[eDebate] [CEDA-L] Encouraging your "yes" vote on CEDA business

[NEIL BERCH]

I meant a DEEPER view is important as well.



>From: "NEIL BERCH" <berchnorto at msn.com>

>To: debate at ou.edu, delliott at kckcc.edu, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com, 

>edebate at ndtceda.com

>Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] Encouraging your "yes" vote on CEDA business

>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:22:20 -0500

>

>I think Jackie (and Andy before him) raise an important issue.  I only 

>focused on novice winners because that gave the broadest picture given the 

>time I had.  A broader view is important as well.  I've got a busy few days 

>ahead of me (both professionally and personally), but I'm going to try to 

>look at all the teams that debated in novice in the largest ADA tournament 

>so far (King's), the largest CEDA Northeast tournament (West Point), and 

>the largest Midamerica novice division (UNI, with just 11 teams).  I'll try 

>to get this done in the next couple of days, and I'll post my results to 

>debate and CEDA-L.  Note, though, that this is probably about 5 times as 

>much work as the previous post, and first I have to change our John Carroll 

>hotel reservations (remember, Brent, anyone can run a tournament when there 

>are no glitches; it's how you respond to crises that is key, and clearly 

>you're on top of this!).--Neil

>

>--Neil Berch

>West Virginia University

>

>

>>From: "Massey, Jackie B." <debate at ou.edu>

>>To: Darren Elliott <delliott at kckcc.edu>, 

>>"CEDA-L at ndtceda.com"<CEDA-L at ndtceda.com>, "edebate at ndtceda.com" 

>><edebate at ndtceda.com>

>>Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] Encouraging your "yes" vote on CEDA business

>>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:45:57 -0600

>>

>> >From my mailbox:

>>

>>Amendment #9 Novice Definition

>>This amendment has created the most discussion on the listserve.  While I 

>>wrote the original amendment, I would not be against changing my mind in 

>>the face of good reasoning.  While some arguments against have been put 

>>forward, both in the Business Meeting (where it received near unanimous 

>>support) and on this list serve, none of those arguments have swayed me.  

>>Both sides of this issue can prove that we might lose novices with or 

>>without the amendment.

>>

>>----- Why didn’t you just stop here?  Let people decide now?

>>

>>Chief Says:

>>  However the arguments I put forward are the only ones that seem to 

>>answer all of the offense generated, solving that offense, and at the same 

>>time provided unanswered disadvantages to staying the course.

>>

>>---- Is this how you talk to your administrators? Your trying to make 

>>facts out of subjective interpretations.  Why cant you accept that it cuts 

>>both ways like above, and not continue with somewhat of a not so “true” 

>>method.

>>

>>Chief says:

>>  Some people have provided good anecdotal evidence how debaters they have 

>>with HS LD experience can achieve success even in JV with little to no 

>>coaching (Hanson) and have provided ample hard evidence (Berch) that those 

>>winning Novice divisions have HS LD experience a lot of the time (and in 

>>some cases have ridiculous amounts of

>>  experience) and are walking through Novice.  Yet they arent being moved 

>>up.

>>

>>--- Yes, berch’s evidence was overwhelming.  However, it really depends on 

>>the debater.  Some LD debaters learn to flow, others don’t.  Neal’s post 

>>may have changed my mind on the issue.  What about the “anecdotal” 

>>evidence I offer that LD debaters are much more willing to join debate if 

>>they can go novice.  One thing about neals post is that it only recognized 

>>the winners, not to mention the many former LD debaters who don’t even win 

>>in novice.

>>

>>Chief Says:

>>The problem is in the SQ there is no check and no way to prevent the 

>>abuse.  When ethics and competition collide there is often a slide on the 

>>ethical (Harris), and this remains unanswered.  Pressure has not and is 

>>not working.  The only arguments against have been that people forced into 

>>JV will quit.  No one has answered that we allow an exemption waiver 

>>process in CEDA that if a debater is really not ready for JV they can go 

>>in Novice with an exemption.

>>

>>------- Actually, someone did answer the waiver argument, maybe you just 

>>forget those posts that don’t agree with you.  Just ignore It maybe it 

>>will go away?

>>

>>Chief says:

>>   This solves the offense and remains unanswered.  And I will go one 

>>further--the CEDA EC has already granted such waivers this year, proving 

>>the system works.

>>

>>--- This is so subjective – the EC determine if students should be in 

>>novice or not?  There is a time lag, etc.  I think this is a bad 

>>alternative.

>>

>>Chief says:

>>   These were cases where the debater really was a novice even though not 

>>so definitionally.  What CEDA cant do however is the reverse.  We cant 

>>tell novices they have to move up even if they have 50, 100, or 150 rounds 

>>of HS LD experience.  That means the debaters they trounce have no 

>>protection and THEY are the ones who walk away.

>>

>>

>>--- This is your best way of dealing with the issue that the current rule 

>>is a bridge, and does also allow for a situation where LDers move to 

>>policy.  I agree, some Novices get trounced and quit, but “THEY” are not 

>>the only ones effected by this rule.

>>

>>Chiefs Says:

>>   I also believe that any coach can make decent arguments why a debater 

>>should go JV at least at first if they have HS experience, thereby 

>>preventing the debater from quitting outright.  And, if that debater does 

>>so poorly, they do deserve to move down, the coach can assure them there 

>>is a waiver process that allows that.

>>

>>---- Do you explain this to the new students as going JV solves all the 

>>offense of you debating HS policy debaters and the waiver process solves 

>>all the disads to the intimidating experience you will engage?

>>

>>Chief says:

>>Unfortnately very few coaches will be successful in convincing a true 

>>novice (no experience) that they should stay even in a world where they 

>>are getting hammered by novices with experience.  Myself and others have 

>>also spoken to the nature of the policy/critical divide that is blurred 

>>these days and one can no longer assert that LD is so different from 

>>college debate that it shouldnt count.

>>

>>--- I think that your assumption that LD is “critical” is laughable.  I 

>>have to say no more.

>>

>>Chief says:

>>Finally, I think anyone with a concept of a flow, speech order, time 

>>limits, a judge, etc. (especially with over 50 rounds of such experience) 

>>is so far ahead of any true novice, that they really should not be 

>>considered novice without some pretty serious limitation on their part 

>>(which can be accounted for in a waiver process).  In order to preserve 

>>the intent of the novice division, in order to protect the novices that 

>>currently do not have protection, and in order to help grow and preserve 

>>the numbers in novice, I encourage you to vote yes on this amendment.

>>

>>---- You are saying that we should take first year LD debaters and first 

>>year policy debaters, and put them in the same division.  I am saying the 

>>HS Policy debater has a huge advantage over the HS LD er. Then does the 

>>LDer quit for getting trounced?

>>

>>Chief says:

>>Let me add one other thing about the Novice Amendment.  My program could 

>>gain a lot more from the SQ than the world of the amendment.  In KS, MO, 

>>OK there is a ton of LD debate.  Tonight I looked up how many graduating 

>>Seniors this year in the 3 state area did just LD (and high amounts).  In 

>>case you didnt know there is a ton of debate in KS, MO, and OK and a ton 

>>of that is LD.  I would have a hard time deciding which of the 10 to offer 

>>full ride scholarships to and recruit and stack the Novice division.

>>

>>---- Stack the novice division?  I am skeptical on why you don’t have more 

>>novice teams, but I guess this clears it up.  And to say you do it for 

>>ethics is grand of you.

>>

>>We probably agree on the problem.  Neal’s evidence was overwhelming.  

>>However, is it just LD?

>>

>>Many of the students have IE experience, Student Congress, Public Forum. 

>>Since they did those activities, should that count also?  That was just as 

>>common as LD.

>>

>>How about a move up rule in novice instead?  You win 2 novice tournaments 

>>or final 2, you move up.  This sounds much better.

>>

>>I admit that I benefit from the current rule.  I love teaching LD debaters 

>>policy debate.  However, very seldom do any of my debaters stay in novice 

>>more than two or three tournaments.  As far as benefits for points and 

>>rankings, I am not sure that novice brackets have counted for many of the 

>>CEDA points in our region ever. The average size is about semis.

>>

>>What will novice look like in a region that is comprised of over ½ their 

>>debaters in novice have LD experience?  Will we even have a novice 

>>division?

>>

>>Take UCO, what if all the teams with LD experience were eliminated.  We 

>>would have probably 2-3 teams in novice. IE – no novice, those novice have 

>>to go JV, and then what happens?  Oh yeah, your scenario happens still in 

>>a worse way.  DA to your “plan”.

>>

>>There is a huge divide in the skill level of LD debaters.  At UCO there 

>>was one novice that was way ahead of everyone else. Even the other 

>>debaters who had LD experience were no match.   She made my debaters 

>>better, trying to figure out how to beat her.  She also had a partner who 

>>was totally unexperienced.  Bottom line, she was good. Rules don’t change 

>>that.

>>

>>That’s it.  I will probably vote for the rule that is an attempt to help 

>>novice debate become pure, while I think its going to help it disappear. 

>>That is why I challenge those who were at NCA and voted on the rule to 

>>show up next year with two novice teams and travel them all year.  Its not 

>>all about “solving all the offense” and “no disadvantages to the plan”, 

>>its more than that.  It's about coaches taking the time and energy to 

>>teach students with no "policy" debate experience how to debate.

>>

>>Peace

>>

>>Massey

>>

>>

>>Chief:

>>  I guarantee you there were a lot more than 10 to choose from.  Multiply 

>>that by 10 and add some.  I havent done this because I honestly believe 

>>the community and the intent of novice sides with the amendment, and until 

>>now it has just slipped through the cracks.  Maybe I am wrong and I have 

>>just always seen Novice as something different.  The vote will determine 

>>that I guess.  But this amendment is in no way self-serving.  I honestly 

>>believe Novice should be something other than

>>  what it is at some tournaments right now.  If the vote proves me wrong, 

>>I guess I can push harder for Rookie Divisions then start doling out the 

>>"novice" scholarships to area HS LD debaters. ; )

>>_______________________________________________

>>CEDA-L mailing list

>>CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com

>>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l

>

>




>_______________________________________________

>CEDA-L mailing list

>CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com

>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l