[eDebate] Judging problems at the heart?

[Morris, Eric R]

I think the trick here is the general community consensus that people
with eligibility do not judge in the open division without implicitly
foreclosing their eligibility. Thus, I'd be nervous about having my
debaters (or other people's debaters) judging unless there was some way
the community expressed an exception to that principle. Since I have no
idea what THAT expression would look like, my gut instinct is that
people planning to debate at other tournaments probably shouldn't judge
at the open heart.

 

Or, in the words of most Cubs and, until recently, Red Sox fans:

            Wait till next year

 

...as a Royals fan, though, I know it will be more than a year....

 

This does raise several other questions, though...

1.	Can you IMAGINE Harris in a post round discussion where HE, not
just his team, had been the ones LOSING the argument? 
2.	Wouldn't getting a win over Harris be WAY more tempting than
being the judge?

 

Dr. Eric Morris

Asst Prof of Communication

Director of Forensics

Craig Hall 366A

Missouri State University

Springfield, MO 65897

(O) 417-836-7636

(H) 417-865-6866

(C) 417-496-7141

________________________________

From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
[mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Mike Kearney
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 9:02 PM
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: [eDebate] Judging problems at the heart?

 

I figure that with the "legends" debating at the heart, the judging pool
could potentially take a hit. Is there a reason someone like Ozzy or
myself could not judge at the heart? I don't think i want to judge but
the idea of voting against Scott Harris is just TOO tempting to pass up.
:) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20061206/ad6ad9f9/attachment.html