissa Silber, Policy Debate Coach, at silber at ufl.edu _________________________________________________________________ Life on your PC is safer, easier, and more enjoyable with Windows Vista?. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032870/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090106/713a586b/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Thu Jan 8 16:47:43 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:47:43 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] Andy's Nationals Message-ID: <49662E2F0200009300022DAA@mymail.kckcc.edu> Just a couple quick thoughts/questions from sunny Texas and the 2 Step: The other candidates should feel free to state their opinion with regards to the following as well. How would you do it differently or similarly? 1. You say below, if elected, your Nationals would be in Baltimore. If I were to vote for you and you won, does that mean Baltimore would definitely be the site for CEDA in your year as President? Or does that fall under the first statement, "what it might look like"? Or do you plan on abandoning the long standing tradition of allowing member schools to submit bids to host CEDA that are voted on by the Executive Council? Some may favor a bold move and a yes response would persuade them in your favor. Others may be dissuaded by a significant change in course. One reason the bid process is important, is to ensure schools, who might need to host for PR reasons, get a shot to put forth a bid. When OU hosted, it was a PR advantage. And it saved CEDA a ton of money thanks to the generosity of President Boren. This year, Idaho State was chosen for 2 major factors. First, we have never been to the Rocky Mountain Region and it was important to support a growing debate Region. Second, they have a donor who has given their program, and will give CEDA Nationals a significant sum of money. It was important for ISU and this donor to host CEDA this year. The committee voted for that bid due in large part to those factors. Berkley won next years bid because they were willing to do both the NDT and CEDA, back-to-back, making it convenient for people going to both. So for many, the bid process is an important one. 2. Your figures about CEDA Nationals making 20-30,000 dollars are very misleading. Once we pay out catering for the receptions, trophies, any convention space cost at the hotel, pay for the hired tournament staff, misc bills, the Journal, etc. the amount usually about breaks even. We are not making a profit. Those figures also do not take into account the current budget model CEDA is trying to follow. A couple years ago we moved from the notion that CEDA should have to make enough money to pay all of our expenses, putting us at the mercy if the tournament's size each year. The goal was to make us financially stable off of membership dues, AND to reduce the cost to attend CEDA. Your figures assume $100 entry fees per team. We have moved beyond that model, and in the future hope to charge team fees that just cover the costs of the tournament, not running the organization as they previously have. This means we charge $150 for membershio now as opposed to $50 per school, and we plan to reduce the cost of entry fees for CEDA Nationals for the first time in the history of the National Tournament. If your goal was to have all the above costs absorbed by local Baltimore businesses, that would be great. But it would seem to be a reason to continue with the "make CEDA affordable" model we are moving towards, and reducing entry fees for the programs competing. 3. A final thought. Your ideas below are great and grand. My points above are not to deny your passion or vision. They were to illuminate the current structure. But I do wonder if you could pull off something like you envision, by doing this through the Novice/JV Nationals that Baltimore hosts yearly. It seems like a yearly commitment might be even more successful and would have greater long term benefits, and an on-going relationship between debate and the Baltimore community. WHat do you think? chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President ANDY ELLIS WROTE:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So one of the key roles of a ceda president is to coordinate a CEDA nationals. Here is what mine might look like. It would be in Baltimore. The hotel would be downtown at the harbor. Perhaps the new hilton (its connected to the convention center and next to a light rail stop that takes you too and from the airport-we will run an evidence shuttle) you really shouldn't have to rent a car if you dont want to, everything you need is at the harbor, food, drink, aquarium, science center, shopping, slots, cool neighborhoods... Camden yards is right next door perhaps we could get CEDA nats night at Camden yards... The out rounds would be held at the convention center. They would be open to the public. If possible i would like to charge for ticket packages, perhaps $10 per day or $15 for both days. We can't fill it, but i bet alot of you could convince folks who you know on the eastern seaboard to come up. It would be great in my eyes if there where people not from the tournament watching our elimination rounds, and i think we have more power to make it happen then we think we do. I would even try to arrange alumni packages at the hotels if say the jay hawks wanted to bring a large contingent. The hospitality could be hooked up and the scene can't be beat... Prelims. There are dozens of college campuses....but i am less interested in that(though could definitely arrange it), instead i would like to work with the city and the local business community to form a partnership that uses the investment debate programs make in ceda nationals toward a socially just goal. CEDA nationals makes about 20 to 30 thousand, in my vision that 20,000 could be CEDApartnership stake in the renovation of vacant homes schools or buildings. For that investment CEDA would get the following: The First occupant of the buildings would be CEDA nationals. It would be renovated in a way that worked for the tournament but was easily transformable into affordable housing and/or office space for community groups. After CEDA nationals CEDA would get community space for a center where CEDA college debaters could work with high school students and a space where local college students could do internship projects for the organization. Otherwise the space would be utilized for affordable housing and office space by the city/developer/ etc. The renovation of course would be cause for a celebration and the city would probably close the street and throw some kind of party and make you feel kinda like you where on a campus. Habitat for Humanity would be a good CEDA partner perhaps... Once we have this as our goal- using our enterprise toward social goals, without sacrificing our enterprise- it becomes a lot easier to build small amounts of guaranteed capital investment into matching grants...in other words...if we can guarantee that we can raise 20 k we can raise money with a 20 k match. There would be a webpage for CEDA nationals that was functional and friendly. It would have been a two year collaborative project that led up to it, where tech talented people in the community collaborated with students (high school and college) to build the site that people need(but also the platform for the future). As long as there is education going on, money is available...the point agin being that using something we need (a good web platform for our national tournament) in the service of a social goal (teaching tech skills on a big project ) kinda just makes more sense. I would work with networks of youth non profits in Baltimore and hopefully be able to get photographers, events workers, ballot runners, video people, t shirt designers, and everything else under the sun, we might have to pay them, but thats a good investment on our part. There is something about the prelims working with and not just in a community that will drive people out to see the out rounds at the convention center. Oh yeah, the whole thing would be broadcast live at least over the internet, and who knows maybe on CSPAN, or something more exciting. Don't get me wrong, I'm not forgetting about debate, in fact the rooms would be configured more ideally for debate than any other location, because its first use would be debate. I am not looking to sacrifice what we do, im looking to get more return out of our investment. Accessibility ? Actually that works better in my model as well. If CEDA had an idea of how many rooms needed to be "accessible" that would be that many more accessible rooms on that block...see how this works. Now this is gonna take organizing, money, work, and commitment. But we can do it and we should want to do it...Its good for people(the prelims) the planet (don't have to rent a car and transforming brownfields into affordable housing) and profit (the elims and the money that funds the social projects) and it would be the most fun place to ever have a hotel. If you like the idea but think its unrealistic, don't stop liking the idea, work with me to make it realistic. From andy.edebate at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 17:06:11 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:06:11 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Andy's Nationals In-Reply-To: <49662E2F0200009300022DAA@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <49662E2F0200009300022DAA@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901081506x70bd0f43t5aa880dcc9b5ece8@mail.gmail.com> Sadly for any amongst you looking for an exciting edebate clash, im filing most of this under Darrens first inclination "what it might look like" I had a vision of what CEDA nationals could look like and i thought it worth sharing. If elected i would be excited to work toward it. But the presidency of CEDA is not a dictatorship. If the membership was not supportive of the move, didnt want to vote on the bid, or hopefully had ideas that altered it to make it better, i would happily work collaboratively with the ec and the community to support the desire of the organization. But lets not pretend that presidents don't seek and assist bid submitters. I recognize the money is not workable in the current set up but i believe we can cut/shift/fund alot of the current costs, especially if working in an environment the president knows well. My goal is to make CEDA nationals as affordable as possible and most of my plans are in line with that goal. The reason it is difficult to do the same thing for JV novice Nationals is because it is not put on by a large national organization. YOURS and the Towson University foundation both provide 501 C3 status to the event but not the same way ceda would. The bargaining power of a national organization with colleges all over the nation as its membership is simply higher than a sub-account of university foundation or small startup non profit. On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Darren Elliott wrote: > Just a couple quick thoughts/questions from sunny Texas and the 2 Step: > > The other candidates should feel free to state their opinion with regards > to the following as well. How would you do it differently or similarly? > > 1. You say below, if elected, your Nationals would be in Baltimore. If I > were to vote for you and you won, does that mean Baltimore would definitely > be the site for CEDA in your year as President? Or does that fall under the > first statement, "what it might look like"? Or do you plan on abandoning > the long standing tradition of allowing member schools to submit bids to > host CEDA that are voted on by the Executive Council? Some may favor a bold > move and a yes response would persuade them in your favor. Others may be > dissuaded by a significant change in course. One reason the bid process is > important, is to ensure schools, who might need to host for PR reasons, get > a shot to put forth a bid. When OU hosted, it was a PR advantage. And it > saved CEDA a ton of money thanks to the generosity of President Boren. This > year, Idaho State was chosen for 2 major factors. First, we have never been > to the Rocky Mountain Region and it was important to support a growing > debate Regio > n. Second, they have a donor who has given their program, and will give > CEDA Nationals a significant sum of money. It was important for ISU and > this donor to host CEDA this year. The committee voted for that bid due in > large part to those factors. Berkley won next years bid because they were > willing to do both the NDT and CEDA, back-to-back, making it convenient for > people going to both. So for many, the bid process is an important one. > > 2. Your figures about CEDA Nationals making 20-30,000 dollars are very > misleading. Once we pay out catering for the receptions, trophies, any > convention space cost at the hotel, pay for the hired tournament staff, misc > bills, the Journal, etc. the amount usually about breaks even. We are not > making a profit. Those figures also do not take into account the current > budget model CEDA is trying to follow. A couple years ago we moved from the > notion that CEDA should have to make enough money to pay all of our > expenses, putting us at the mercy if the tournament's size each year. The > goal was to make us financially stable off of membership dues, AND to reduce > the cost to attend CEDA. Your figures assume $100 entry fees per team. We > have moved beyond that model, and in the future hope to charge team fees > that just cover the costs of the tournament, not running the organization as > they previously have. This means we charge $150 for membershio now as > opposed to $50 per school, > and we plan to reduce the cost of entry fees for CEDA Nationals for the > first time in the history of the National Tournament. If your goal was to > have all the above costs absorbed by local Baltimore businesses, that would > be great. But it would seem to be a reason to continue with the "make CEDA > affordable" model we are moving towards, and reducing entry fees for the > programs competing. > > 3. A final thought. Your ideas below are great and grand. My points > above are not to deny your passion or vision. They were to illuminate the > current structure. But I do wonder if you could pull off something like you > envision, by doing this through the Novice/JV Nationals that Baltimore hosts > yearly. It seems like a yearly commitment might be even more successful and > would have greater long term benefits, and an on-going relationship between > debate and the Baltimore community. WHat do you think? > > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > CEDA President > > > ANDY ELLIS WROTE:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > So one of the key roles of a ceda president is to coordinate a CEDA > nationals. > Here is what mine might look like. > > It would be in Baltimore. > > The hotel would be downtown at the harbor. Perhaps the new hilton (its > connected to the convention center and next to a light rail stop that takes > you too and from the airport-we will run an evidence shuttle) you > really shouldn't have to rent a car if you dont want to, everything you > need > is at the harbor, food, drink, aquarium, science center, shopping, slots, > cool neighborhoods... Camden yards is right next door perhaps we could get > CEDA nats night at Camden yards... The out rounds would be held at the > convention center. They would be open to the public. If possible i would > like to charge for ticket packages, perhaps $10 per day or $15 for both > days. We can't fill it, but i bet alot of you could convince folks who you > know on the eastern seaboard to come up. It would be great in my eyes if > there where people not from the tournament watching our elimination rounds, > and i think we have more power to make it happen then we think we do. I > would even try to arrange alumni packages at the hotels if say the jay > hawks wanted to bring a large contingent. > > The hospitality could be hooked up and the scene can't be beat... > > Prelims. > > There are dozens of college campuses....but i am less interested in > that(though could definitely arrange it), instead i would like to work with > the city and the local business community to form a partnership that uses > the investment debate programs make in ceda nationals toward a socially > just > goal. CEDA nationals makes about 20 to 30 thousand, in my vision that > 20,000 > could be CEDApartnership stake in the renovation of vacant homes schools or > buildings. For that investment CEDA would get the following: > > The First occupant of the buildings would be CEDA nationals. It would be > renovated in a way that worked for the tournament but was > easily transformable into affordable housing and/or office space for > community groups. > After CEDA nationals CEDA would get community space for a center where CEDA > college debaters could work with high school students and a space where > local college students could do internship projects for the organization. > Otherwise the space would be utilized for affordable housing and office > space by the city/developer/ etc. > > The renovation of course would be cause for a celebration and the city > would > probably close the street and throw some kind of party and make you feel > kinda like you where on a campus. > > Habitat for Humanity would be a good CEDA partner perhaps... > > Once we have this as our goal- using our enterprise toward social goals, > without sacrificing our enterprise- it becomes a lot easier to build small > amounts of guaranteed capital investment into matching grants...in other > words...if we can guarantee that we can raise 20 k we can raise money with > a > 20 k match. > > There would be a webpage for CEDA nationals that was functional and > friendly. It would have been a two year collaborative project that led up > to > it, where tech talented people in the community collaborated with students > (high school and college) to build the site that people need(but also the > platform for the future). As long as there is education going on, money is > available...the point agin being that using something we need (a good web > platform for our national tournament) in the service of a social goal > (teaching tech skills on a big project ) kinda just makes more sense. > > I would work with networks of youth non profits in Baltimore and hopefully > be able to get photographers, events workers, ballot runners, video people, > t shirt designers, and everything else under the sun, we might have to pay > them, but thats a good investment on our part. > > There is something about the prelims working with and not just in a > community that will drive people out to see the out rounds at the > convention > center. > > Oh yeah, the whole thing would be broadcast live at least over the > internet, > and who knows maybe on CSPAN, or something more exciting. > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not forgetting about debate, in fact the rooms > would > be configured more ideally for debate than any other location, because its > first use would be debate. I am not looking to sacrifice what we do, im > looking to get more return out of our investment. > Accessibility ? Actually that works better in my model as well. If CEDA had > an idea of how many rooms needed to be "accessible" that would be that many > more accessible rooms on that block...see how this works. > > > > Now this is gonna take organizing, money, work, and commitment. But we can > do it and we should want to do it...Its good for people(the prelims) the > planet (don't have to rent a car and transforming brownfields into > affordable housing) and profit (the elims and the money that funds the > social projects) and it would be the most fun place to ever have a hotel. > > If you like the idea but think its unrealistic, don't stop liking the idea, > work with me to make it realistic. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090108/2ace9f66/attachment.htm From crb012000 at utdallas.edu Thu Jan 8 19:19:25 2009 From: crb012000 at utdallas.edu (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 19:19:25 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] UT Dallas Tournament -- Judge Prefs Active Message-ID: Greetings from Dallas, Teams may now enter judge preference information via the famous debateresults website. Please complete the entry of your prefs by 5:00 PM central time on Friday. We will close prefs at that time. Tournament registration will begin at 6:00 PM and end at 9:00 PM tomorrow (Friday). We plan to release the pairings for rounds 1 and 2 at 10:00PM or soon thereafter. All activities on Friday will occur at the Crowne Plaza hotel on Alpha Road. If you absolutely need to make any adjustments to your entry (debaters or judges) prior to registration, then please contact Scott Herndon at registration or via email scott.herndon at utdallas.edu I hate to say this, but this place is getting to me. I think I'm getting the fear. -- Dr. Gonzo From crb012000 at utdallas.edu Thu Jan 8 21:15:36 2009 From: crb012000 at utdallas.edu (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 21:15:36 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] UT Dallas Tournament -- Judge Prefs Active #2 Message-ID: We've added a few more hired judges. Please adjust your pref accordingly. If have already completed your prefs, then please go back and rank these new judges. Thanks. Christopher Burk Director of Debate University of Texas at Dallas www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/ "If you believe everything you read, you better not read." -- Japanese Proverb From dave at miami.edu Fri Jan 9 12:57:34 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:57:34 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Come to Miami! Message-ID: We are looking forward to a great tournament and sincerely hope you will be a part of it. Make your reservations TODAY and let us know so we can make plans. Thanks! The hotel information is: Holiday Inn, University of Miami 1350 S Dixie Hwy Coral Gables, FL 33146 (305) 667-5611 http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/hi/1/en/hotel/miaum Rate is $119, Code is UMD David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090109/498a47ce/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Fri Jan 9 16:52:19 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:52:19 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] Andy's Nationals In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0901081506x70bd0f43t5aa880dcc9b5ece8@mail.gmail.com> References: <49662E2F0200009300022DAA@mymail.kckcc.edu> <9368bc9b0901081506x70bd0f43t5aa880dcc9b5ece8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1231541539.4967d523098f2@webmail.grandecom.net> I think my suggestion of free beer pong after round eight has been excluded from this discussion and it makes me feels sad. Scott Quoting Andy Ellis : > Sadly for any amongst you looking for an exciting edebate clash, im filing > most of this under Darrens first inclination "what it might look like" > I had a vision of what CEDA nationals could look like and i thought it worth > sharing. If elected i would be excited to work toward it. > > But the presidency of CEDA is not a dictatorship. If the membership was not > supportive of the move, didnt want to vote on the bid, or hopefully had > ideas that altered it to make it better, i would happily > work collaboratively with the ec and the community to support the desire of > the organization. But lets not pretend that presidents don't seek and assist > bid submitters. > > I recognize the money is not workable in the current set up but i believe we > can cut/shift/fund alot of the current costs, especially if working in > an environment the president knows well. My goal is to make CEDA nationals > as affordable as possible and most of my plans are in line with that goal. > > The reason it is difficult to do the same thing for JV novice Nationals is > because it is not put on by a large national organization. YOURS and the > Towson University foundation both provide 501 C3 status to the event but not > the same way ceda would. The bargaining power of a national organization > with colleges all over the nation as its membership is simply higher than a > sub-account of university foundation or small startup non profit. > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Darren Elliott wrote: > > > Just a couple quick thoughts/questions from sunny Texas and the 2 Step: > > > > The other candidates should feel free to state their opinion with regards > > to the following as well. How would you do it differently or similarly? > > > > 1. You say below, if elected, your Nationals would be in Baltimore. If I > > were to vote for you and you won, does that mean Baltimore would definitely > > be the site for CEDA in your year as President? Or does that fall under > the > > first statement, "what it might look like"? Or do you plan on abandoning > > the long standing tradition of allowing member schools to submit bids to > > host CEDA that are voted on by the Executive Council? Some may favor a > bold > > move and a yes response would persuade them in your favor. Others may be > > dissuaded by a significant change in course. One reason the bid process is > > important, is to ensure schools, who might need to host for PR reasons, get > > a shot to put forth a bid. When OU hosted, it was a PR advantage. And it > > saved CEDA a ton of money thanks to the generosity of President Boren. > This > > year, Idaho State was chosen for 2 major factors. First, we have never > been > > to the Rocky Mountain Region and it was important to support a growing > > debate Regio > > n. Second, they have a donor who has given their program, and will give > > CEDA Nationals a significant sum of money. It was important for ISU and > > this donor to host CEDA this year. The committee voted for that bid due in > > large part to those factors. Berkley won next years bid because they were > > willing to do both the NDT and CEDA, back-to-back, making it convenient for > > people going to both. So for many, the bid process is an important one. > > > > 2. Your figures about CEDA Nationals making 20-30,000 dollars are very > > misleading. Once we pay out catering for the receptions, trophies, any > > convention space cost at the hotel, pay for the hired tournament staff, > misc > > bills, the Journal, etc. the amount usually about breaks even. We are not > > making a profit. Those figures also do not take into account the current > > budget model CEDA is trying to follow. A couple years ago we moved from > the > > notion that CEDA should have to make enough money to pay all of our > > expenses, putting us at the mercy if the tournament's size each year. The > > goal was to make us financially stable off of membership dues, AND to > reduce > > the cost to attend CEDA. Your figures assume $100 entry fees per team. We > > have moved beyond that model, and in the future hope to charge team fees > > that just cover the costs of the tournament, not running the organization > as > > they previously have. This means we charge $150 for membershio now as > > opposed to $50 per school, > > and we plan to reduce the cost of entry fees for CEDA Nationals for the > > first time in the history of the National Tournament. If your goal was to > > have all the above costs absorbed by local Baltimore businesses, that would > > be great. But it would seem to be a reason to continue with the "make CEDA > > affordable" model we are moving towards, and reducing entry fees for the > > programs competing. > > > > 3. A final thought. Your ideas below are great and grand. My points > > above are not to deny your passion or vision. They were to illuminate the > > current structure. But I do wonder if you could pull off something like > you > > envision, by doing this through the Novice/JV Nationals that Baltimore > hosts > > yearly. It seems like a yearly commitment might be even more successful > and > > would have greater long term benefits, and an on-going relationship between > > debate and the Baltimore community. WHat do you think? > > > > chief > > > > Darren Elliott > > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > > CEDA President > > > > > > ANDY ELLIS WROTE:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > So one of the key roles of a ceda president is to coordinate a CEDA > > nationals. > > Here is what mine might look like. > > > > It would be in Baltimore. > > > > The hotel would be downtown at the harbor. Perhaps the new hilton (its > > connected to the convention center and next to a light rail stop that takes > > you too and from the airport-we will run an evidence shuttle) you > > really shouldn't have to rent a car if you dont want to, everything you > > need > > is at the harbor, food, drink, aquarium, science center, shopping, slots, > > cool neighborhoods... Camden yards is right next door perhaps we could get > > CEDA nats night at Camden yards... The out rounds would be held at the > > convention center. They would be open to the public. If possible i would > > like to charge for ticket packages, perhaps $10 per day or $15 for both > > days. We can't fill it, but i bet alot of you could convince folks who you > > know on the eastern seaboard to come up. It would be great in my eyes if > > there where people not from the tournament watching our elimination rounds, > > and i think we have more power to make it happen then we think we do. I > > would even try to arrange alumni packages at the hotels if say the jay > > hawks wanted to bring a large contingent. > > > > The hospitality could be hooked up and the scene can't be beat... > > > > Prelims. > > > > There are dozens of college campuses....but i am less interested in > > that(though could definitely arrange it), instead i would like to work with > > the city and the local business community to form a partnership that uses > > the investment debate programs make in ceda nationals toward a socially > > just > > goal. CEDA nationals makes about 20 to 30 thousand, in my vision that > > 20,000 > > could be CEDApartnership stake in the renovation of vacant homes schools or > > buildings. For that investment CEDA would get the following: > > > > The First occupant of the buildings would be CEDA nationals. It would be > > renovated in a way that worked for the tournament but was > > easily transformable into affordable housing and/or office space for > > community groups. > > After CEDA nationals CEDA would get community space for a center where CEDA > > college debaters could work with high school students and a space where > > local college students could do internship projects for the organization. > > Otherwise the space would be utilized for affordable housing and office > > space by the city/developer/ etc. > > > > The renovation of course would be cause for a celebration and the city > > would > > probably close the street and throw some kind of party and make you feel > > kinda like you where on a campus. > > > > Habitat for Humanity would be a good CEDA partner perhaps... > > > > Once we have this as our goal- using our enterprise toward social goals, > > without sacrificing our enterprise- it becomes a lot easier to build small > > amounts of guaranteed capital investment into matching grants...in other > > words...if we can guarantee that we can raise 20 k we can raise money with > > a > > 20 k match. > > > > There would be a webpage for CEDA nationals that was functional and > > friendly. It would have been a two year collaborative project that led up > > to > > it, where tech talented people in the community collaborated with students > > (high school and college) to build the site that people need(but also the > > platform for the future). As long as there is education going on, money is > > available...the point agin being that using something we need (a good web > > platform for our national tournament) in the service of a social goal > > (teaching tech skills on a big project ) kinda just makes more sense. > > > > I would work with networks of youth non profits in Baltimore and hopefully > > be able to get photographers, events workers, ballot runners, video people, > > t shirt designers, and everything else under the sun, we might have to pay > > them, but thats a good investment on our part. > > > > There is something about the prelims working with and not just in a > > community that will drive people out to see the out rounds at the > > convention > > center. > > > > Oh yeah, the whole thing would be broadcast live at least over the > > internet, > > and who knows maybe on CSPAN, or something more exciting. > > > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not forgetting about debate, in fact the rooms > > would > > be configured more ideally for debate than any other location, because its > > first use would be debate. I am not looking to sacrifice what we do, im > > looking to get more return out of our investment. > > Accessibility ? Actually that works better in my model as well. If CEDA had > > an idea of how many rooms needed to be "accessible" that would be that many > > more accessible rooms on that block...see how this works. > > > > > > > > Now this is gonna take organizing, money, work, and commitment. But we can > > do it and we should want to do it...Its good for people(the prelims) the > > planet (don't have to rent a car and transforming brownfields into > > affordable housing) and profit (the elims and the money that funds the > > social projects) and it would be the most fun place to ever have a hotel. > > > > If you like the idea but think its unrealistic, don't stop liking the idea, > > work with me to make it realistic. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CEDA-L mailing list > > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 18:00:55 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:00:55 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Andy's Nationals In-Reply-To: <1231541539.4967d523098f2@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <49662E2F0200009300022DAA@mymail.kckcc.edu> <9368bc9b0901081506x70bd0f43t5aa880dcc9b5ece8@mail.gmail.com> <1231541539.4967d523098f2@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901091600m26ba583gb270712b244b9062@mail.gmail.com> Im sure scott can find a bear pong game during or after round 8, my plan did not say anything about not using prefs On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:52 PM, wrote: > I think my suggestion of free beer pong after round eight has been excluded > from > this discussion and it makes me feels sad. > > Scott > > > Quoting Andy Ellis : > > > Sadly for any amongst you looking for an exciting edebate clash, im > filing > > most of this under Darrens first inclination "what it might look like" > > I had a vision of what CEDA nationals could look like and i thought it > worth > > sharing. If elected i would be excited to work toward it. > > > > But the presidency of CEDA is not a dictatorship. If the membership was > not > > supportive of the move, didnt want to vote on the bid, or hopefully had > > ideas that altered it to make it better, i would happily > > work collaboratively with the ec and the community to support the desire > of > > the organization. But lets not pretend that presidents don't seek and > assist > > bid submitters. > > > > I recognize the money is not workable in the current set up but i believe > we > > can cut/shift/fund alot of the current costs, especially if working in > > an environment the president knows well. My goal is to make CEDA > nationals > > as affordable as possible and most of my plans are in line with that > goal. > > > > The reason it is difficult to do the same thing for JV novice Nationals > is > > because it is not put on by a large national organization. YOURS and the > > Towson University foundation both provide 501 C3 status to the event but > not > > the same way ceda would. The bargaining power of a national organization > > with colleges all over the nation as its membership is simply higher than > a > > sub-account of university foundation or small startup non profit. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Darren Elliott > wrote: > > > > > Just a couple quick thoughts/questions from sunny Texas and the 2 Step: > > > > > > The other candidates should feel free to state their opinion with > regards > > > to the following as well. How would you do it differently or > similarly? > > > > > > 1. You say below, if elected, your Nationals would be in Baltimore. > If I > > > were to vote for you and you won, does that mean Baltimore would > definitely > > > be the site for CEDA in your year as President? Or does that fall > under > > the > > > first statement, "what it might look like"? Or do you plan on > abandoning > > > the long standing tradition of allowing member schools to submit bids > to > > > host CEDA that are voted on by the Executive Council? Some may favor a > > bold > > > move and a yes response would persuade them in your favor. Others may > be > > > dissuaded by a significant change in course. One reason the bid > process is > > > important, is to ensure schools, who might need to host for PR reasons, > get > > > a shot to put forth a bid. When OU hosted, it was a PR advantage. And > it > > > saved CEDA a ton of money thanks to the generosity of President Boren. > > This > > > year, Idaho State was chosen for 2 major factors. First, we have never > > been > > > to the Rocky Mountain Region and it was important to support a growing > > > debate Regio > > > n. Second, they have a donor who has given their program, and will > give > > > CEDA Nationals a significant sum of money. It was important for ISU > and > > > this donor to host CEDA this year. The committee voted for that bid > due in > > > large part to those factors. Berkley won next years bid because they > were > > > willing to do both the NDT and CEDA, back-to-back, making it convenient > for > > > people going to both. So for many, the bid process is an important > one. > > > > > > 2. Your figures about CEDA Nationals making 20-30,000 dollars are very > > > misleading. Once we pay out catering for the receptions, trophies, any > > > convention space cost at the hotel, pay for the hired tournament staff, > > misc > > > bills, the Journal, etc. the amount usually about breaks even. We are > not > > > making a profit. Those figures also do not take into account the > current > > > budget model CEDA is trying to follow. A couple years ago we moved > from > > the > > > notion that CEDA should have to make enough money to pay all of our > > > expenses, putting us at the mercy if the tournament's size each year. > The > > > goal was to make us financially stable off of membership dues, AND to > > reduce > > > the cost to attend CEDA. Your figures assume $100 entry fees per team. > We > > > have moved beyond that model, and in the future hope to charge team > fees > > > that just cover the costs of the tournament, not running the > organization > > as > > > they previously have. This means we charge $150 for membershio now as > > > opposed to $50 per school, > > > and we plan to reduce the cost of entry fees for CEDA Nationals for > the > > > first time in the history of the National Tournament. If your goal was > to > > > have all the above costs absorbed by local Baltimore businesses, that > would > > > be great. But it would seem to be a reason to continue with the "make > CEDA > > > affordable" model we are moving towards, and reducing entry fees for > the > > > programs competing. > > > > > > 3. A final thought. Your ideas below are great and grand. My points > > > above are not to deny your passion or vision. They were to illuminate > the > > > current structure. But I do wonder if you could pull off something > like > > you > > > envision, by doing this through the Novice/JV Nationals that Baltimore > > hosts > > > yearly. It seems like a yearly commitment might be even more > successful > > and > > > would have greater long term benefits, and an on-going relationship > between > > > debate and the Baltimore community. WHat do you think? > > > > > > chief > > > > > > Darren Elliott > > > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > > > CEDA President > > > > > > > > > ANDY ELLIS WROTE:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > So one of the key roles of a ceda president is to coordinate a CEDA > > > nationals. > > > Here is what mine might look like. > > > > > > It would be in Baltimore. > > > > > > The hotel would be downtown at the harbor. Perhaps the new hilton (its > > > connected to the convention center and next to a light rail stop that > takes > > > you too and from the airport-we will run an evidence shuttle) you > > > really shouldn't have to rent a car if you dont want to, everything you > > > need > > > is at the harbor, food, drink, aquarium, science center, shopping, > slots, > > > cool neighborhoods... Camden yards is right next door perhaps we could > get > > > CEDA nats night at Camden yards... The out rounds would be held at the > > > convention center. They would be open to the public. If possible i > would > > > like to charge for ticket packages, perhaps $10 per day or $15 for both > > > days. We can't fill it, but i bet alot of you could convince folks who > you > > > know on the eastern seaboard to come up. It would be great in my eyes > if > > > there where people not from the tournament watching our elimination > rounds, > > > and i think we have more power to make it happen then we think we do. I > > > would even try to arrange alumni packages at the hotels if say the jay > > > hawks wanted to bring a large contingent. > > > > > > The hospitality could be hooked up and the scene can't be beat... > > > > > > Prelims. > > > > > > There are dozens of college campuses....but i am less interested in > > > that(though could definitely arrange it), instead i would like to work > with > > > the city and the local business community to form a partnership that > uses > > > the investment debate programs make in ceda nationals toward a socially > > > just > > > goal. CEDA nationals makes about 20 to 30 thousand, in my vision that > > > 20,000 > > > could be CEDApartnership stake in the renovation of vacant homes > schools or > > > buildings. For that investment CEDA would get the following: > > > > > > The First occupant of the buildings would be CEDA nationals. It would > be > > > renovated in a way that worked for the tournament but was > > > easily transformable into affordable housing and/or office space for > > > community groups. > > > After CEDA nationals CEDA would get community space for a center where > CEDA > > > college debaters could work with high school students and a space where > > > local college students could do internship projects for the > organization. > > > Otherwise the space would be utilized for affordable housing and office > > > space by the city/developer/ etc. > > > > > > The renovation of course would be cause for a celebration and the city > > > would > > > probably close the street and throw some kind of party and make you > feel > > > kinda like you where on a campus. > > > > > > Habitat for Humanity would be a good CEDA partner perhaps... > > > > > > Once we have this as our goal- using our enterprise toward social > goals, > > > without sacrificing our enterprise- it becomes a lot easier to build > small > > > amounts of guaranteed capital investment into matching grants...in > other > > > words...if we can guarantee that we can raise 20 k we can raise money > with > > > a > > > 20 k match. > > > > > > There would be a webpage for CEDA nationals that was functional and > > > friendly. It would have been a two year collaborative project that led > up > > > to > > > it, where tech talented people in the community collaborated with > students > > > (high school and college) to build the site that people need(but also > the > > > platform for the future). As long as there is education going on, money > is > > > available...the point agin being that using something we need (a good > web > > > platform for our national tournament) in the service of a social goal > > > (teaching tech skills on a big project ) kinda just makes more sense. > > > > > > I would work with networks of youth non profits in Baltimore and > hopefully > > > be able to get photographers, events workers, ballot runners, video > people, > > > t shirt designers, and everything else under the sun, we might have to > pay > > > them, but thats a good investment on our part. > > > > > > There is something about the prelims working with and not just in a > > > community that will drive people out to see the out rounds at the > > > convention > > > center. > > > > > > Oh yeah, the whole thing would be broadcast live at least over the > > > internet, > > > and who knows maybe on CSPAN, or something more exciting. > > > > > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not forgetting about debate, in fact the rooms > > > would > > > be configured more ideally for debate than any other location, because > its > > > first use would be debate. I am not looking to sacrifice what we do, im > > > looking to get more return out of our investment. > > > Accessibility ? Actually that works better in my model as well. If CEDA > had > > > an idea of how many rooms needed to be "accessible" that would be that > many > > > more accessible rooms on that block...see how this works. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now this is gonna take organizing, money, work, and commitment. But we > can > > > do it and we should want to do it...Its good for people(the prelims) > the > > > planet (don't have to rent a car and transforming brownfields into > > > affordable housing) and profit (the elims and the money that funds the > > > social projects) and it would be the most fun place to ever have a > hotel. > > > > > > If you like the idea but think its unrealistic, don't stop liking the > idea, > > > work with me to make it realistic. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/20090109/80c2796e/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 18:04:19 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:04:19 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Andy's Nationals In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0901091600m26ba583gb270712b244b9062@mail.gmail.com> References: <49662E2F0200009300022DAA@mymail.kckcc.edu> <9368bc9b0901081506x70bd0f43t5aa880dcc9b5ece8@mail.gmail.com> <1231541539.4967d523098f2@webmail.grandecom.net> <9368bc9b0901091600m26ba583gb270712b244b9062@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901091604t6b302edam611bcd3ac9dfec8@mail.gmail.com> pardon me. BEER pong. Though im sure bear pong would be interesting as well. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: > Im sure scott can find a bear pong game during or after round 8, my plan > did not say anything about not using prefs > > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:52 PM, wrote: > >> I think my suggestion of free beer pong after round eight has been >> excluded from >> this discussion and it makes me feels sad. >> >> Scott >> >> >> Quoting Andy Ellis : >> >> > Sadly for any amongst you looking for an exciting edebate clash, im >> filing >> > most of this under Darrens first inclination "what it might look like" >> > I had a vision of what CEDA nationals could look like and i thought it >> worth >> > sharing. If elected i would be excited to work toward it. >> > >> > But the presidency of CEDA is not a dictatorship. If the membership was >> not >> > supportive of the move, didnt want to vote on the bid, or hopefully had >> > ideas that altered it to make it better, i would happily >> > work collaboratively with the ec and the community to support the desire >> of >> > the organization. But lets not pretend that presidents don't seek and >> assist >> > bid submitters. >> > >> > I recognize the money is not workable in the current set up but i >> believe we >> > can cut/shift/fund alot of the current costs, especially if working in >> > an environment the president knows well. My goal is to make CEDA >> nationals >> > as affordable as possible and most of my plans are in line with that >> goal. >> > >> > The reason it is difficult to do the same thing for JV novice Nationals >> is >> > because it is not put on by a large national organization. YOURS and >> the >> > Towson University foundation both provide 501 C3 status to the event but >> not >> > the same way ceda would. The bargaining power of a national organization >> > with colleges all over the nation as its membership is simply higher >> than a >> > sub-account of university foundation or small startup non profit. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Darren Elliott >> wrote: >> > >> > > Just a couple quick thoughts/questions from sunny Texas and the 2 >> Step: >> > > >> > > The other candidates should feel free to state their opinion with >> regards >> > > to the following as well. How would you do it differently or >> similarly? >> > > >> > > 1. You say below, if elected, your Nationals would be in Baltimore. >> If I >> > > were to vote for you and you won, does that mean Baltimore would >> definitely >> > > be the site for CEDA in your year as President? Or does that fall >> under >> > the >> > > first statement, "what it might look like"? Or do you plan on >> abandoning >> > > the long standing tradition of allowing member schools to submit bids >> to >> > > host CEDA that are voted on by the Executive Council? Some may favor >> a >> > bold >> > > move and a yes response would persuade them in your favor. Others may >> be >> > > dissuaded by a significant change in course. One reason the bid >> process is >> > > important, is to ensure schools, who might need to host for PR >> reasons, get >> > > a shot to put forth a bid. When OU hosted, it was a PR advantage. >> And it >> > > saved CEDA a ton of money thanks to the generosity of President Boren. >> > This >> > > year, Idaho State was chosen for 2 major factors. First, we have >> never >> > been >> > > to the Rocky Mountain Region and it was important to support a growing >> > > debate Regio >> > > n. Second, they have a donor who has given their program, and will >> give >> > > CEDA Nationals a significant sum of money. It was important for ISU >> and >> > > this donor to host CEDA this year. The committee voted for that bid >> due in >> > > large part to those factors. Berkley won next years bid because they >> were >> > > willing to do both the NDT and CEDA, back-to-back, making it >> convenient for >> > > people going to both. So for many, the bid process is an important >> one. >> > > >> > > 2. Your figures about CEDA Nationals making 20-30,000 dollars are >> very >> > > misleading. Once we pay out catering for the receptions, trophies, >> any >> > > convention space cost at the hotel, pay for the hired tournament >> staff, >> > misc >> > > bills, the Journal, etc. the amount usually about breaks even. We are >> not >> > > making a profit. Those figures also do not take into account the >> current >> > > budget model CEDA is trying to follow. A couple years ago we moved >> from >> > the >> > > notion that CEDA should have to make enough money to pay all of our >> > > expenses, putting us at the mercy if the tournament's size each year. >> The >> > > goal was to make us financially stable off of membership dues, AND to >> > reduce >> > > the cost to attend CEDA. Your figures assume $100 entry fees per >> team. We >> > > have moved beyond that model, and in the future hope to charge team >> fees >> > > that just cover the costs of the tournament, not running the >> organization >> > as >> > > they previously have. This means we charge $150 for membershio now as >> > > opposed to $50 per school, >> > > and we plan to reduce the cost of entry fees for CEDA Nationals for >> the >> > > first time in the history of the National Tournament. If your goal >> was to >> > > have all the above costs absorbed by local Baltimore businesses, that >> would >> > > be great. But it would seem to be a reason to continue with the "make >> CEDA >> > > affordable" model we are moving towards, and reducing entry fees for >> the >> > > programs competing. >> > > >> > > 3. A final thought. Your ideas below are great and grand. My points >> > > above are not to deny your passion or vision. They were to illuminate >> the >> > > current structure. But I do wonder if you could pull off something >> like >> > you >> > > envision, by doing this through the Novice/JV Nationals that Baltimore >> > hosts >> > > yearly. It seems like a yearly commitment might be even more >> successful >> > and >> > > would have greater long term benefits, and an on-going relationship >> between >> > > debate and the Baltimore community. WHat do you think? >> > > >> > > chief >> > > >> > > Darren Elliott >> > > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC >> > > CEDA President >> > > >> > > >> > > ANDY ELLIS WROTE:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > So one of the key roles of a ceda president is to coordinate a CEDA >> > > nationals. >> > > Here is what mine might look like. >> > > >> > > It would be in Baltimore. >> > > >> > > The hotel would be downtown at the harbor. Perhaps the new hilton (its >> > > connected to the convention center and next to a light rail stop that >> takes >> > > you too and from the airport-we will run an evidence shuttle) you >> > > really shouldn't have to rent a car if you dont want to, everything >> you >> > > need >> > > is at the harbor, food, drink, aquarium, science center, shopping, >> slots, >> > > cool neighborhoods... Camden yards is right next door perhaps we could >> get >> > > CEDA nats night at Camden yards... The out rounds would be held at the >> > > convention center. They would be open to the public. If possible i >> would >> > > like to charge for ticket packages, perhaps $10 per day or $15 for >> both >> > > days. We can't fill it, but i bet alot of you could convince folks who >> you >> > > know on the eastern seaboard to come up. It would be great in my eyes >> if >> > > there where people not from the tournament watching our elimination >> rounds, >> > > and i think we have more power to make it happen then we think we do. >> I >> > > would even try to arrange alumni packages at the hotels if say the jay >> > > hawks wanted to bring a large contingent. >> > > >> > > The hospitality could be hooked up and the scene can't be beat... >> > > >> > > Prelims. >> > > >> > > There are dozens of college campuses....but i am less interested in >> > > that(though could definitely arrange it), instead i would like to work >> with >> > > the city and the local business community to form a partnership that >> uses >> > > the investment debate programs make in ceda nationals toward a >> socially >> > > just >> > > goal. CEDA nationals makes about 20 to 30 thousand, in my vision that >> > > 20,000 >> > > could be CEDApartnership stake in the renovation of vacant homes >> schools or >> > > buildings. For that investment CEDA would get the following: >> > > >> > > The First occupant of the buildings would be CEDA nationals. It would >> be >> > > renovated in a way that worked for the tournament but was >> > > easily transformable into affordable housing and/or office space for >> > > community groups. >> > > After CEDA nationals CEDA would get community space for a center where >> CEDA >> > > college debaters could work with high school students and a space >> where >> > > local college students could do internship projects for the >> organization. >> > > Otherwise the space would be utilized for affordable housing and >> office >> > > space by the city/developer/ etc. >> > > >> > > The renovation of course would be cause for a celebration and the city >> > > would >> > > probably close the street and throw some kind of party and make you >> feel >> > > kinda like you where on a campus. >> > > >> > > Habitat for Humanity would be a good CEDA partner perhaps... >> > > >> > > Once we have this as our goal- using our enterprise toward social >> goals, >> > > without sacrificing our enterprise- it becomes a lot easier to build >> small >> > > amounts of guaranteed capital investment into matching grants...in >> other >> > > words...if we can guarantee that we can raise 20 k we can raise money >> with >> > > a >> > > 20 k match. >> > > >> > > There would be a webpage for CEDA nationals that was functional and >> > > friendly. It would have been a two year collaborative project that led >> up >> > > to >> > > it, where tech talented people in the community collaborated with >> students >> > > (high school and college) to build the site that people need(but also >> the >> > > platform for the future). As long as there is education going on, >> money is >> > > available...the point agin being that using something we need (a good >> web >> > > platform for our national tournament) in the service of a social goal >> > > (teaching tech skills on a big project ) kinda just makes more sense. >> > > >> > > I would work with networks of youth non profits in Baltimore and >> hopefully >> > > be able to get photographers, events workers, ballot runners, video >> people, >> > > t shirt designers, and everything else under the sun, we might have to >> pay >> > > them, but thats a good investment on our part. >> > > >> > > There is something about the prelims working with and not just in a >> > > community that will drive people out to see the out rounds at the >> > > convention >> > > center. >> > > >> > > Oh yeah, the whole thing would be broadcast live at least over the >> > > internet, >> > > and who knows maybe on CSPAN, or something more exciting. >> > > >> > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not forgetting about debate, in fact the rooms >> > > would >> > > be configured more ideally for debate than any other location, because >> its >> > > first use would be debate. I am not looking to sacrifice what we do, >> im >> > > looking to get more return out of our investment. >> > > Accessibility ? Actually that works better in my model as well. If >> CEDA had >> > > an idea of how many rooms needed to be "accessible" that would be that >> many >> > > more accessible rooms on that block...see how this works. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Now this is gonna take organizing, money, work, and commitment. But we >> can >> > > do it and we should want to do it...Its good for people(the prelims) >> the >> > > planet (don't have to rent a car and transforming brownfields into >> > > affordable housing) and profit (the elims and the money that funds the >> > > social projects) and it would be the most fun place to ever have a >> hotel. >> > > >> > > If you like the idea but think its unrealistic, don't stop liking the >> idea, >> > > work with me to make it realistic. >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > 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/20090109/db9cc223/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Sun Jan 11 10:19:53 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:19:53 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Baltimore College Debate Message-ID: <51C0388810314ED19336D29AA7727F43@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Junior Varsity/Novice Nationals at Towson Starts:3/7/2009 Ends:3/9/2009 Hosted by: Baltimore College Debate Contact: Andy Ellis Address: 1800 n. charles street suite 906 baltimore, md 21218 Phone: 240-285-0843 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Junior Varsity Nationals with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles Novice Nationals with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles 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 todonnel at umw.edu Mon Jan 12 10:42:44 2009 From: todonnel at umw.edu (Timothy O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:42:44 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Inauguration Debate Series - January 19th at the Smithsonian Message-ID: <496B2CB7020000BD00080392@umwgw.umw.edu> Greetings! This coming Monday (January 19th) six college debate teams will debate the priorities of the Obama administration at the Museum of Natural History as part of the inaugural weekend festivities. The event is free and open to the public and all who will be in the area are encouraged to attend. The official release with further details from the Smithsonian is copied below. All the best, - Tim newsdesk.si.edu Press Room of the Smithsonian Institution PRESS RELEASE - Jan. 7, 2009 Smithsonian Hosts ?Great Debaters? in Inaugural Debate Series Jan. 19 (http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/nmaahc_great_debaters.htm) Six college debate teams from across the country will come to the Smithsonian to discuss the priorities of the new Obama administration and debate issues such as the economy, foreign policy and climate change. The program marks the 100th anniversary of the first debates between Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and the historic inauguration of America?s first African American President. The Inaugural Debate Series will take place Monday, Jan. 19, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in Baird Auditorium at the National Museum of Natural History. The debate series features six teams with some of the nation?s top collegiate debaters, including schools with close historical ties to the real-life ?great debaters? depicted in the 2007 film of the same name starring Denzel Washington. Teams participating in the debate include Michigan State University, Wake Forest University, the University of Mary Washington and the University of Southern California, as well as two schools representing Historically Black Colleges and Universities?Fayetteville State University and Voorhees College. The debates are presented by the National Museum of African American History and Culture in cooperation with the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the Debate Consortium, with support from the Presidential Inaugural Committee. The Debate Consortium was formed to help African American colleges and universities develop the capacity to field high-quality debate on crucial public policy issues. The students will debate some of the most important issues confronting the new Obama administration, from energy and climate change to health care, the economy and foreign policy. The series will feature three debates, each approximately 75 minutes in length. The first debate on energy and climate change, from 9:30 to 11 a.m., has Michigan State University against Wake Forest University, two schools that represent the pinnacle of intercollegiate debate?both having won the National Debate Tournament, America?s most historic and prestigious national debate championship, in the past three years. The second debate, from 11:10 a.m. to 1 p.m., features the University of Mary Washington and USC arguing health care and the economy. USC was host to Wiley College in the ?Great Debate? of 1935 (although the film substitutes Harvard for USC). The most famous member of the Wiley team?the distinguished civil rights leader James L. Farmer Jr.?concluded his long career as a professor of history at the University of Mary Washington. The third debate, from 2:10 to 3:30 p.m., on foreign policy, features Fayetteville State University versus Voorhees College, two Historically Black Colleges and Universities that are committed to making the virtues of a debate education central to their educational mission. The National Museum of African American History and Culture was established in 2003 by an Act of Congress, making it the 19th Smithsonian Institution museum. It is the only national museum devoted exclusively to the documentation of African American life, art, history and culture. The Smithsonian Board of Regents, the governing body of the Institution, voted in January 2006 to build the museum on a five-acre site on the National Mall. The Constitution Avenue site is adjacent the Washington Monument and across the street from the Smithsonian?s National Museum of American History. For more information about the museum, please visit nmaahc.si.edu or call Smithsonian information at (202) 633-1000, (202) 633-5285 (TTY). # # # SI-6-2009 Timothy M. O'Donnell Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Speech University of Mary Washington 1201 William St., #25 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 todonnel at umw.edu (540) 654-1252 (office) (540) 654-1569 (fax) From berchnorto at msn.com Mon Jan 12 12:11:35 2009 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:11:35 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Inauguration Debate Series - January 19th at the Smithsonian In-Reply-To: <496B2CB7020000BD00080392@umwgw.umw.edu> References: <496B2CB7020000BD00080392@umwgw.umw.edu> Message-ID: Kudos to Tim and the University of Mary Washington for pulling off this historic event! It should generate some extremely positive publicity for the debate community. --Neil Berch West Virginia University> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:42:44 -0500> From: todonnel at umw.edu> To: ceda-l at ndtceda.com; edebate at ndtceda.com> Subject: [CEDA-L] Inauguration Debate Series - January 19th at the Smithsonian> > Greetings! > > This coming Monday (January 19th) six college debate teams will debate> the priorities of the Obama administration at the Museum of Natural> History as part of the inaugural weekend festivities. The event is free> and open to the public and all who will be in the area are encouraged to> attend. > > The official release with further details from the Smithsonian is copied> below.> > All the best, > > - Tim> > > > newsdesk.si.edu> Press Room of the Smithsonian Institution> > PRESS RELEASE - Jan. 7, 2009> > Smithsonian Hosts ?Great Debaters? in Inaugural Debate Series Jan. 19> (http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/nmaahc_great_debaters.htm)> > Six college debate teams from across the country will come to the> Smithsonian to discuss the priorities of the new Obama administration> and debate issues such as the economy, foreign policy and climate> change. The program marks the 100th anniversary of the first debates> between Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Martin Luther> King, Jr. Day and the historic inauguration of America?s first African> American President. The Inaugural Debate Series will take place Monday,> Jan. 19, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in Baird Auditorium at the National> Museum of Natural History.> > The debate series features six teams with some of the nation?s top> collegiate debaters, including schools with close historical ties to the> real-life ?great debaters? depicted in the 2007 film of the same name> starring Denzel Washington.> > Teams participating in the debate include Michigan State University,> Wake Forest University, the University of Mary Washington and the> University of Southern California, as well as two schools representing> Historically Black Colleges and Universities?Fayetteville State> University and Voorhees College. The debates are presented by the> National Museum of African American History and Culture in cooperation> with the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and> Universities and the Debate Consortium, with support from the> Presidential Inaugural Committee.> > The Debate Consortium was formed to help African American colleges and> universities develop the capacity to field high-quality debate on> crucial public policy issues.> > The students will debate some of the most important issues confronting> the new Obama administration, from energy and climate change to health> care, the economy and foreign policy. The series will feature three> debates, each approximately 75 minutes in length.> > The first debate on energy and climate change, from 9:30 to 11 a.m., has> Michigan State University against Wake Forest University, two schools> that represent the pinnacle of intercollegiate debate?both having won> the National Debate Tournament, America?s most historic and prestigious> national debate championship, in the past three years. > > The second debate, from 11:10 a.m. to 1 p.m., features the University of> Mary Washington and USC arguing health care and the economy. USC was> host to Wiley College in the ?Great Debate? of 1935 (although the film> substitutes Harvard for USC). The most famous member of the Wiley> team?the distinguished civil rights leader James L. Farmer> Jr.?concluded his long career as a professor of history at the> University of Mary Washington.> > The third debate, from 2:10 to 3:30 p.m., on foreign policy, features> Fayetteville State University versus Voorhees College, two Historically> Black Colleges and Universities that are committed to making the virtues> of a debate education central to their educational mission. > > The National Museum of African American History and Culture was> established in 2003 by an Act of Congress, making it the 19th> Smithsonian Institution museum. It is the only national museum devoted> exclusively to the documentation of African American life, art, history> and culture. The Smithsonian Board of Regents, the governing body of the> Institution, voted in January 2006 to build the museum on a five-acre> site on the National Mall. The Constitution Avenue site is adjacent the Washington Monument and across the street from the Smithsonian?s> National Museum of American History. For more information about the> museum, please visit nmaahc.si.edu or call Smithsonian information at> (202) 633-1000, (202) 633-5285 (TTY).> > # # #> > SI-6-2009> > > Timothy M. O'Donnell> Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Speech> University of Mary Washington> 1201 William St., #25> Fredericksburg, VA 22401> todonnel at umw.edu> (540) 654-1252 (office)> (540) 654-1569 (fax)> _______________________________________________> 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/20090112/c6074ea0/attachment.htm From shahall at comcast.net Mon Jan 12 15:49:59 2009 From: shahall at comcast.net (Sherry Hall) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:49:59 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] NDT Subscriptions Message-ID: <008a01c974ff$b76dd200$6c02a8c0@PowerspecPc> Hi All -- I believe I now have an accurate list of all of the schools that have paid their subscription dues to the NDT for the 2008-2009 school year. The deadline for subscribing to the NDT for this year if you wish to participate in the district qualifier and/or attend the NDT is this Thursday, January 15, 2009. Please check the list. This list includes everyone that paid on the website via pay-pal through this afternoon. If you paid on the AFA website and are not on this list, please write me back immediately. It would be helpful if you could include your electronic receipt. If you paid via check and think that I should have received it by now, please let me know that. Mike Davis was listed as having paid via pay-pal without a school affiliation. I have credited that money to James Madison. Please let me know if this is incorrect. If you still need to pay you can pay via the AFA website. You will need to select subscribe to the NDT three times in order for the system to charge you the correct amount. You can also send a check to my home made payable to "the National Debate Tournament" for $150.00 to 324 Franklin St., Cambridge, MA 02139. Thanks, Sherry NDT 2008-2009 Subscribers Baylor University Binghamton University Boston College California Polytechnic University California State University @ Chico California State University @ Fullerton California State University @ Northridge Cameron University Case Western Reserve University City University of New York Clarion College Columbia University Concordia College Dartmouth College East Los Angeles College Eastern New Mexico University Emory University Emporia University George Mason University George Washington University Georgetown University Georgia State University Gonzaga University Harvard University Idaho State University Illinois College Illinois State University James Madison University John Carroll University Johnson County Community College Kansas City Kansas Community College Kansas State University Liberty University Macalaster College Marist College Methodist University Michigan State University Missouri State University New York University Northwestern University Pepperdine University Redlands Sacramento State University Samford University San Francisco State University Southern Methodist University Towson University Trinity University United States Naval Academy University of California @ Berkeley University of California @ Los Angeles University of Central Oklahoma University of Denver University of Florida University of Georgia University of Iowa University of Kansas University of Kentucky University of Mary Washington University of Miami - Ohio University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Missouri @ Kansas City University of Nevada @ Las Vegas University of North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of Notre Dame University of Pittsburgh University of Richmond University of Rochester University of Southern California University of Texas @ Austin University of Texas @ Dallas University of Texas @ San Antonio University of Tulsa University of Vermont University of West Georgia Vanderbilt University Wake Forest University Weber State West Virginia Western Connecticut State University Whitman College Wichita State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090112/8b911a5a/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Tue Jan 13 16:37:19 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:37:19 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Appalachian State Message-ID: Name:American Debate Association (ADA Nationals) Starts:3/13/2009 Ends:3/15/2009 Hosted by: Appalachian State Contact: Kris Willis Address: ASU Box 32039 Phone: 828-262-8371 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles 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 scottelliott at grandecom.net Wed Jan 14 08:53:43 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:53:43 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] Mardi Gras Debate Tournament In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1231944823.496dfc77f1eec@webmail.grandecom.net> Dear Colleagues: If you are planning on coming down to the Mardi Gras Tournament, please send me some information so I can make arrangements. Scott Elliott University of Louisiana From dave at miami.edu Wed Jan 14 15:36:19 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:36:19 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Hurricane Debates Message-ID: Looking forward to hosting you in sunny and warm South Florida! Please enter! Hotel information (they will complain, but still have rooms....) Holiday Inn, University of Miami 1350 S Dixie Hwy Coral Gables, FL 33146 (305) 667-5611 http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/hi/1/en/hotel/miaum Rate is $119, Code is UMD David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090114/557b8693/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Thu Jan 15 15:12:59 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:12:59 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Mary Washington Message-ID: Name:District VII at the University of Mary Washington Starts:2/20/2009 Ends:2/22/2009 Hosted by: Mary Washington Contact: Tim O'Donnell Address: 1301 College Ave. Phone: 540-760-4542 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: District VII Open Policy with 8 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified JV Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Novice Policy 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 Thu Jan 15 16:29:19 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:29:19 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] Swing partner for Baylor needed Message-ID: <496F646002000093000232D8@mymail.kckcc.edu> KCKCC seeks a swing partner for the Baylor tournament. We are flexible on the division. Depending on the swinger, we can figure out division as I have an odd number comprised of people with both JV and Open experience. Thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From todonnel at umw.edu Fri Jan 16 11:51:26 2009 From: todonnel at umw.edu (Timothy O'Donnell) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:51:26 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] NDT Enrollment Verification Deadline Message-ID: <497082CF020000BD0008114C@umwgw.umw.edu> You are likely to receive this from your district reps as well. Let me know if you need assistance. Cheers, - Tim Enrollment Verification - Due by February 8, 2009 The Standing Rules for the Operation of the National Debate Tournament state: To be an eligible debater for the National Debate Tournament, a student must provide, by February 8th to the NDT committee chair, an official document from appropriate university officials verifying that he/she is registered as a full time or degree seeking undergraduate student and is in good standing at the school, for which he/she is participating, as of February 1st immediately preceding the NDT in which he/she wishes to participate. If the week preceding February 8th is the first week of instruction for an institution, that institution may submit to the NDT committee chair by February 8th a list of students who intend to submit verification documents, and those documents must be received by the NDT committee chair no later than the day prior to the announcement of first round at large bid recipients. (This year that date is Sunday, February 15, 2009). Letters should be sent by the deadline via U.S. mail to: Timothy O'Donnell Debate/ELC Department Combs Hall, Room 303 University of Mary Washington 1301 College Ave. Fredericksburg, VA 22401-5300 Phone: 540-654-1252 Fax: 540-654-1569 Email: todonnel AT umw DOT edu and timothyodonnell AT gmail DOTcom I will also collect original verification forms in person at the Northwestern Tournament on Saturday, February 7th at the NDT Committee Meeting (during rounds 2 and 3). A fax or scanned (preferred) email attachment may be sent to meet the deadline, but must be followed by an original paper copy with the registrar's seal by Friday, February 13, 2008. Timothy M. O'Donnell Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Speech University of Mary Washington 1201 William St., #25 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 todonnel at umw.edu (540) 654-1252 (office) (540) 654-1569 (fax) From shahall at comcast.net Fri Jan 16 12:21:04 2009 From: shahall at comcast.net (Sherry Hall) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:21:04 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] NDT Subscriptions Message-ID: <013b01c97807$317d76e0$6c02a8c0@PowerspecPc> I just received the updated list from the AFA that includes everyone who paid their NDT subscription fees on the AFA website and that sent checks to me this week. I believe that this is the final list of schools that have subscribed and are thus eligibile to participate in the District Qualification Tournaments and the National Debate Tournament for this year. If you believe that you have paid and are not on this list, please email me immediately. Thanks, Sherry Hall Treasurer NDT 2008-2009 Subscribers Appalachian State University Arizona State University Baylor University Binghamton University Boston College California Polytechnic University California State University @ Chico California State University @ Fullerton California State University @ Northridge Cameron University Case Western Reserve University City University of New York Clarion College Columbia University Concordia College Cornell University Dartmouth College East Los Angeles College Eastern New Mexico University Emory University Emporia University Florida State University George Mason University George Washington University Georgetown University Georgia State University Gonzaga University Harvard University Idaho State University Illinois College Illinois State University James Madison University John Carroll University Johnson County Community College Kansas City Kansas Community College Kansas State University Liberty University Macalaster College Marist College Methodist University Michigan State University Missouri State University New York University Northwestern University Pepperdine University Redlands Sacramento State University Samford University San Francisco State University Southern Methodist University Stanford University Towson University Trinity University United States Military Academy United States Naval Academy University of California @ Berkeley University of California @ Los Angeles University of Central Oklahoma University of Denver University of Florida University of Georgia University of Houston University of Iowa University of Kansas University of Kentucky University of Louisiana @ Lafayette University of Louisville University of Mary Washington University of Miami - Ohio University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Missouri @ Kansas City University of Nevada @ Las Vegas University of North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of Notre Dame University of Oklahoma University of Pittsburgh University of Richmond University of Rochester University of Southern California University of Texas @ Austin University of Texas @ Dallas University of Texas @ San Antonio University of Tulsa University of Vermont University of West Georgia University of Wyoming Vanderbilt University Wake Forest University Wayne State University Weber State West Virginia Western Connecticut State University Whitman College Wichita State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090116/24d13637/attachment.htm From luvmarissa at hotmail.com Sat Jan 17 13:50:17 2009 From: luvmarissa at hotmail.com (Marissa Silber) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:50:17 +0000 Subject: [CEDA-L] Job Opening: Director of Debate - University of Florida Message-ID: Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have about the position. Marissa Silber University of Florida Dial Center for Written & Oral Communication Position Vacancy Director of Debate/Speech Lecturer Position: Full time faculty position with benefits. This will be an annual renewable term contract position. Master?s degree required for appointment. Position begins Fall semester, 2009. Duties & Responsibilities: Individual will be responsible for directing the policy debate program, coaching and traveling with the debaters to regional and national tournaments, coordinating duties for debate graduate assistant/s, hosting the annual Gator Invitational Debate Tournament, establishing recruiting initiatives, organizing research efforts for the team, and perform some minor administrative duties. Teaching duties will include 3-6 credits/semester from such courses as: Argumentation, Public Speaking, Speaking & Writing in the Disciplines (Prelaw, Public Leadership, Political Science), selected upper division oral and/or written communication courses, and other courses in the candidate?s area of specialty. Summer school teaching for additional compensation is possible pending funding. Participation in Center projects and involvement in college-wide activities is also expected. Selection Criteria: 1. Must demonstrate excellence in classroom teaching. Graduate assistantships or adjunct teaching appointments are appropriate. 2. Must demonstrate preparation and experience in teaching public speaking or other related oral or written communication courses. 3. Must demonstrate ability to coach college level policy debate. 4. Must possess Master?s degree in Speech Communication or related field (for example: Journalism, English, Political Science, Law, etc) completed by August 16, 2009. Salary & Benefits: Salary is dependent on qualification and level of experience. UF provides several retirement plan choices and a health insurance package with a family coverage option for a nominal fee. Also offered are a variety of supplemental plans. Additionally, after 6 months of employment, the Employee Education Program is available for those interested in pursuing additional graduate work. This program covers tuition for many courses offered at UF. The UF Speech & Debate Team: The 30+ member integrated Speech and Debate team at UF shares an annual travel budget averaging $37,000 each year. This financial support comes from several sources including student activities fees, administration, and a very supportive group of alumni. At present there are no scholarships available to our students and, because we are funded in part by UF?s student government, we are a walk-on team. However, students from high school programs continue to seek us out and on average there are four active policy teams on the squad. The team travels extensively during the academic year to regional and national tournaments. The team is associated with the following organizations: NDT, CEDA, and AFA-NIET. For more information see http://www.cwoc.ufl.edu/debate/. The Dial Center: 13 full-time and 15 part-time faculty or graduate teaching/coaching assistants. Five faculty members comprise our writing division while the remainder teach courses in oral communication. While no major currently exists in our program, we do offer a minor in Communication Studies and teach over 1200 students each semester who are required to take our courses for their varied majors. For more information regarding the Center, go to our webpage at www.cwoc.ufl.edu. Deadlines: Applications will be accepted until March 1, 2009. File review will begin immediately. Application: Refer to jobs.ufl.edu, position #00007018, for required on-line application. Then, send letter of application, resume, transcripts and three letters of recommendation to: Kellie W. Roberts, Director University of Florida Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication PO Box 112032 Gainesville, FL 32611 phone: 352/392-5421 x22 FAX: 352/392-5420 e-mail: robertsk at ufl.edu _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090117/c33bfbe3/attachment.htm From jmgreen at ksu.edu Tue Jan 20 10:13:11 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:13:11 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] Successful Budget Cutting Strategies Message-ID: <5a6e2a80901200813o4f4c680fqc4db794f2932e18d@mail.gmail.com> Hello CEDA Community and in particular Directors, The state of Kansas faces major shortfalls in its budget due to the slow economy. As a result, our Department chair at Kansas State has been asked to trim 10-15% of the budget each of the next two years. Our rather large team is the biggest low-hanging fruit around. I am writing to ask others to share (via listserv or back-channel) successful cost-saving strategies your Department or Squad has employed. I am fairly certain that public schools all across Kansas, Texas, and the rest of the nation may be in a similar situation. No doubt, this will be a topic of discussion at the Wake Forest Summer Conference. However, decisions over our cuts will come by the end of the month so any information shared prior is appreciated. In a rare move, our school has asked for stakeholder input. We are not in a situation where we need to justify the debate team's academic merit, character, or worth to the school. We simply need to save on costs. Thank you to both Denver and Whitman who have previously shared many of these tips. Debate team strategies we already will have to employ - - Cheaper hotels - - Less meal money - Going paperless - Reducing our number of GTAs - Bring only the bare minimum of coaches necessary to a tournament Departmental Strategies that are currently up for discussion - Go paperless - the University of Western Washington already has done this. - Eliminate Adjunct/Temporary/non-regular teachers - Have others successfully prevented these jobs from being cut? Especially those who have debate coaches in these roles? Thank you for your time and any contributions are much appreciated, Justin Green DOD - KSU From gregachten at berkeley.edu Tue Jan 20 14:40:11 2009 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:40:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [CEDA-L] Cal Tournament Entries Closing Message-ID: <55514.98.207.95.29.1232484011.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> If you are planning on attending the Cal tournament and have yet to register at debateresults.com, please do so today. I plan to close our entries and activate judge prefs tonight. I think that everyone who I talked to that was planning on coming has entered, but I just wanted to be certain. Greg From delliott at kckcc.edu Wed Jan 21 21:47:32 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:47:32 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] New Aff? The Ian Beier Switch Message-ID: <497797F40200009300023706@mymail.kckcc.edu> Any team coached by Ian Beier should have to dislose before the flip that IF they run a NEW AFF in the 1AR, it will be NEW and not an Aff ever run in a 1AR by any of his teams before. If they have run it in the 1AC before however, I dont think its really new. chief PS--Darren Hicks totally supports switch side debate. Quit reading his cards to the contrary. The other Elliott is right on this one. Hicks judged me so many times, I still have nightmares. Im sure he does as well. From Zompetti at aol.com Thu Jan 22 00:26:41 2009 From: Zompetti at aol.com (Zompetti at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:26:41 EST Subject: [CEDA-L] Farewell Message-ID: To my friends in the NDT/CEDA community -- After careful and lengthy deliberation, I have decided to leave my position as DOF at Illinois State University and my involvement with college debate. I have been involved with debate for all of my adult life, and making this decision in some ways is like severing a limb. However, after receiving tenure two years ago, I have now been approved a sabbatical for Fall of 2009, when I will be engaged in pursuing some scholarly projects that are very near and dear to me -- projects I've been unable to accomplish since I was involved with debate and administering the program here. In my absence, ISU had to find some way of administering our program. After considering several options -- including a stopgap measure for just the semester of my leave -- we all decided it would be best for the program and for me if a replacement was located. As a result, I will continue to be a cheerleader for my program here at ISU and for debate in general. Yet, I will transition into a regular tenured professor role, allowing me the time that I have greatly lacked in the past years to devote to my teaching and research. I have many friends in the debate community -- friendships that I sincerely hope will continue. While I won't see many of you very regularly, the beauty of the digital age and conferences permits us to maintain our relationships. My close friends -- and you know who you are -- have impacted me in some very profound ways. My life is richer and stronger as a result of your friendships. I can't begin to express how much the debate community and the debate activity have impacted my life. I sincerely wouldn't be where I am today if it were not for debate and the opportunities it provided for me. But, after rebuilding two programs (Mercer and now ISU), I am ready to embark on new and exciting areas. As I do so, I will leave ISU debate and speech in very capable hands. Justin Stanley, whom all of you know, will remain as our Director of Debate. Our new DOF will be Kevin Meyer. And, as I said, I will still be around to help when I can. So, I bid all of you farewell. I wish all of you continued success. I also hope that academic policy debate continues to thrive and be supported. It has taught me many lessons, and it will forever impact who I am. All the best, Joseph Zompetti Associate Professor School of Communication Illinois State University Campus Box 4480 Normal, IL 61790-4480 (309) 438-3277 zompetti at aol.com jpzompe at ilstu.edu Everything you can imagine is real. --Pablo Picasso **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090122/c949402f/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 13:02:35 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:02:35 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] New Aff? The Ian Beier Switch In-Reply-To: <18B8F2010B91E144BC6EB64508D710130498D91EAC@EXCHANGE.uco.local> References: <497797F40200009300023706@mymail.kckcc.edu> <18B8F2010B91E144BC6EB64508D710130498D91EAC@EXCHANGE.uco.local> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901221102v75e5386ax33f69eaeefdc0a60@mail.gmail.com> Just Checking...but is the standard we are employing to decide this Hicks and Greene question "would the author support the use of their work?" seems if that is the case then a whole lot more than just that article comes under scrutiny... On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Eric Marlow wrote: > Having debated and coached with D. Hicks, I am sure that Chief is > right...he still has nightmares about it. > > Peace, > Marlow > > ________________________________________ > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On > Behalf Of Darren Elliott [delliott at kckcc.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:47 PM > To: CEDA-L at ndtceda.com; edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? The Ian Beier Switch > > Any team coached by Ian Beier should have to dislose before the flip that > IF they run a NEW AFF in the 1AR, it will be NEW and not an Aff ever run in > a 1AR by any of his teams before. If they have run it in the 1AC before > however, I dont think its really new. > > chief > > PS--Darren Hicks totally supports switch side debate. Quit reading his > cards to the contrary. The other Elliott is right on this one. Hicks > judged me so many times, I still have nightmares. Im sure he does as well. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > **ADDRESS CHANGE NOTICE**-The University of Central Oklahoma is > moving to a new Internet address. All e-mail addresses and Web > sites are now available at uco.edu. All e-mail addresses and Web > sites will use uco.edu effective January 2, 2009. > > **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This e-mail (including any attachments) may > contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any > unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090122/94b98c79/attachment.htm From luvmarissa at hotmail.com Mon Jan 26 21:13:19 2009 From: luvmarissa at hotmail.com (Marissa Silber) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:13:19 +0000 Subject: [CEDA-L] Deadline extended - Graduate Assistantship at University of Florida - study in any academic department Message-ID: For those of you interested in graduate studies in any academic department at the University of Florida, the deadline to apply for the debate assistantship has been extended until March 1, 2009 (this is the same date as the deadline to apply for the Director of Debate position). Please note that the individual academic departments have their own application deadlines that you must meet, many of which are before March 1st. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me!Marissa Silber Below is the original post: Debate Graduate Assistantship at The University of Florida Coach Debate and Study in Any Academic Department ****Apply soon---Graduate Admission Deadlines Approaching Quickly!!!!!**** The University of Florida Speech and Debate Team would like to invite candidates to apply for a graduate coaching/teaching assistantship to work with our policy debate program beginning fall 2009. The position would not require any teaching, just assisting with the debate program. However, teaching opportunities may be available for additional funding. Because there is no graduate program in Speech Communication at UF, assistantships can be awarded to either MA or PhD students studying in any academic department! There is also the potential for using the assistantship?s tuition waiver to cover a portion of Law School tuition if the student is enrolled in a joint degree program. The assistantship includes a full-time (9 credit hours per semester) tuition waiver, a salary stipend, graduate student health insurance, and a tournament travel stipend. The Graduate Assistant coach is expected to supervise and provide models for research and argument writing, oversee practice debates and speaking drills, manage research assignments, judge at and travel to at least three tournaments per semester. Kellie Roberts, our Director of Forensics, takes care of most of the administrative responsibilities such as travel arrangements and paperwork, so your responsibilities are much more focused on coaching the debaters. Candidates are required to complete the admission application for the department they are interested in studying in by the department?s deadline (go to UF?s homepage at www.ufl.edu to link to academic departments and the graduate school). Please complete this process soon as several departments? application deadlines are fast approaching. In order to apply for the assistantship, please supply Kellie Roberts with the following information no later than February 1, 2009. Please email Kellie at robertsk at ufl.edu with the following information: your name, address, email, phone number, name of school you completed your Bachelors Degree at and Major. Please also include contact information for three references as well as a one page coaching philosophy statement. This statement should include information about your coaching style and goals for a small yet competitive program like ours that is tailored to all levels of policy debate. If you are interested in more information about graduate assistantships with the University of Florida Debate Team, feel free to contact Marissa Silber, Policy Debate Coach, at silber at ufl.edu _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090127/a0a552b5/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Tue Jan 27 14:08:23 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:08:23 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by California Message-ID: Name:District 1 Tourney Starts:2/27/2009 Ends:3/1/2009 Hosted by: California Contact: Address: Phone: 510-684-8120 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: NDT qualifier with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters State Championship with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters 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 todonnel at umw.edu Tue Jan 27 17:55:36 2009 From: todonnel at umw.edu (Timothy O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] NDT Tournament Director's Letter Message-ID: <497F58AD020000BD00082AB3@umwgw.umw.edu> The letter from the NDT Tournament Director with important NDT announcements and information is attached. Timothy M. O'Donnell Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Speech University of Mary Washington 1201 William St., #25 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 todonnel at umw.edu (540) 654-1252 (office) (540) 654-1569 (fax) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter 2009.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 51200 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090127/6f4e250c/attachment.obj From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Wed Jan 28 11:03:08 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:03:08 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by Appalachian State Message-ID: <560FF2F126764197825150722979A788@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:American Debate Association (ADA Nationals) Starts:3/13/2009 Ends:3/15/2009 Hosted by: Appalachian State Contact: Kris Willis Address: ASU Box 32039 Phone: 828-262-8371 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles 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 Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Wed Jan 28 17:55:22 2009 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:55:22 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] DEBATE ASSISTANTSHIPS IN LAS VEGAS!!! Message-ID: IT'S NOT TOO LATE? The Department of Communication Studies at UNLV has a "rolling" deadline for admission to our M.A. program and assistantship positions. Please consider graduate school and coaching at UNLV. There are several key selling points associated with our program and school: 1) You can get in on the ground floor of a great new program. Our squad has the right attitude, work ethic, and will to win. Our students are all good people, appreciative, and wonderful to work with. Also, we have a large new scholarship endowment and are attracting some of the best recruits in America to UNLV. The explicit goal of our squad is to become a national powerhouse. We are a growing program, and as a coach in this new program, you have the ability to shape the future of our team. 2) You can get a free M.A. in our top-notch Communication Studies program. You can concentrate in Rhetoric or Interpersonal Communication. My expertise is in rhetoric, so I'll go into detail about that portion of the department (although I can provide information on other aspects of the department at your request). We have six key faculty in rhetoric alone. These faculty members include the current editor of the Quarterly Journal of Speech, a past editor of the Quarterly Journal of Speech, the past president of NCA, the president of the Rhetoric Society of America, as well as several bright up-and-coming faculty members who are set to be rock stars in the discipline. 3) You'd get to go to school in Vegas, baby.... 4) Your degree is essentially free AND you'd earn a $10,000 per year stipend.. The money-making opportunities don't end there. You would also have the opportunity to: a) Earn an extra $3000 in the summer semester teaching a brief summer class b) Earn a good deal of extra money working at our summer HS institute (starting this summer--2009) c) When traveling with us you get the full meal stipend (often up to $50 per day), whatever you don't spend you get to keep. d) When traveling with us you get to hire out for any rounds not needed to cover our commitment. 5) UNLV offers our GAs deeply discounted health insurance 6) You would have the opportunity to gain teaching experience as well as coaching experience. 7) We're a privately funded program, so there is no need to ever worry about budget cuts or state financial troubles taking our budget. 8) We debate at every major national tournament in America, we travel in style, we fly most places, we (almost) always stay in the tournament hotel, etc. 9) Our team has an unprecedented level of institutional support. The former dean of our college was a high school debater. The Chair of the Department of Communication Studies was a coach at Kansas, Iowa State, and Emporia State University. The entire Department of Communication Studies (in which our program is "housed") is deeply supportive of our program. 10) Great things are on the immediate horizon for debate in Las Vegas. Aside from the re-birth of the UNLV debate program, local high school debate is undergoing an unprecedented expansion. The 2007-8 NFL Nationals was held here in Las Vegas with the opening ceremonies held right here on the UNLV campus. We will host NDCA nationals in April 2009 (and potentially again in the future). There already are 2 TOC bid tournaments held in the Las Vegas Valley. We're starting a summer high school debate institute this summer, and in addition, Las Vegas is an integral part of the Urban Debate League's national expansion plan. For further information, please feel free to contact me via email or phone, Jake Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090128/d75cf4f2/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Wed Jan 28 18:45:49 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:45:49 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] Ice Storms and Baylor Thanks Message-ID: <4980A7DD0200009300023B86@mymail.kckcc.edu> So we left Baylor Monday afternoon, made it as far as OKC. Ice and snow like crazy. Monday night they couldnt even clean the roads at all. So we stayed the night. Tuesday no one in OKC touched the roads all day--except the 2 snow plows that turned over. The lack of people and traffic was surreal. Everything was closed--schools, churches, businesses, even gas stations and restaurants. So we stayed the night--again! Around 3am they started clearing things. We left OKC (and JCCC left Norman) about 10am this morning. Back to KC finally tonight. What a trip--like another Texas swing but only one tournament in 6 days! Be careful out there folks. It aint worth the risk to get home early. Tomorrow (less than 24 hours at home) we leave for Augustana--hopefully the roads will be good to us. But thanks to the Baylor Bears. A free tournament (we needed it with the 2 extra nights of hotel rooms), great food and hospitality, and the Baylor people were always open to requests and needs. Congrats to Louisiana Lafayette and Texas. Also to Trinity--2 great tournament showings thousands of miles apart in the same weekend. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Wed Jan 28 22:20:24 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:20:24 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Tournament invitation hosted by West Georgia Message-ID: <94F476030CB34B97972D5E65811F2EA4@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:CEDA SE/SEC & D6 NDT Qualifier Starts:2/27/2009 Ends:3/1/2009 Hosted by: West Georgia Contact: Michael Hester Address: 65 King Drive, Carrollton, GA 30116 Phone: 770-362-9435 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: 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 Fri Jan 30 12:40:30 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:40:30 -0800 Subject: [CEDA-L] Review results for bid sheets. Message-ID: <71C61D1442714F03A889CDDC8FACC571@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> If you are considering applying for a first-round, please take a moment before Northwestern to review your results and let me know about any errors. The more I can fix before Northwestern the less likely inaccurate info will creep into your bid sheets. Thanks! Jon From delliott at kckcc.edu Fri Jan 30 19:15:18 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:15:18 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] New Aff to this topic? But run on previous topic? Message-ID: <498351C60200009300023D67@mymail.kckcc.edu> Happened to us recently as well. Before the round my team went in and asked. Came out and said "they are running new". I asked my team what subsidies had this school run on the topic. We isolated 4. I went in and asked team and coach does the 1AC in this round talk about any subsidies you have talked about before. The answer was "no specific subsidies are mentioned in the 1AC and we are just now putting it together". They did look hurried and I took that last part to mean, we'd rather finish this then answer questions. So I retreated to the hallway assuming it would be brand new and likely weird. I told my team that if they ran an aff that wasnt really new to make an ethics argument in the round. 1AC was an exact argument not only run on both sides of the topic by this school in multiple years but was run on the AFF this year at another tournament against us. My team was pissed--made their ethics argument and ended up winning on some other stuff. I thought it was shady to say the least. Same tournament another team discloses their advantage. Says its just poverty, no death cited in the 1AC, poverty in general and nothing else. No other case impacts--we asked. We continued to probe knowing at other tournaments they had really run an advantage that mentioned poverty but was all about ethics and morality. They held firm on poverty only despite the probing. Most of the 1AC was the ethics and the 2AC, 1AR and 2AR were all about ethics and poverty was said 3 times. I flowed the whole debate. Poverty was not the only advantage/impact to the 1AC. We were smart enough to run a CP that solved all the aff--even their ethics silliness. But again, seemed shady at the least and was frustrating. I share Justin's angst here. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President >>> Justin Green 01/30/09 6:10 PM >>> Kansas State has encountered 2 different schools who have run the same (nearly all=90%) aff as they did in years previous. team 1: One school was very upfront "we are going to run the same aff that "x" team did 2 years ago". team 2: Another said "it's new" and said a very similar aff that 1 of the members had run before. In neither of the instances did the exact text of the resolution have much to do with the argument advanced. In other words, the resolution excluded "insert similar subject here" in very similar manners. The resolution was talked about very little. Is there a need to disclose affs that are very similar to previous topics? curious if my very minor degree of angst with team 2 is shared by others, Justin Green _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From dave at miami.edu Fri Jan 30 20:57:30 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:57:30 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Hurricane Debates Rounds 3 and 4 Message-ID: Breakfast at 9ish... lunch on us after round 4, with entertainment! Round 3 Open, 10 am aff neg room judge Bard BE UF KU COM 4027 Richter, N. FSU PR UF ST COM 4053 Smith, R. Miami BG Navy AF COM 4051 Silber, M Navy PS UF MR COM 4028 Voth, B Vancy AW Wake BM COM 3055 Bowers, J Round 4 Open, 12:30 pm aff neg room judge UF KU Miami BG COM 4051 Verney-O'Gorman UF MR FSU PR COM 4053 Cusick, C UF ST Navy PS COM 4028 Roubidoux, D Navy AF Vandy AW COM 3055 Kish, G Wake BM Bard BE COM 4027 Larey, J Round 3 Novice, 10 am aff neg room judge USF BT Wisc. IL COM 2055 Prieur, J Vandy CG USF OS COM 3032 Larey, J Miami AM UF EL COM 3033 Rosen, A SMU MR Miami LW COM 3053 Cusick, C Wisc. BV Vandy OW COM 4026 Izquierdo, J USF CF Miami MR COM 4029 Kish, G Round 4 Novice, 12:30 pm aff neg room judge UF EL Vandy CG COM 3032 Prieur, J Miami LW USF CF COM 4029 Mader, S Miami MR Wisc. BV COM 4026 Rosen, A USF OS SMU MR COM 3053 Izquierdo, J Vandy OW USF BT COM 2055 Richter, N Wisc IL Miami AM COM 3033 Silber, M David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090130/33f410eb/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Sat Jan 31 15:30:23 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:30:23 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] Steve Hunt of Lewis and Clark Message-ID: <49846E8F0200009300023DB4@mymail.kckcc.edu> Please contact me or someone with his info. thanks, chief From dave at miami.edu Sat Jan 31 20:53:35 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:53:35 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Hurricane Debates Eliminiation Round participants and Judges Message-ID: Breakfast 8:30am Quarterfinals begin at 9:00 am Awards to follow Open Quarterfinals Vandy AW vs. Florida ST Advancing into semifinals without debating: Florida MR Navy PS Wake BM Novice Quarterfinals USF BT vs. SMU MR Advancing into semifinals without debating: Vandy CG Vandy OW Wisconsin-Oshkosh BV Judges for Quarterfinals Cusick Larey Mader McCaffrey Silber Voth David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090131/b9e241e0/attachment.htm