[eDebate] the sidelines of the topic writing process....

[NEIL BERCH]

One small correction:  the NDT and ADA each get one of the nine seats on the 
Topic Committee, and each has total control over the election of their 
respective seat.--Neil
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University



>From: Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>

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

>CC: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>

>Subject: Re: [eDebate] the sidelines of the topic writing process....

>Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:15:49 -0400

>

>Hey Jackie,

>

>We dont agree on this stuff....I think this is our only big argument...none

>of this is intended as personal attacks.

>

>Its not the NDT topic meeting....Gordon is a CEDA officer...CEDA does the

>election of topic members.....Everyone elected is elected by CEDA.  Yes, I

>know, I am a secret agent of the NDT illuminati...its still true, they were

>Democratically elected by the CEDA membership.  Is your argument that the

>leadership of CEDA should secede without a mandate?

>

>In addition, it seems the voting process has proven that the majority of

>people who vote on topics, topic committee membership, etc etc etc disagree

>with your point of view on topics. Is your argument that you should get to

>circumvent the democratic process and write the topic yourself?  Should you

>be "more than an observer" if you arent elected to the topic committee?  If

>so, why is that exactly?

>

>I obviously disagree with the rest of what you write on this subject...But 

>I

>think anyone could search the archives for the last five years and see why

>(since you have initiated exactly the same discussion as all those other

>years again).

>

>Anyway, if you want a vote on secession....ok, put it to a vote...I believe

>you can suggest that at a business meeting.

>

>If you want to run for the topic committee (I believe you have if I 

>remember

>correctly) run.....Should observers be able to act as if they are members?

>If so, why is that exactly?

>

>Hope your off-season is going well, and congrats on the NDT and CEDA

>nats(genuine),

>

>Josh

>On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Massey, Jackie B. <debate at ou.edu> wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > For more transparency, we turn to…….

> >

> > You got it… More bureaucracy!

> >

> > I attended the topic committee two years ago and have never been so

> > disrespected by this community.  I was immediately tagged an 

>antagonists,

> > and definitely ignored through most of the process.

> >

> > For those of you who do not attend, don't think that not being on the

> > sidelines really makes a difference.  I wrote emails to edebate and I 

>showed

> > up in person, the results was another topic that was ideologically

> > irresponsible and not respectful of the ideological differences in the

> > debate community.   Actually, I think the correct assessment was that I 

>was

> > told to write a topic paper with wordings in it if I cared so much.

> >

> > "but our task is to manage a process that can

> > help govern at least the vast majority of the thousands of debates that

> > take

> > place each year."  (gordon stables, 08)

> >

> >

> > The result is to use bureaucracy to help manage the topic and have 

>debates

> > in the method and fashion about the content and substance those people 

>who

> > are on the committee prefer.

> >

> > For us simple people who want a simple topic, we don't have a voice on 

>the

> > committee, tried, but the free and fair election process was successful 

>in

> > denying that voice.  I still don't understand why CEDA hosts the NDT 

>Topic

> > Committee meeting?

> >

> > I don't see that things have changed, but rather I am starting to 

>believe

> > that things have gotten worse.

> >

> > Look at the NDT booklet that lists the resolutions.  It's still debate,

> > but if you look at the lengths of the wordings, you would think the

> > information revolution was leading us the other way.  This means 

>something.

> >

> > One of the core issues I think that needs to be discussed to bridge such

> > ideological agreements is switch side debate.  So if your getting all 

>huffy

> > puffy about my degrading remarks on the topic writing process, I 

>challenge

> > you to get involved on the discussion about what is "switch side debate" 

>and

> > what obligations the topic writing process has to this ideology.

> >

> > I think many of the core disagreements may arise from such diverse

> > understandings on the importance and meanings of switch side debate.

> >

> > If you want to go on a rampage about this post now, you should save your

> > energy for the switch-side debate discussion.

> >

> > Peace

> >

> > Massey

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > eDebate mailing list

> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

> >




>_______________________________________________

>eDebate mailing list

>eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate