[eDebate] Hanson/Mahoney Proposal

[NEIL BERCH]

Correction:  Stefan is right on NDT.  I was wrong on ADA.  ADA has a stricter rule.  "The ADA will adopt the policy topic approved by the Executive Committee."  CEDA adopting a non-policy resolution would definitely lead to a split, with at least two and possibly three resolutions.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: NEIL BERCH<mailto:berchnorto at msn.com> 
  To: SBauschard at planetdebate.com<mailto:SBauschard at planetdebate.com> ; edebate at ndtceda.com<mailto:edebate at ndtceda.com> 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [eDebate] Hanson/Mahoney Proposal


  Stefan is correct (and ADA instituted a similar rule a few years ago, indicating that if CEDA debated a non-policy resolution, ADA would use the NDT resolution).  This would not preclude an elegant but broad policy topic.  Don't know about anyone else.  I like policy debate (not surprising for a political scientist).  There's a lot of room under the umbrella of policy debate.

  --Neil Berch
  West Virginia University
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Stefan Bauschard<mailto:SBauschard at planetdebate.com> 
    To: edebate at ndtceda.com<mailto:edebate at ndtceda.com> 
    Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:44 PM
    Subject: [eDebate] Hanson/Mahoney Proposal


    I believe that when the NDT decided to debate the CEDA topic they passed a rule that said that they'd debate the CEDA topic IF CEDA chose a policy topic.  Otherwise, they would write their own policy topic.

    Is my recollection correct?  Is this rule still in existence?

    If I am right, allowing non-policy topics on the ballot through a more free-wheeled resolution writing process could allow the selection of a non-policy topic by CEDA (at least based on Jim's description of his proposal).

    If this happened, one of two things would then have to happen:

    a) The NDT would have to decide to not enforce this seemingly significant rule or
    b) The NDT would have to write another policy topic, creating a split (and a mess, since it would be done on the fly).

    My point is not to defend the policy-only topic rule or engage the discussion on a split/merger.  My point is that this matter needs to be given some consideration and perhaps some substantial consultation should occor between the respective bodies.


    _______________________________________________
    eDebate mailing list
    eDebate at www.ndtceda.com<mailto:eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>
    http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate<http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate>

  _______________________________________________
  eDebate mailing list
  eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
  http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070718/ff7ec0ef/attachment.htm