[eDebate] eligibility rule change

[Rob Eback]

2005 Fall: 3 tournaments -- 2006 Spring: 2 tournaments.
2004 Fall: 2 tournaments -- 2005 Spring: 1 tournament.
2003 Fall: 2 tournaments -- 2004 Spring: 1 tournament.
2002 Fall: 2 tournaments -- 2003 Spring: 1 tournament.
2001 Fall: 3 tournaments -- Spring 2002: 3 tournaments.

So under the old rules I should have 4 semesters left and under the new
rules I'm out.

Rob Eback



On 4/9/06, Morris, Eric R <EricMorris at missouristate.edu> wrote:

>

>  During how many years (by new rules) and semesters (by old rules) did you

> debate?

>

>  Dr. Eric Morris

> Asst Prof of Communication

> Director of Forensics

> Craig Hall 363A

> Missouri State University

> Springfield, MO 65897

> (O) 417-836-7636

> (H) 417-865-6866

> (C) 417-496-7141

>

> ------------------------------

>  *From:* edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Rob Eback

> *Sent:* Sun 4/9/06 10:49 AM

>

> *To:* edebate at ndtceda.com

> *Subject:* Re: [eDebate] eligibility rule change

>

>

>  My understanding is that under the old system a debater got 8 semesters

> of eligibility and that eligibility could be used by attending an NDT which

> would count as two semesters or could lose a semester of eligibility by

> debating at more than two tournaments in a single semester. Thus, under the

> old system the three years I only debated at three tournaments (2 in the

> fall and CEDA Nats) counts against my 5 years of eligibility. So under the

> old system I would have eligibility left but under the new one I don't.

>

> Rob Eback

>

>

>

> On 4/9/06, Morris, Eric R <EricMorris at missouristate.edu> wrote:

> >

> >  Given that it extends eligibility from 4 years to 5, provide the

> > scenario where someone loses eligibility.

> >

> >  Dr. Eric Morris

> > Asst Prof of Communication

> > Director of Forensics

> > Craig Hall 363A

> > Missouri State University

> > Springfield, MO 65897

> > (O) 417-836-7636

> > (H) 417-865-6866

> > (C) 417-496-7141

> >

> > ------------------------------

> >  *From:* edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Rob Eback

> > *Sent:* Sun 4/9/06 10:24 AM

> > *To:* edebate at ndtceda.com

> > *Subject: *Re: [eDebate] eligibility rule change

> >

> >

> >  I guess my question is really why make it retroactive? Why take

> > eligibility away from people who were saving it? Sure we don't want to

> > create life-long debaters, but under my understanding of the rules is that

> > there were checks in the system for preventing something like with the four

> > NDTs and four CEDAs rules. Also, it seems odd to me that it would be

> > retroactive given the precedent set by the merger that "grandfathered" in

> > eligibility.

> >

> > Rob Eback

> >

> >

> >

> > On 4/9/06, Morris, Eric R <EricMorris at missouristate.edu > wrote:

> > >

> > >  First, at the time that a rule like that comes into dispute, the time

> > > is question is always retroactive.

> > > Second, they are retroactive. They affect people currently debating as

> > > well as future debaters.

> > >

> > >  Dr. Eric Morris

> > > Asst Prof of Communication

> > > Director of Forensics

> > > Craig Hall 363A

> > > Missouri State University

> > > Springfield, MO 65897

> > > (O) 417-836-7636

> > > (H) 417-865-6866

> > > (C) 417-496-7141

> > >

> > > ------------------------------

> > > *From:* edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Rob Eback

> > > *Sent: *Sun 4/9/06 3:38 AM

> > > *To:* edebate at ndtceda.com

> > > *Subject:* [eDebate] eligibility rule change

> > >

> > >

> > >  Semi-random question: Why are all these eligibility rules changes

> > > being made written to sound like they're retroactive?

> > >

> > > Rob Eback

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060409/e230a048/attachment.htm