From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Thu Oct 1 00:05:06 2009 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:05:06 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] UNLV RR pairings rd 5 & 6 and results Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/b5638761/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rounds 5 & 6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 27635 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/b5638761/attachment.pdf From crazybeliever at yahoo.com Thu Oct 1 00:10:10 2009 From: crazybeliever at yahoo.com (Isaac Peck) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] SWC looking for judging at UNLV Message-ID: <251174.2179.qm@web31106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Would like 4 rounds. Email me. crazybeliever at yahoo.com Isaac Peck -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/368520d6/attachment.htm From nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com Thu Oct 1 01:11:47 2009 From: nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com (nicholas brady) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 02:11:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Debatehall.com... The future? Message-ID: I am very sure I am not the first person to talk about this, but I just found this website called http://www.debatehall.com/ and was blown away. It is clear that most of the people on this website are either lincoln-douglass debaters or policy debaters (i heard definitely heard a probability versus magnitude argument on here that sounds very close to a disadvantage debate), so what do people think of this? I know we have discussed the rising cost of debate tournaments versus the dwindling budgets we are getting from schools (I go to a school where we have no budget whatsoever), so could this be the answer? Could we form tournaments on the internet using this model? What does the community think? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091001/b14973d4/attachment.htm From nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com Thu Oct 1 02:55:07 2009 From: nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com (nicholas brady) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 03:55:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Debatehall.com... The future? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nicholas Brady Johns Hopkins class of 2011 Africana Studies and Philosophy Double-Major BSU Vice President Co-Founder of Sowing Roots Mentoring Program "I put on for my City" -Jeezy "My emancipation does not fit your equation" -Lauryn Hill "Ain't no time to take a break, you gotta break the mold" -Blu "The whole process which has brought about these race differentiations has been a growth, and the great characteristic of this growth has been the differentiation of spiritual and mental differences between great races of mankind and the integration of physical differences.? -Dubois ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: nicholas brady Date: Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:11 AM Subject: Debatehall.com... The future? To: edebate at ndtceda.com I am very sure I am not the first person to talk about this, but I just found this website called http://www.debatehall.com/ and was blown away. It is clear that most of the people on this website are either lincoln-douglass debaters or policy debaters (i heard definitely heard a probability versus magnitude argument on here that sounds very close to a disadvantage debate), so what do people think of this? I know we have discussed the rising cost of debate tournaments versus the dwindling budgets we are getting from schools (I go to a school where we have no budget whatsoever), so could this be the answer? Could we form tournaments on the internet using this model? What does the community think? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091001/7b56c70f/attachment.htm From crazybeliever at yahoo.com Thu Oct 1 10:57:02 2009 From: crazybeliever at yahoo.com (Isaac Peck) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 08:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Southwestern looking for judging at UNLV Message-ID: <270161.8639.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Would like 4 rounds. Email me. crazybeliever at yahoo.com Isaac Peck -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091001/ad7f2bad/attachment.htm From nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com Thu Oct 1 11:21:59 2009 From: nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com (nicholas brady) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 12:21:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Debatehall.com... The future? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am very sure I am not the first person to talk about this, but I just found this website called http://www.debatehall.com/ and was blown away. It is clear that most of the people on this website are either lincoln-douglass debaters or policy debaters (i heard definitely heard a probability versus magnitude argument on here that sounds very close to a disadvantage debate), so what do people think of this? I know we have discussed the rising cost of debate tournaments versus the dwindling budgets we are getting from schools (I go to a school where we have no budget whatsoever), so could this be the answer? Could we form tournaments on the internet using this model? What does the community think? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091001/6e487381/attachment.htm From dark_hallway15 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 1 12:52:42 2009 From: dark_hallway15 at yahoo.com (Isaac Peck) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Southwestern looking for judging at UNLV Message-ID: <284057.77247.qm@web37301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Would like 4 rounds. Email me. crazybeliever at yahoo.com Isaac Peck P.S.? Super sorry if this is like the 4th time i've posted this, but it's not showing up so i don't know if it's working. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091001/e8fcd036/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Thu Oct 1 13:34:40 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 11:34:40 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Central Oklahoma (Un Message-ID: <72DDB64438D74212B110A602693A80AB@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Joe C. Jackson Starts:11/6/2009 Ends:11/8/2009 Hosted by: Central Oklahoma (Un Contact: Eric Marlow Address: 100 N. University Drive Box 182 Edmond OK, 73034 Phone: 405-974-5564 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles Junior with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Thu Oct 1 13:48:04 2009 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 13:48:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Emporia Debate Tournament -- IMPORTANT Message-ID: <7fd76c680910011148w662ef073mc0815e3af2ddacb5@mail.gmail.com> All hotel blocks are closed and I have 2 teams (KSU and JCCC) in the tournament hotel. MAKE THESE RESERVATIONS IMMEDIATELY. There is a large group of power-plant workers in town that weekend that are VERY quickly taking-up all of the remaining hotel rooms in Emporia. Not hotel rooms in the tournament hotel -- ALL of the hotel rooms in the town. It is very likely that you will not be able to spend the night in Emporia if you do not make reservations soon. I have convinced the Guesthouse Inn to re-open the hotel block until October 5th (Monday). Call this number and ask for the Emporia Debate Block (620) 341-9199. Doubles are $79/night. Our blocks at the other two tournament hotels (the Holiday Inn and Candlewood Suites) were VERY small because of the power-plant workers who are occupying all of the hotels. So again, get these rooms as fast as you can. If the remainder of this block fills-up SOON (like, not monday at 5pm but before that), there's a good chance I can expand the block to get more rooms. We love hosting our tournament and providing hospitality. But there is only so much we can do about this situation if you don't get your rooms until the week of our tournament. Please, please, please, make your reservations soon. I would hate for anyone to have to stay home because there are no hotel rooms available but that may very well be the situation if you wait any longer. Make the 5-minute phone call now. Thanks! Sam -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091001/7f737a69/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 1 14:02:00 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 12:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to UK RR Scouts Message-ID: <125364.49377.qm@web53509.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Awesome job keeping all of us updated on whats happening at the Round Robin. Thanks to Roger, Garrett, and all the people posting this stuff to the Wiki (which looks to be the Kopness Monster as well). PJ From delliott at KCKCC.EDU Thu Oct 1 15:54:43 2009 From: delliott at KCKCC.EDU (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:54:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A note about UNI's Tournament Message-ID: Whenever the semester starts off, we all get caught up in the free time we have. Tournaments, research, family, faculty committees, contract negotiations, etc. Not excuses just reality. So without any further delay: A huge thanks to the Panthers at UNI for an excellent tournament. Katie is a great DOF-a Professional that deserves the respect afforded professionals! I hope those in attendance showed you that, as anyone who was there knows you went above and beyond to accomodate your guests. Ditto goes for Richard Tews. A great new member of the Mid-West and welcome to it. We are glad you are here. You ran an excellent and efficient tab. Again, I hope the guests you went out of your way to value, appreciated it and valued you right back. The UNI debaters/forensicators were always on the job and living the true spirit of Cate in getting rounds started on time. Also very hospitable and helpful. It was nice to see Cate and an excellent idea to name the Novice Award after her. Well Done!! Thanks UNI!! Anyone who wasnt here, well their bad! chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics KCKCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091001/8fb026ad/attachment.htm From lukephill at gmail.com Fri Oct 2 00:23:14 2009 From: lukephill at gmail.com (Luke Hill) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 00:23:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky Round Robin- Unofficial Results Message-ID: 1st Place Emory IW 7 ballots 2nd Place Northwestern FS 5 ballots 3rd Place Harvard JP 5 ballots 4th Place Whitman CS 5 ballots Speakers 1st Stephen Weil- Emory 2nd Matt Fisher- Northwestern 3rd Eli Jacobs- Harvard Good luck to all at the Clay. Luke P. Hill Program Coordinator Northwestern Debate Society 847-467-0345 (o) 678-852-9280 (c) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091002/a61c38d8/attachment.htm From abelkopg at msu.edu Fri Oct 2 02:38:40 2009 From: abelkopg at msu.edu (abelkopg at msu.edu) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:38:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky Round Robin - Results Message-ID: <20091002033840.19442o281aygnwu8@mail.msu.edu> -Teams- WIN - Emory IW (Ovais Inamullah & Stephen Weil) 7-1 PLACE - Northwestern FS (Matt Fisher & Stephanie?Spies) 5-3 [tie broken on adjusted points] SHOW - Harvard JP (Eli Jacobs & Alex Parkinson) 5-3 ?Also with a winning record of 5-3, Whitman CS -Speakers- WIN - Stephen Weil PLACE - Matt Fisher SHOW - Eli Jacobs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091002/a43790f8/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Fri Oct 2 07:33:08 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 08:33:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ECA Panel - Public Debate Message-ID: <9a7f6f740910020533w91b91cfue90ffb822adfa732@mail.gmail.com> Hey all, I am looking for people who are interested in participating in a panel at Eastern in Baltimore (April 22-25). I am interested in doing a panel on public debates or public events surrounding the presidential debates. Let me know if you are interested. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091002/4ec6faea/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Fri Oct 2 10:11:46 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:11:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Missing prefs - 4 hours remaining Message-ID: <4AC5D1E2.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> Number on right is number of judges rated California Andres Gannon & Sarah Weiner 0 Georgetown Paul Milani & Anton Strezhnev 0 Michigan State Univ. Sara Kirsch & Katie Klante 0 Michigan State Univ. Eric Lanning & Carly Wunderlich 0 Michigan State Univ. Nick Kowalski & Katie Stoecker 0 Michigan State Univ. Michael Leap & Josh Miller 0 Michigan State Univ. Allen Lin & Val McIntosh 0 Michigan State Univ. Tom Gliniecki & Sam Shore 0 Missouri State Darrell Hyche & Jarid Kinder 0 Missouri State Aaron Kruse & Wes Rumbaugh 0 Missouri State Joel Reed & Anneli Hoggard 0 Missouri State Bret Higgins & Zach Schmitz 0 Missouri State Andrew Hart & Hayden Wiley 0 Missouri State Jordan Foley & Mike Kearney 0 Missouri State Becca Steiner & Kristen Stout 0 Missouri State Katie Frederick & Jace Gilmore 0 Oklahoma Evan Defilippis & Danny Abbas 0 Oklahoma Nick Watts & R.J. Giglio 0 Oklahoma Weston Watts & Keegan Tomik 0 Southern California Sean Hernandez & Mima Lazarevic 0 Texas Dallas Andrew Baker & Brian Rubaie 0 Wayne State Universi Alan Gocha & Alex Pasquinelli 0 Wayne State Universi Mark Jarrett & Marshall Dodson 0 West Georgia Tyler Boykin & Jim Schultz 0 West Georgia Jadon Marianetti & Adam Grellinger 0 Whitman College Allison Humble & Lewis Silver 0 Whitman College Tom Friedenbach & Alex Zendeh 0 Whitman College Nate Cohn & Daniel Straus 0 Partial Wayne State Universi Brad Meloche & Joe Quist 56 Baylor Ashley Morgan & Sam Hogan 102 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091002/2f33b3fd/attachment.htm From resolt2 at email.uky.edu Fri Oct 2 10:58:54 2009 From: resolt2 at email.uky.edu (SOLT, ROGER E) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:58:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky registration (and thanks to Garrett) Message-ID: Registration for the University of Kentucky tournament will be from 7 to 10 p.m. this evening, Friday, October 2. It will be held in room 517 of the Lexington Downtown Hotel by Hilton (the former Radisson). Pairings for the first four rounds will be available at 7 or soon thereafter. Please contact us by phone if you will not register by 10 p.m. My cell phone is 859-221-1192. The Round Robin scouting effort was coordinated by Garrett Abelkop. If you find this information useful, he is definitely the person to thank. Actually, the Round Robin scouting was very much a collective effort by UK debaters, auxiliaries of the teams attending the tournament, and other observers. We thank everyone who helped, but special thanks go to Eric Morris, Heather Walters, and their cadre of Missouri State debaters. We look forward to seeing you in Lexington. Roger Solt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091002/44bc1579/attachment.htm From resolt2 at email.uky.edu Fri Oct 2 11:04:55 2009 From: resolt2 at email.uky.edu (SOLT, ROGER E) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 12:04:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky Round Robin results Message-ID: The top four teams at the Kentucky Round Robin were: 1. Emory (Inamullah and Weil) 7-1 2. Northwestern (Fisher and Spies) 5-3 3. Harvard (Jacobs and Parkinson) 5-3 4. Whitman (Cohn and Straus) 5-3 The top three speakers were: 1. Stephen Weil, Emory 2. Matt Fisher, Northwestern 3. Eli Jacobs, Harvard Thanks to all participants for a most congenial and cooperative two days. Complete results will hopefully be available by early next week at the latest. Roger Solt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091002/54a0e7bc/attachment.htm From abelkopg at msu.edu Fri Oct 2 13:13:33 2009 From: abelkopg at msu.edu (abelkopg at msu.edu) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:13:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky Round Robin - Results Message-ID: <20091002141333.428368x2xcdbgyq5@mail.msu.edu> ?-Teams- WIN - Emory IW (Ovais Inamullah & Stephen Weil) 7-1 PLACE - Northwestern FS (Matt Fisher & Stephanie?Spies) 5-3 [tie broken on adjusted points] SHOW - Harvard JP (Eli Jacobs & Alex Parkinson) 5-3 ?Also with a winning record of 5-3, Whitman CS -Speakers- WIN - Stephen Weil PLACE - Matt Fisher SHOW - Eli Jacobs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091002/0fc3a1de/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Fri Oct 2 19:05:57 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:05:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky Rounds 1-4 Message-ID: <4AC64F15.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> xls attachment -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091002/564bc32e/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky 1-4.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 40448 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091002/564bc32e/attachment.xls From paulstrait at hotmail.com Fri Oct 2 20:10:09 2009 From: paulstrait at hotmail.com (Paul Strait) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 21:10:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] kentucky pairings -- where online are they? Message-ID: The pairings seem to be out, but they aren't on debateresults or edebate. Why not? L. Paul Strait ****************************** Doctoral Student, Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California ******************************** Cell: 202-270-6397 "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." -- F. Nietzsche, Die fr?hliche Wissenschaft, sec. 191. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091002/6ea93033/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Sat Oct 3 07:46:15 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 08:46:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] UR Spider Tournament Update Message-ID: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD1A46CC@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> We are over 100 teams. Half of those teams will clear. We are scrambling for more rooms. If you are coming and have not signed up you need to asap. If you need the list of overflow hotels, let me know. If you are a judge/coach and are interested in doing a novice teach-in, let us know so we can arrange that schedule. We'll request internet passwords soon so make sure all your people are signed up. There is also a new fee structure. It's easy: $40 a person, no team fees. The engraved pens (and engraved boxes for top 3) for the top speakers are in as well as the other trophies. Lunch plans are made--the award-winning D-Hall should have all-you-can-eat bacon and popsicles among other choices. We're excited to host, but there are at least TWO THINGS YOU NEED TO DO: 1. Update the wiki with information from your teams--including JV and novice. So what if your team is a new combination of people, paste their aff--it makes for better debates. 2. Update judge philosophies, preclusions (both of teams and times of day) and remember that all judges are obligated Monday morning for out-rounds. Thanks--more soon--we'll shift the updates to the emails of the folks attending fairly soon. Have a good weekend. Sincerely, Kevin From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sat Oct 3 08:13:25 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:13:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Changes for rounds 2-4 Message-ID: <4AC707A5.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> Wichita CM has dropped from the tournament due to illness. Even though there is already a BYE in the schedule it does not work to repair the affected rounds. As a result Round 2 Trinity BU wins by forfeit - Johnson excused from judging Round 3 Trinity HM wins by forfeit - Morris excused from judging Round 4 George Mason OH wins by forfeit - Gerber excused from judging Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091003/a5dce32a/attachment.htm From repkowil at msu.edu Sat Oct 3 14:27:54 2009 From: repkowil at msu.edu (repkowil at msu.edu) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:27:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Michigan Lost Message-ID: <20091003152754.34824j17b2nspj96@mail.msu.edu> 26-20. They were previously undefeated -- but no longer are. Also, the Patriots missed the playoffs last year. -- Will P.S. Objections should be sent to mikeeber at msu.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091003/fb768e10/attachment.htm From aboutthesame at gmail.com Sat Oct 3 14:45:47 2009 From: aboutthesame at gmail.com (Norm Vance) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 12:45:47 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Any results from UK yet? Message-ID: <8386159b0910031245y31fea44j7de229e003379485@mail.gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091003/4ad80b7f/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sat Oct 3 15:09:51 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:09:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Round 5 - announcements References: <4AC707A502000033000040F9@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> <4AC7679F0200003300004649@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> <4AC7693F0200003300004657@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> Message-ID: <4AC7693F.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> Several announcements regarding tomorrow. Pairings for round 5 will be released tonight roughly 30 minutes after the receipt of last ballot. They will be sent to edebate and our school e-mail contacts (all those who receive this message). Online ballots will be sent out at 6:30 AM. The Student Center and SCA will NOT be used tomorrow. They will be CLOSED and LOCKED. It is imperative that you take all of your possessions when you leave tonight. We also strongly advise that you take your evidence out of BE. The best place to leave evidence on campus tonight is the Classroom Building. Most rounds will be in CB or OT. CB and OT will be unlocked by 7:00 AM. BE is scheduled to be unlocked at 7:15. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091003/2917a0db/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Sat Oct 3 17:09:32 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:09:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for a varsity level swing debater Message-ID: <20091003170932.20246zyg0pympme4@webmail.grandecom.net> We have a good and hard working varsity level debater that is looking for another decent and hard working debater to debate with for the rest of the semester, and possibly the rest of the year. Our program plans on going to Vanderbilt, South Florida or UCO, UT-Dallas, N. Texas. Base don experience and work ethic, we are willing to send our varsity debater to Wake and other top level tournaments, including, but not limited to West Georgia and CEDA nats. If youw ould like to discuss possible pairing up, please contact me. Scott Elliott University of Louisiana From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sat Oct 3 19:27:18 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:27:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Round 5 pairings and previous results Message-ID: <4AC7A596.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> Several announcements regarding tomorrow. Pairings for round 5 will be released tonight roughly 30 minutes after the receipt of last ballot. They will be sent to edebate and our school e-mail contacts (all those who receive this message). Online ballots will be sent out at 6:30 AM. The Student Center and SCA will NOT be used tomorrow. They will be CLOSED and LOCKED. It is imperative that you take all of your possessions when you leave tonight. We also strongly advise that you take your evidence out of BE. The best place to leave evidence on campus tonight is the Classroom Building. Most rounds will be in CB or OT. CB and OT will be unlocked by 7:00 AM. BE is scheduled to be unlocked at 7:15. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091003/bbc35648/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky round 5 and results.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 46592 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091003/bbc35648/attachment.xls From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sat Oct 3 19:30:21 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:30:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] kentucky pairings -- where online are they? Message-ID: <4AC7A64D02000033000049CB@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> Pairings are coming to edebate ? they were sent approx 8 minutes ago. They are also sent to the contact e-mail addresses for all schools in the tournament. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091003/db3506a1/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sun Oct 4 09:50:38 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:50:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Round 6 pairings and previous results Message-ID: <4AC86FEE.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> CB and OT will be unlocked by 7:00 AM. BE is scheduled to be unlocked at 7:15. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091004/edc8c9f3/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky 6 and results.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 51712 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091004/edc8c9f3/attachment.xls From rahul.jaswa at gmail.com Sun Oct 4 09:52:43 2009 From: rahul.jaswa at gmail.com (rahul.jaswa at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 14:52:43 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky teams/coaches - computer virus threat Message-ID: <682123766-1254667881-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1323269726-@bda868.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Hey my computer just stopped working from what looks like it could be a computer virus. This has to have happened during the tournament, so you might want to be careful. Teams whose jump drives I've used are george mason ro, emory ns, and mich state lm. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sun Oct 4 22:00:22 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:00:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Octas, Breakout semis, results to date Message-ID: <4AC91AF6.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky octas breakout semis results to date.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 64512 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091004/d15f937a/attachment.xls From delliott at KCKCC.EDU Sun Oct 4 23:57:33 2009 From: delliott at KCKCC.EDU (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 23:57:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] KCKCC Tournament Updates Message-ID: We are excited to be hosting so many of our friends this weekend in Kansas City. A couple things to attend to. Please finalize your judging commitments as soon as you can. I want to enable prefs by Thursday morning. Right now a number of you have not entered enough judges. Only JCCC has contacted the tournament about hiring judges so I am assuming the rest of you are covered. If you are coming and want to hire out for rounds that you have that are extra to give, please let me know. We will need to hire rounds. Please finalize entries/names if you have not done so yet. Looks like Quarters in Open and Novice and close to partial Octos in JV. At least 2 other schools indicated they might come but have not entered. If you are coming, please enter. See you all on Friday. chief -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091004/6c820495/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Mon Oct 5 08:16:32 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:16:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Monticello looking for judges for this weekend Message-ID: <524839830910050616g57a0e85bt9ab31fea9221d9e2@mail.gmail.com> If you are interest, contact Sabrina Graham -- SGraham at k12mcsd.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091005/3fd16510/attachment.htm From tews.rich at gmail.com Mon Oct 5 08:28:35 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 08:28:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JV Swing Partner for KCKCC Message-ID: <50002ace0910050628m60c04f91n9292ee8ef0c514d1@mail.gmail.com> I have a JV debater looking for a swing partner for KCKCC this weekend. If you are interested please backchannel me. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091005/f2cf1987/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Mon Oct 5 08:32:03 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:32:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky results packet Message-ID: <4AC9AF03.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky Speaker Awards.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 14024 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091005/68b634a7/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky Rank Order.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 28160 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091005/68b634a7/attachment.xls -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky Cums Sheet.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 70862 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091005/68b634a7/attachment-0001.pdf From kel1773 at msn.com Mon Oct 5 09:23:21 2009 From: kel1773 at msn.com (Kelly Young) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 10:23:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Wayne State Motor City Classic Tournament Hotel Deadline this Friday Message-ID: Hello-- If you plan to attend our tournament and stay at the Hyatt, please make your reservations by Friday, October 9. Direct link to the hotel site is at: http://dearborn.hyatt.com/hyatt/hotels/group-booking.jsp?_requestid=90335 Kelly M. Young, Ph.D. Director of Forensics/ Assistant Professor Communication Department Wayne State University 585 Manoogian Hall Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 577-2953 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091005/2878c8db/attachment.htm From lundinator at hotmail.com Mon Oct 5 10:55:17 2009 From: lundinator at hotmail.com (Chris Lundberg) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 10:55:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Inside Higher Ed Debate Article Message-ID: Nice defense of debate here from a forum that administrators respect. Hope all are well. http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/10/05/herbst#Comments _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091005/9be3e95b/attachment.htm From joe_koehle at yahoo.com Mon Oct 5 11:42:37 2009 From: joe_koehle at yahoo.com (Joe Koehle) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] what needs to happen to make edebate work? Message-ID: <655736.43419.qm@web50205.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Edebate never runs on time anymore. Mail is constantly getting delivered days after it was sent, meaning that the listserv is not capable of reliably handling tournament announcements and results because we never know how long things will be out there in the ether. It's time to talk about possible solutions...should there be another donation drive so that Phil can fix the server issues? ?Is someone else willing to step up to the plate and host a new listserv? ?Should people capitulate using to the CEDA message board thing? Other ideas? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091005/24132e67/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Mon Oct 5 12:56:37 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:56:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] NY City RR Update Message-ID: <524839830910051056q22b069b9h3a0795fb7c62af0c@mail.gmail.com> I am close to finalizing plans (will have a contract signed within a week) for the New York City Round Robin that is being held in conjunction with the Lakeland tournament. The RR will be held at the Sheraton NY Hotel and Towers on February 24th and 25th ( http://www.starwoodhotels.com/sheraton/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=421 ). The property is located literally one block from both the Ed Sullivan Theater (David Letterman Show ( http://www.mustseenewyork.com/attractions/ed-sullivan-theatre.html)) and one block from Avenue of the Americas. Most funds to host this event are being contributed by Lakeland alums, though at this point we do find it necessary to charge $100/team to help defray expenses (trophies and room rental). If more $ is raised, this fee will be eliminated. Since hotel catering prices are very high ($59+service charge for a boxed lunch) we will not be providing hospitality, but there is more good food that you could even try to eat available a stone's throw from the entrance to the hotel. We will provide plenty of time for lunch and free evenings for dining and entertainment. We are looking to invite 7 teams to this round robin. If you are interested, please let me know and send in a your team's competitive record for this year by November 24th. Invitations will be issued by December 1st and we hope to have the pool finalized by December 15th. We are looking for a competitive and diverse field. Of course, we'd love to have some college coaches who may be interested in visiting the area judge a round or two in the round robin. With 145 varsity policy teams and 300 other contestants already entered in our free invitational (http://www.joyoftournaments.com/ny/lakeland/info.asp), this is a great recruiting opportunity. If you have any questions, please email me. If you plan on submitting information for the RR, please let me know that as well. The room rate for single and double occupancy is $179.00. Quad occupancy is $199.00. I realize that this is a little high, but this is in the middle of Broadway. Once the field is announced on the 15th, hopefully people can share rooms to reduce costs. -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091005/c08ae685/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Mon Oct 5 13:09:24 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:09:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky qtrs and results to date Message-ID: <4AC9F004.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky qtrs and results to date.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 67072 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091005/39f40268/attachment.xls From andy.edebate at gmail.com Mon Oct 5 14:43:09 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:43:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Richmond judging Message-ID: <9368bc9b0910051243n43467060k51f3d5ebbdb3cc4e@mail.gmail.com> I will be able to be in richmond saturday evening and sunday all day plus monday...5 rounds...if this is good for you let me know -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091005/21a14ffb/attachment.htm From p.rappmund at gmail.com Mon Oct 5 14:58:22 2009 From: p.rappmund at gmail.com (Phil Rappmund) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:58:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Available for hire-- Vandy Message-ID: Will be at Vandy and can pick up a few rounds for anyone that needs them. Backchannel with an offer at p.rappmund at gmail.com or philip.rappmund at brooklaw.edu if interested. From mphall at liberty.edu Mon Oct 5 16:20:53 2009 From: mphall at liberty.edu (Hall, Michael P. (Debate)) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:20:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Vanderbilt Judging Message-ID: <17328617EA180D4AAEFC0852B21B61F421A22C3AFE@LUEMS01VS.University.liberty.edu> We're looking for as many as 12 rounds. $30/round. Michael Hall Director of Debate Liberty University Lynchburg, VA 24502 (434) 582-2080 From bamadebate at yahoo.com Mon Oct 5 17:33:51 2009 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Vandy - Emory looking for judges Message-ID: <991609.43200.qm@web62002.mail.re1.yahoo.com> We pay in cash. Thanks in advance. e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091005/fa4a4301/attachment.htm From rwgallow at samford.edu Mon Oct 5 21:48:47 2009 From: rwgallow at samford.edu (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 21:48:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Samford Looking for a Half Commitment At Richmond/Vandy Message-ID: Will pay $25 a round, in cash, at the tournament. Please backchannel if interested/available. RG From kurr.jeff at gmail.com Mon Oct 5 22:06:45 2009 From: kurr.jeff at gmail.com (Jeff Kurr) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:06:45 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Whitman CS Cite Request Message-ID: <718013f0910052006x6d32f9d0s283759ecfa51990a@mail.gmail.com> Backchannel me please. -- Jeff Kurr University of Pittsburgh 2011 Actuarial Mathematics, Finance 702-318-1801 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091005/eca8a338/attachment.htm From bamadebate at yahoo.com Tue Oct 6 06:35:44 2009 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 04:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Emory needs vandy judging Message-ID: <446964.92488.qm@web62003.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Thanks in advance e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091006/1e373792/attachment.htm From tews.rich at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 08:20:14 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 08:20:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JV Swing Partner for KCKCC Message-ID: <50002ace0910060620x619213fem903d847ade3b4e6d@mail.gmail.com> I have a JV debater looking for a swing partner at KCKCC this weekend. Backchannel me if interested. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091006/e5d44ad8/attachment.htm From tara_l_tate at hotmail.com Tue Oct 6 08:53:29 2009 From: tara_l_tate at hotmail.com (Tara Tate) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 08:53:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The 2009 Glenbrooks - Seeking Judges Message-ID: The 2009 Glenbrooks is looking for judges in our debate divisions (VCX, JVCX, VLD, JVLD, Public Forum, Student Congress). We know that this is the same weekend as Wake Forest and we want to still try to provide the best quality pool possible. Please email me if you are interested in a full-time contract. We have a select few of these contracts that are available for individuals that we believe will be highly preferred by most of the pool in the varsity events. Transportation and housing a possibility. We know some of you are attending the Northwestern University Round Robin immediately following The Glenbrooks as a judge. If you are coming in to the North Shore on Monday and would be willing to judge an elim for us on Monday, please let me know that as well. If you are already attending The Glenbrooks as a part-time judge, we are paying individuals $40 a round in VCX and VLD that we use you past your commitment. We would like as many "A/A" judges in our debates as possible. If you are interested in judging rounds past your commitment, please email me as well. ttate at glenbrook.k12.il.us Tara GBS Debate _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091006/c8b3c3a9/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Tue Oct 6 08:53:43 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:53:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky teams/coaches - computer virus threat Message-ID: <4ACB05970200003300005532@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> This is a real concern that needs to be addressed as we move into a paperless world where we share files with each other on jump drives. A missing jump drive was turned into the tab room on Monday morning. I put it in my computer to see if I could identify who it belonged to. It was infected with a trojan attached to the autorun.inf file that is accessed as soon as the jump drive is recognized. Fortunately, my computer is quite well protected against such files ? as a result I was not able to identify the owner of the file, however. Two things EVERYONE must do: 1) you need to be very careful when you create files on jump drives that you are going to share with others. 2) everyone needs to make sure that they have good anti-virus software on their computers with up-to-date definitions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091006/ba38508d/attachment.htm From whit_whitmore at hotmail.com Tue Oct 6 10:48:05 2009 From: whit_whitmore at hotmail.com (Whit Whitmore) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 11:48:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] The Success of Women in Debate: Are we slipping? Message-ID: I decided to write this because I noticed a consistent theme in many of my conversations and thoughts this weekend at the Kentucky tournament. I want to go ahead and dismiss some of the excuses before I continue any further. Yes, there are examples of women who have achieved success in recent history and who are successful today. My point is not that there aren?t any; it is rather that there are too few. I guess the best way to describe my feelings on this issue is confusion. I don?t understand why this issue has to keep coming up. I know the solutions aren?t perfect, but we?ve at least sketched out some reasonable steps that everyone should be taking to improve the situation (make debate a less hostile environment and work to build and preserve self-esteem and confidence). I guess I have a two part question. Is it that these methods are no longer as effective, or have we just stopped doing them enough? One of the major conversational topics was speaker points. I don?t think we need to lay the blame on the 100 point scale. I think the newness of the 100 point scale just refocused attention on an issue that has always been with us. Only three women received a speaker award (given to the top 20) at Kentucky. NONE were in the top ten. I realize it is unrealistic to expect parity in terms of success in numbers until we see parity in terms of participation, but there is an added oddity to these numbers. This was the break down: 1-10: 0 women 11-20: 3 women 21-30: 5 women 31-50: 1 woman Does this bunching of women around and just below the speaker award cut off point suggest something of a speaker award glass ceiling? Georgia State didn?t show quite the same breakdown, but still only 5 women in the top 40. Gonzaga was somewhat better. I counted at least 10 women in the top 50 (apologies for an inaccurate count as some of the names were unfamiliar to me). The dearth of successful female debaters creates bigger issues. It becomes self reinforcing when there are fewer successful role models available for hire as coaches at both the assistant and director level as well as for lab leaders at summer institutes. When competitive success is a necessary perquisite for being hired, it?s difficult to find qualified applicants even when you?re actively seeking them out. There are just too few to go around. I know how hard it can be to get these kinds of jobs when you weren?t well known as a successful debater, but I can?t imagine how much harder it must be for women who haven?t had/didn?t have competitive success. The last major issue that came up informally in a round was the issue of gendered language. Maybe I?m getting old, but I debated in an era where it was close to taboo. There were probably a lot of contributing factors, including the testimony of numerous women on edebate and other forums that it was an important issue or the success that debaters like Rachel Saloom and Sarah Holbrook had running the argument, but it seemed like something that (for the most part) debaters just didn?t do. However, I am noticing the practice more each year. I have to add that this is a problem I encounter more at the high school level. This comes up in all the same ways (turning in evidence that contains gendered language, referencing arguments a female debater made as ?he said?, etc.). I think maybe we should be doing more to make young debaters aware of progress the community has made so we don?t forget or regress. I do have one caveat about the issue of gendered language. It seems to me that I hear more women in debate say that they don?t care or are unconcerned about the issue. Let me be clear that I?m not calling for teams to dust off their gendered language files and run them whenever the first opportunity presents itself. If this community has made some progress in terms of being receptive to women, and if that progress means that women no longer feel the use of gendered language affects their willingness to participate in the activity, then that is probably a good thing. However, if it is a problem and it does matter, say something. Whether it is a simple correction, a post-round heads up, or a formal argument is up to you. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091006/20745106/attachment.htm From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 12:41:03 2009 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:41:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Novice Swing Partner for KCKCC Message-ID: <7fd76c680910061041l2264044ck9a90cdb391c31744@mail.gmail.com> Nuf said. Email me. Sam -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091006/efec27fd/attachment.htm From bratt at capitol-debate.com Tue Oct 6 15:21:17 2009 From: bratt at capitol-debate.com (bratt at capitol-debate.com) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:21:17 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Judges for Capitol Debate Fall Classic HS Tournament - Oct 31 and Nov 1 Message-ID: <20091006132117.8cce6020757326d78a2cd7ce56dd3822.44a08f3424.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Capitol Debate Fall Classic High School Tournament, held near DC, is looking to hire judges for its tournament on October 31 and November 1. If you think you will be highly preferred on the MPJ, lets talk. We will pay your travel and hotel expenses. We are getting a nice draw for this tourney and want to have an exceptional TOC judge pool. You can email me at bratt at capitol-debate.com Thanks. __________________ Ronald Bratt CEO & Founder Capitol Debate -------- Original Message -------- Subject: High School Debate Coach Job Opening - Full Time From: bratt at capitol-debate.com Date: Sat, April 04, 2009 9:13 pm To: edebate at ndtceda.com Capitol Debate in partnership with the Howard County School System is hiring a full time coach for its high school debate teams in Howard County, Maryland. Howard County Maryland High School Debate Teams practice together as a consortium of schools: Centennial, River Hill, Glenelg, Mt. Hebron, Oakland Mills, Howard, Wilde Lake, and several other high schools including McDonogh. We started the year with about 24 students traveling nationally to Wake, GDS, Bronx, Capitol Debate, Glenbrooks, Ohio Valley, MBA, Pennsbury, Harvard, Lakeland, and Woodward and we will have about 44 students that travel with us nationally next year. 2 of our teams from Centennial advanced to elimination rounds at JV Nationals at Woodward with one of the students receiving 9th speaker. Capitol Debate in partnership with the Howard County School System oversees the debate teams. Capitol Debate is looking to hire a full time coach for the Howard County teams starting in August 2009. As an employee of Capitol Debate, the person will: Coach the Varsity and Novice teams Oversee strategy and evidence production Travel to Debate Tournaments with Teams Run Debate Practices Listen to practice Debates & Redos Teach Workshops during school year for Middle School Debate Help with running the program Other duties of a debate coach The ideal candidate is someone that has experience successfully coaching on the National level. We are not seeking a satellite coach but instead someone that can move to this area to coach full time. Having a reliable means of transportation is important. Salary dependent on experience. Howard County Maryland is situated between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore. We are about 30 minutes outside of Baltimore and 45 minutes outside of DC. To apply for this position, please send a cover letter that details your success coaching debate on the national level, salary requirements, resume, and 3 names that can serve as references to: Capitol Debate Human Resources 10770 Folkestone Way Woodstock, Maryland 21163 Or Email to: hr at capitol-debate.com I will be at NDCA and TOC if you have questions. We will be requiring in person interviews in Howard County Maryland. Ronald Bratt Founder Capitol Debate http://www.capitol-debate.com bratt at capitol-debate.com From bdelo77 at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 15:35:31 2009 From: bdelo77 at gmail.com (Brian DeLong) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:35:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 87 Average? Message-ID: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale. Some people are on this 87=average boat, while others place average at around 78-80ish. I'm no numbers game, nor an expert on the history of point distribution etc. but I do think more discussion on this scale should occur. Reaching consensus is clearly impossible. People are still going to fight the good fight against point inflation. I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites an interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap. You will have judges that fight this interpretation and that's fine, but for the rest of us who just want to make sure points are allocated fairly to the debaters it would be a great help to at least find a point of unity somewhere. Without some point of consistent measurement to work off of we're going to continue to see some fairly decent judges being reduced on the pref sheets. A counterargument to this is that maybe these anti-point inflation crusaders aren't that great of judges to begin with in the first place. Fair enough. But for those of us who wish to stay in the realm of preferable judge, whether we are good or not, some baseline is needed. Maybe it would be wise for us to vote on scales of measurement to set a norm for this community. We have the ability to set up an informal or formal voting system. This method would at least take the responsibility off a tournament host from arbitrarily choosing a baseline scale. With that said, I am on board with voting for a point system that looks like this: 30-29.6 = 100-96 29.5-29.0=95-90 28.9-28.5=85-89 28.4-28=79-84 27.9-27=78-72 26.9-26.0=71-60 Thoughts? To respond to number's games observations, As Ross Smith once claimed, the most recent scientific data indicates that we naturally cluster numbers to help us simplify complex information. 5 and 10 clustering is only inevitable. From lexdevil at mindspring.com Tue Oct 6 16:35:02 2009 From: lexdevil at mindspring.com (Lexy Green & John Seal) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 17:35:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] For those still killing trees Message-ID: <7850992.1254864902447.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> United includes two free bags for each passenger on the itinerary of any premier member of Mileage Plus. As you can book up to nine passengers on a single itinerary, that's up to 18 bags free. Now, United is allowing non-premier passengers to access this option for a subscription fee of $249 per year. That means for a flat $249 for the year, everyone on your reservations (up to nine passengers) can have two bags checked free. Details here: https://store.united.com/traveloptions/control/category;jsessionid=F4BA361A4F467F3C13CA2ADED3C16E18.jvm1?category_id=UM_BAGS From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 16:45:04 2009 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:45:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Swing partnerS for KCKCC Message-ID: <7fd76c680910061445u3a0d6757nbdd105395440b664@mail.gmail.com> ESU is now looking for a NOVICE swing partner AND and OPEN swing partner for KCKCC. Sam -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091006/ff85c4da/attachment.htm From twoan318 at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 18:40:07 2009 From: twoan318 at gmail.com (Tansy Woan) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:40:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Thank you Kentucky for a great tournament Message-ID: Just wanted to give a shout out to Kentucky for hosting such a great tournament. The food was delicious and I, among others, greatly appreciated the vegetarian options available. Rounds somehow always managed to run on time and the online ballot system was great as well. Thanks for all the hard work (especially Gary Larson) and for making Kentucky such a phenomenal tournament! Tansy Woan Binghamton University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091006/8b52516f/attachment.htm From blackslaw06 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 6 21:03:35 2009 From: blackslaw06 at yahoo.com (RW) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:03:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Looking to hire judges for Richmond & Vanderbilt Message-ID: <346598.5181.qm@web45415.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Anyone out there willing to sell?Florida some rounds?? Please email me!? Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091006/2d55c065/attachment.htm From fcmnyc at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 21:46:00 2009 From: fcmnyc at gmail.com (F M) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:46:00 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Need one room for Harvard Message-ID: <38531a990910061946q70e8f6d6pe14153a7da3592c5@mail.gmail.com> It seems that the block rate is not available anymore for the tournament hotel at Harvard. If someone has has an extra room, Columbia could use it. Thanks. Frank Montano From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Tue Oct 6 22:02:47 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:02:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Bringing More Debate to Southwest Asia Message-ID: <4ACC04D7.7070003@uvm.edu> I wanted people to know about these efforts to promote debating in places where it has not previously been. The Qatar Debate Academy is being held under the sponsorship of QatarDebate and the Qatar Foundation, with the assistance of the World Debate Institute at the University of Vermont and Za in Proti Slovenia. It will run from October 30 until November 7 2009. The event is designed to bring debating nations together with nations that are relatively new to debate to offer high levels of instruction from a varied multinational faculty. The program will involve an extended workshop and a tournament. Countries that will be attending with two teachers and five high school debaters are: Oman China Sudan Uganda Bosnia USA Chile New Zealand UAE (United Arab Emirates) Lebanon Brunei The following countries are bringing two teachers from different schools to receive training in all areas of debate: Iraq Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Syria Palestine Azerbaijan The faculty currently includes: Piyanart Faktangporn, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand Loke Wing Fatt, S.A.I.D., Singapore Sam Greenland, University of Sydney, Australia Rhydian Morgan, Stylus Communication, UK Sam Nelson, Cornell University, USA Debbie Newman, UK Erin O'Brien, Queensland University, Australia Omar Salahuddin bin Abdullah, Malaysia Bojana Skrt, Z.I.P., Slovenia Alfred Snider, University of Vermont, USA Amanda Weigler, Colgate University, USA More will be confirmed later. -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From ralph.paone at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 09:58:41 2009 From: ralph.paone at gmail.com (Ralph Paone) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:58:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Lost - MAC Powercord at Kentucky Message-ID: <86f9bd6d0910070758y15a4bf3o6462245931eeb26d@mail.gmail.com> A member of the Texas team left their Mac power cord in the classroom building of Kentucky Sunday night.. The cord did not have the extension attachment. If you found one, could you please back channel me? Thanks, Ralph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091007/ea6c2695/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 11:39:00 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:39:00 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Available to hire for Harvard Message-ID: <9368bc9b0910070939t6194ab3w710ad0ca34466c14@mail.gmail.com> rounds get em now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091007/ef275394/attachment.htm From mstruth at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 11:45:15 2009 From: mstruth at gmail.com (Matt Struth) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:45:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Speaker Points, 100 Point Scale, Philosophy Change Message-ID: I have made a few changes in my philosophy regarding speaker points under the 100 point scale, paperless debating issues, and a few other issues. I'm still concerned about the same issues I was regarding the 100 point scale when I posted after GSU. If we as a community we want the "average" to be lower, I still think we should talk about it. I think it would probably be helpful if tournaments provided directions establishing what the 100 point scale means. If a tournament provides directions either on the ballot or in the tournament info on what the 100 point scale means, I will err towards following those directions. Barring that, for now I will continue to use pretty much the same scale that Hester established (and that several other judges seem to be using): 27-27.5: 70-74 27.5-28: 75-82 28-28.5: 83-89 28.5-30 90-100 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091007/1e79118a/attachment.htm From jtedebate at yahoo.com Wed Oct 7 12:15:45 2009 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 10:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] 2-3 rounds for sale at Harvard Message-ID: <939198.86350.qm@web110609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I can cover up to 3 rounds for someone at Harvard W. James Taylor ("JT") Clinical Instructor Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University ***Nothing in this email should be taken to represent Emporia State Debate or Emporia State University. The contents are the sole opinion of the author. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091007/1821c46c/attachment.htm From outofrange0123 at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 13:35:10 2009 From: outofrange0123 at gmail.com (cheek) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:35:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks UNLV Message-ID: It should probably say something that I signed up to edebate just to post this message. I wanted to thank Jake and the entire UNLV crew for making our time in Vegas fucking awesome! First class hospitality the entire time. People that still think Lexington is preferable to the world's premier adult vacationland should reevaluate what is truly important in their life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091007/3870434c/attachment.htm From jmgreen at ksu.edu Wed Oct 7 14:36:50 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:36:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking to hire judging for emporia Message-ID: <5a6e2a80910071236g6c95b7a0u4f9678da04a71376@mail.gmail.com> extra rounds...whole committments...whatever....we pay cash...will entertain other requests (food, drink, housing, etc) back-channel justin green - ksu debate From sethegannon at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 15:07:30 2009 From: sethegannon at gmail.com (Seth Gannon) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 16:07:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Next Coaches' Poll -- Ballots due 10/17 Message-ID: <4bfbc1090910071307r6a742001r40c69f5b052d0776@mail.gmail.com> I will be accepting ballots between now and the end of the day Saturday October 17th. Expect one or two more reminders next week. Original schedule over the summer said 10/10. That was dumb; consider it revised. I had a tremendous time seeing everyone in Lexington. Congratulations to everyone who had a impressive week, particularly Emory for a powerful round robin and MSU for beating the 9/26 poll's top four teams in order one after the next on Monday. Similar congrats to UTSA for their success in Vegas. Thanks as always, Kilgore Trout From EMarlow at uco.edu Wed Oct 7 15:57:17 2009 From: EMarlow at uco.edu (Eric Marlow) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:57:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Rooms at Emporia--Guesthouse Message-ID: <75671A9DCD21974888C9A2E5E4937B6451E9893A75@EXCHANGE.uco.local> If anyone is releasing rooms at the Guesthouse Inn for the Emporia tournament, could you please contact me first. Cell is 405-397-8861, Peace, Marlow Eric Marlow Director of Debate University of Central Oklahoma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091007/bff2edc5/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5675 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091007/bff2edc5/attachment.jpg From p.rappmund at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 16:07:35 2009 From: p.rappmund at gmail.com (Phil Rappmund) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:07:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Rounds have all been sold-- Vandy Message-ID: From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 17:27:01 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:27:01 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] what needs to happen to make edebate work? In-Reply-To: <655736.43419.qm@web50205.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <655736.43419.qm@web50205.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0910071527v46c56d1foe943d75455c03a9@mail.gmail.com> I don't know why this is an issue. In the decade since Phil started edebate this has become infinitely easier to facilitate. Setting aside the days worth of work that Phil or someone else will explain it would take to create an alt the real issue is administration. Somebody has to be willing to do it and users need to be willing to take the 2 steps and 5 minutes it would take to make the change. Beyond that what's the big deal? On 10/5/09, Joe Koehle wrote: > Edebate never runs on time anymore. Mail is constantly getting delivered > days after it was sent, meaning that the listserv is not capable of reliably > handling tournament announcements and results because we never know how long > things will be out there in the ether. > It's time to talk about possible solutions...should there be another > donation drive so that Phil can fix the server issues? ?Is someone else > willing to step up to the plate and host a new listserv? ?Should people > capitulate using to the CEDA message board thing? Other ideas? > > > > > -- Sent from my mobile device From rwgallow at samford.edu Wed Oct 7 18:14:01 2009 From: rwgallow at samford.edu (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:14:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Electronic Age Evidence Ethics Message-ID: In Round 7 at Kentucky, I was the stay home coach cutting a few cards before our break round for my team. I sent a file for NEG against the case we were debating (just a few update cards)...it arrived 6 minutes after the start time of the round. My debater sat down at the end of the 1nc and saw it in his gmail box, and was like "Oh, crap." Samford BG never used any of the evidence I sent. The question is, what if they had? What if, unbeknownst to someone cutting cards at home, the round had already begun by the time an e-file was sent. The coach had no knowledge of what the 1ac said (other than pre-round scouting), and sent the file "in good faith" but it just arrived late either because of miscommunication about round start time (I was doing all my communicating via gmail chat, not phone), or just got "stuck in the tubes." A question that certainly has to have pertinence in this era. Samford's currently policy is that we will not use evidence that arrives after the start time of the round, but I can see the argument the other way. Thoughts? RG From oguevara at hotmail.com Wed Oct 7 18:15:38 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:15:38 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Need Judging for CSUN - Flight/Room/$300 ~~Look~~ Message-ID: I need at least 3 full-time critics for CSUN (11.20-11.22) I know it is the same weekend as Wake and GBN, so I'm will to make an aggressive offer. If you live in the Western United States, I will fly you out early Friday AM, give you a room in the tournament hotel for two nights (with no more than one room mate), and pay you $300 cash. I will fly you out on the last flight from LA to where ever it you are going on Sunday Night. It has to be late on Sunday so you can be available for elimination rounds. If you can only send single rounds, I will pay $50 per round. Please let me know as I will have a large amount of students and not nearly enough help judging, coaching, and administrating. OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091007/e7f0324d/attachment.htm From delliott at KCKCC.EDU Thu Oct 8 01:25:34 2009 From: delliott at KCKCC.EDU (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 01:25:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] KCKCC Prefs Message-ID: Prefs have been turned on. Due by 10pm Thursday night to guarantee in effect for RDS 1 and 2 Friday. Open teams have 30 judges. JV/Novice have 35. Open teams should reduce A+ and B+ by 2. Reduce C+ by 1. Using A-B-C and Everyone gets 2 strikes. This will make judging tight potentially. Might beg people to judge an extra round especially in Rd 5 and 6. We may place a mutual strike in a debate with teams whose records are non-clearing records. We have avoided this in all years past. Despite the size of the pool and various constraints, more proof A-B-C across all divisons is possible. And we are happy to do it! If you have questions, please let me know. Look forward to seeing you all Friday. thanks, chief -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091008/ca6dd4c5/attachment.htm From resolt2 at email.uky.edu Thu Oct 8 10:05:51 2009 From: resolt2 at email.uky.edu (SOLT, ROGER E) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:05:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky semis and finals Message-ID: I don't know if these have been posted earlier, but in case they have not, here they are. In semi-finals, Cal BP (aff) defeated West Georgia BS on a 2-1 decision. Lacy, *Abelkop, Feldman MSU LW (aff) defeated Emory IW on a 2-1 decision. Achten, Hardy, *Mancuso In finals, MSU LW (neg) defeated Cal BP on a 2-1 decision. Heidt, Hardy, *Lee In the first year final, Emory HZ defeated Dartmouth AB. (Sorry-don't know the sides or the score off hand.) Congratulations to all the late elim participants. Roger Solt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091008/1dd7c340/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Thu Oct 8 11:22:31 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:22:31 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by CSU Sacramento Message-ID: <547C558AA2BC4E9F91F5570C518C43DC@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Western Novice and JV Championship Tournament Starts:3/5/2010 Ends:3/7/2010 Hosted by: CSU Sacramento Contact: Kristen Hamilton Address: 6000 J Street, Sacramento Phone: 916.278.5489 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: Novice Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters JV Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Oct 8 11:24:40 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:24:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Novice Teach-In @ Richmond In-Reply-To: <623f2fe20903051218i77846843p957c5c69107c7e67@mail.gmail.com> References: <623f2fe20903051218i77846843p957c5c69107c7e67@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD1B266B@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Timing on edebate has been off so it's tough to tell when this message will get distributed, but we will have hard copies at registration either way. DRAFT -- Novice Teach-In Announcement Novice classes begin 15 minutes after the start of round 4 (currently at 4:30, making the classes start at 4:45 in the rooms announced). Each class will be taught twice, in the same room. 4:45 - 5:35 CLASS SESSION ONE (Rooms tba) The Art of Flowing - Heather Hall Counterplan Theory or tba - Dallas Perkins Debating Against No First Use Affs - Ryan Galloway* Delivering the Last Two Rebuttals - Rashad Evans What's a Kritik? - Adam Lee Being Neg Against Kritik Affs - Mike Hester* Answering Counterplans: Life Lessons for the Playa' and Getting Down with Other People's Perms - Vik Keenan Debating and Answering Politics - Steve D'Amico Topicality FTW - Joe Bellon 5:45 - 6:35 CLASS SESSION TWO (Rooms tba) The Art of Flowing - Heather Hall Counterplan Theory or tba - Dallas Perkins Debating Against No First Use Affs - Ryan Galloway* Delivering the Last Two Rebuttals - Rashad Evans What's a Kritik? - Adam Lee Being Neg Against Kritik Affs - Mike Hester* Answering Counterplans: Life Lessons for the Playa' and Getting Down with Other People's Perms - Vik Keenan Debating and Answering Politics - Steve D'Amico Topicality FTW - Joe Bellon * Needs powerpoint capability. Take advantage of these classes, meet some debaters from different schools, ask questions, take some notes to share with the rest of your team. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091008/80e7427c/attachment.htm From sac36967 at saclink.csus.edu Thu Oct 8 11:34:58 2009 From: sac36967 at saclink.csus.edu (Tudor, Kristen H) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:34:58 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Western Novice & JV Champs @ Sac State Message-ID: <33DF852C3535A3409897ACAA0EE6DE9145DFA8172C@VSL3.saclink.csus.edu> Sacramento State University will once again be hosting the Western Novice & JV Championship tournament this spring, March 5-7, 2010. The invite is available at debateresults and is also pasted below. If you have any questions please contact Sac State's interim Director of Debate, Ken Dandy (kendandy at gmail.com), who will be covering for me the remainder of the fall semester while I am on maternity leave. Hope to see you in Sacramento this spring. Kristen Hamilton Tudor Director of Debate Sacramento State University On behalf of the Sacramento State University debate team and the Department of Communication Studies, I?m excited to invite you to participate in the Western Novice & JV Championship Tournament to be held at Sac State March 5-7, 2010. We will have six preliminary rounds of National Championship team policy debate in both novice & junior-varsity divisions with appropriate elimination rounds. We?ve secured a rate of $85.00 a night for a double queen or King room at the Marriott Sacramento Rancho Cordova. In room wireless access will be an additional $5 per room per day. The block of rooms will be held until February 19. Since the hotel does not provide a complimentary breakfast, we?ll do that at the tournament. See below for reservation information. I hope you?ll consider adding this tournament to your spring travel schedule ? we look forward to hosting you. If you have questions feel free to email me at khamilton at csus.edu. Kristen Hamilton Tudor Director of Debate Ken Dandy Graduate Assistant Coach/Interim Director of Debate Fall 2009 Brooke Boehning Graduate Assistant Coach (916) 278-5489 (office) (916) 278-7216 (fax) Tournament Information Transportation: The Sacramento Airport is about a 20 minute drive from campus and the tournament hotel. There are plenty of rental car companies in the airport. To get to campus or the hotel from the airport, take I-5 south, then merge onto highway 50 east towards South Lake Tahoe. Exit at Howe/Power Inn Road and follow the signs to campus. The Hotel: The Rancho Cordova Marriott gave us a great rate of $85.00 per night, plus $5 per night for internet. Call 1-800-228-9290 for Central Reservations and ask for the "Sac State Debate Tournament" rate or use the links below to reserve your rooms online. Use this link to reserve rooms with 2 queen beds: http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/SACMC?groupCode=SSDSSDB&app=resvlink&fromDate=3/5/10&toDate=3/7/10 Use this link to reserve rooms with one king bed: http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/SACMC?groupCode=SSDSSDA&app=resvlink&fromDate=3/5/10&toDate=3/7/10 Please ask for Kristin Goble in sales if you have any problems getting the rate. The block expires on February 19, 2 weeks before the tournament. To get to the hotel from campus, head back to highway 50 going east toward South Lake Tahoe. Take the Sunrise Blvd. exit and go right onto Sunrise. Go left onto Folsom Blvd, then left onto Point East Drive. The hotel?s address is 11211 Point East Drive, Rancho Cordova, 95742. Campus: Sac State?s address is 6000 J Street, 95819. I haven?t been able to secure parking permits, so you?ll have to buy a permit for $5 on Friday. No permit is needed on the weekend. Park in Lot 2 and look for Mendocino Hall for registration. Entry Info: enter at debateresults.com Tournament Procedures: We will use the 2009-2010 CEDA/NDT topic with 9-3-6 speaking times. We will adhere to CEDA guidelines for novice and JV eligibility. Divisions will not be collapsed because this is a championship tournament. There will be no breaking of brackets in elimination rounds. We will, if necessary, have partial-elimination rounds in order to break all teams with a winning record. Fees: The fee for each team is $100.00, which does include breakfast Saturday and Sunday and lunch on Saturday. Each school is expected to provide one judge for every two teams entered. The uncovered team fee will be $120.00. Please bring extra judges ? I?m sure we?ll need them and will pay $25 per round. Tournament Schedule Friday, March 5th 2:00-3:00: Registration on campus ? Mendocino Hall 3:30: Pairings for rounds 1, 2 released ? Mendocino Hall 4:00: Round 1 6:30: Round 2 Saturday, March 6th 8:00am: Pairings, breakfast, coffee in Mendocino Hall 9:00: Round 3 11:30: Round 4 1:30: Lunch on campus (provided) 3:00: Round 5 6:00: Round 6 9:30: Elimination teams and judges posted on edebate & on campus. Sunday, March 7th 8:00: Pairings for elimination rounds, breakfast & coffee, Mendocino Hall 9:00: Elimination round 1 11:00: Awards Ceremony: Mendocino Hall 12:00: Subsequent elimination rounds as needed. From dudebate at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 12:12:38 2009 From: dudebate at gmail.com (Boon Poineer) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:12:38 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Rounds for Sale at ISU Message-ID: <1a72a330910081012p5e94cb86v381e1f9dc05e5063@mail.gmail.com> A combined 6 rounds for sale at the ISU tournament. Please back channel me if you're interested Justin Eckstein DU Debate Justin.eckstein at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091008/5fb641f1/attachment.htm From lenehan20 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 8 14:08:34 2009 From: lenehan20 at hotmail.com (Katherine Lavelle) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:08:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The Success of Women in Debate: Are we slipping? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Whit, Saw your post on Edebate - I don't have tons of time to respond because I have my yearly tenure review file due on Monday. A couple of things to consider. I think that you are pointing out some good issues that should be addressed, but there might be some deeper issues at play: 1. What constitutes success of hiring? Is it purely NDT/CEDA outrounds? Who gets hired can really depend on who is making the decisions. For instance, if a hiring committee consists of non-current debate people, they may look more at record outside of debate as opposed to how many outrounds someone had at the NDT. And for grad school, many debate people aren't going to grad school at all, which means directors are often face difficulty with maintaining positions. 2. Creating a positive squad room environment. I think sometimes how debaters interact with each other can be off putting to anyone who doesn't speak the "language" of squad rooms. We have a lot of inside jokes in the activity, and if someone doesn't understand them, or doesn't feel comfortable participating, they may not feel compelled to participate. 3. Sue Peterson mentioned this in her post a few weeks ago, debate in general can be very taxing on people. Sometimes success is measured in how much time you devote to debate. A lot of people aren't willing to make that committment after their undergraduate program. I know that I have to devote a lot more of myself to the activity as a director (in terms of time, responsibility), if you don't have a support network that allows you to participate, you may not think that the sacrifice of debate is worth the reward. 4. I'm all for women in power in debate/forensics, and definitely think that there should be more. But male directors can be great mentors to women. In fact, I never worked on the same staff with another woman until I came to UNI. Kelly Young, Ben Voth, George Ziegelmueller, and Ron Stevenson were great mentors to me, and encouraged me to transition into directing. Katherine L. Lavelle Director of Forensics University of Northern Iowa You must strive to find your own voice. Because the longer you wait to begin, the less likely you are to find it at all. Thoreau said, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." Don't be resigned to that. Break out! ? Mr. Keating, Tom Schulman Dead Poets Society From: whit_whitmore at hotmail.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 11:48:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] The Success of Women in Debate: Are we slipping? I decided to write this because I noticed a consistent theme in many of my conversations and thoughts this weekend at the Kentucky tournament. I want to go ahead and dismiss some of the excuses before I continue any further. Yes, there are examples of women who have achieved success in recent history and who are successful today. My point is not that there aren?t any; it is rather that there are too few. I guess the best way to describe my feelings on this issue is confusion. I don?t understand why this issue has to keep coming up. I know the solutions aren?t perfect, but we?ve at least sketched out some reasonable steps that everyone should be taking to improve the situation (make debate a less hostile environment and work to build and preserve self-esteem and confidence). I guess I have a two part question. Is it that these methods are no longer as effective, or have we just stopped doing them enough? One of the major conversational topics was speaker points. I don?t think we need to lay the blame on the 100 point scale. I think the newness of the 100 point scale just refocused attention on an issue that has always been with us. Only three women received a speaker award (given to the top 20) at Kentucky. NONE were in the top ten. I realize it is unrealistic to expect parity in terms of success in numbers until we see parity in terms of participation, but there is an added oddity to these numbers. This was the break down: 1-10: 0 women 11-20: 3 women 21-30: 5 women 31-50: 1 woman Does this bunching of women around and just below the speaker award cut off point suggest something of a speaker award glass ceiling? Georgia State didn?t show quite the same breakdown, but still only 5 women in the top 40. Gonzaga was somewhat better. I counted at least 10 women in the top 50 (apologies for an inaccurate count as some of the names were unfamiliar to me). The dearth of successful female debaters creates bigger issues. It becomes self reinforcing when there are fewer successful role models available for hire as coaches at both the assistant and director level as well as for lab leaders at summer institutes. When competitive success is a necessary perquisite for being hired, it?s difficult to find qualified applicants even when you?re actively seeking them out. There are just too few to go around. I know how hard it can be to get these kinds of jobs when you weren?t well known as a successful debater, but I can?t imagine how much harder it must be for women who haven?t had/didn?t have competitive success. The last major issue that came up informally in a round was the issue of gendered language. Maybe I?m getting old, but I debated in an era where it was close to taboo. There were probably a lot of contributing factors, including the testimony of numerous women on edebate and other forums that it was an important issue or the success that debaters like Rachel Saloom and Sarah Holbrook had running the argument, but it seemed like something that (for the most part) debaters just didn?t do. However, I am noticing the practice more each year. I have to add that this is a problem I encounter more at the high school level. This comes up in all the same ways (turning in evidence that contains gendered language, referencing arguments a female debater made as ?he said?, etc.). I think maybe we should be doing more to make young debaters aware of progress the community has made so we don?t forget or regress. I do have one caveat about the issue of gendered language. It seems to me that I hear more women in debate say that they don?t care or are unconcerned about the issue. Let me be clear that I?m not calling for teams to dust off their gendered language files and run them whenever the first opportunity presents itself. If this community has made some progress in terms of being receptive to women, and if that progress means that women no longer feel the use of gendered language affects their willingness to participate in the activity, then that is probably a good thing. However, if it is a problem and it does matter, say something. Whether it is a simple correction, a post-round heads up, or a formal argument is up to you. Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091008/f87b135e/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Thu Oct 8 15:31:00 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:31:00 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Invites & Results for WUDC/BP Debate Message-ID: <4ACE4C04.2000402@uvm.edu> For the many who are now participating in WUDC/BP format debating (72 teams at our recent tournament in Vermont, 120+ at nationals last April) here are some resources for you. Results are compiled at: http://debate.uvm.edu/usudc/usudctab0809.html Invitations can be found at: http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/usu/Invites/Invites.html See a video of a debate (World Finals from Cork in January 2009) at: http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/wudc-finals-2009-ban-abortion-at-all.html Get a basic training manual at: http://flynn.debating.net/colmmain_tut.htm Tab program for PC at: http://tournaman.wikidot.com/ Don't believe the hype. Find out for yourself. I am ready and willing to answer questions. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From dsrader at northwestchristian.edu Thu Oct 8 15:55:30 2009 From: dsrader at northwestchristian.edu (Doyle Srader) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:55:30 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Coin flips Message-ID: <11EB54FFE7082149BAD19E0230D2641C01B981F419@noah> A way to slow down tournaments but make them more fair: "John von Neumann suggested a way to flip a suspect coin and produce fair results: Flip it twice. "Tails-heads decides in favor of one party, heads-tails the other. The two results are equally likely, even with a biased coin. (If it comes up heads-heads or tails-tails, flip it twice again.)" http://www.futilitycloset.com/page/42/ -- Doyle Srader, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Communication Northwest Christian University From jrlyle at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 17:15:34 2009 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:15:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion seeks West Point Judging Message-ID: <25fd497f0910081515o2589c82dn16c1b02e573fc2ae@mail.gmail.com> This will probably be posted after the tournament is over but...we're looking to hire at least 3 rounds. Hit me up if interested. Pay in cash, American dollars, and/or Skittles. Jim From catspathat at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 18:03:35 2009 From: catspathat at gmail.com (Abers) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:03:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks UNLV Message-ID: Thanks to everybody who made the UNLV tournament and round robbin everything we hoped for in a vegas debate experience. Great Trophies (James is still walking around campus with the belt on), Great hospitality, Great (vegetarian sensitive) food and of course Vegas...awesome abe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091008/ae134022/attachment.htm From bratt at capitol-debate.com Thu Oct 8 19:19:06 2009 From: bratt at capitol-debate.com (bratt at capitol-debate.com) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:19:06 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Judges for Capitol Debate Fall Classic HS Tournament - Oct 31 and Nov 1 Message-ID: <20091008171906.8cce6020757326d78a2cd7ce56dd3822.c6a6eddf69.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Capitol Debate Fall Classic High School Tournament, held near DC, is looking to hire judges for its tournament on October 31 and November 1. If you think you will be highly preferred on the MPJ, lets talk. We will pay your travel and hotel expenses. We are getting a nice draw for this tourney and want to have an exceptional TOC judge pool. You can email me at bratt at capitol-debate.com Thanks. __________________ Ronald Bratt CEO & Founder Capitol Debate From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 21:09:56 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 21:09:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 87 Average? In-Reply-To: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> References: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> Message-ID: It is worse, given the decline of competition rounds - and the increase in unpredictable judge variability at the same time...many people are going to start being two and out based on variability more than skills. Josh On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Brian DeLong wrote: > Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between > pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale. > Some people are on this 87=average boat, while others place average at > around 78-80ish. I'm no numbers game, nor an expert on the history of > point distribution etc. but I do think more discussion on this scale > should occur. > > Reaching consensus is clearly impossible. People are still going to > fight the good fight against point inflation. > > I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites an > interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap. You will > have judges that fight this interpretation and that's fine, but for > the rest of us who just want to make sure points are allocated fairly > to the debaters it would be a great help to at least find a point of > unity somewhere. Without some point of consistent measurement to work > off of we're going to continue to see some fairly decent judges being > reduced on the pref sheets. A counterargument to this is that maybe > these anti-point inflation crusaders aren't that great of judges to > begin with in the first place. Fair enough. But for those of us who > wish to stay in the realm of preferable judge, whether we are good or > not, some baseline is needed. > > Maybe it would be wise for us to vote on scales of measurement to set > a norm for this community. We have the ability to set up an informal > or formal voting system. This method would at least take the > responsibility off a tournament host from arbitrarily choosing a > baseline scale. > > With that said, I am on board with voting for a point system that > looks like this: > > 30-29.6 = 100-96 > 29.5-29.0=95-90 > 28.9-28.5=85-89 > 28.4-28=79-84 > 27.9-27=78-72 > 26.9-26.0=71-60 > > Thoughts? > > To respond to number's games observations, As Ross Smith once claimed, > the most recent scientific data indicates that we naturally cluster > numbers to help us simplify complex information. 5 and 10 clustering > is only inevitable. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20091008/f489c697/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Oct 8 23:09:27 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:09:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 87 Average? In-Reply-To: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> References: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ACEB777.9050407@wfu.edu> [Quick summary -- Judges should figure out the "community scale" & use it unless a tournament publishes other guidelines.] I'm not a numbers person at all. I'm also struggling like everyone else with the 100 point scale. My point assignment at GSU & Kentucky was basically lousy. My old scale: You cheated: 0 Rude: 26 Below average = 27.5 Average = 28 Clearing = 28.5 Getting a top 10 speaker award = 29 Getting a very high speaker award = 29.5 I know, this scale is not optimal. Its inflated compared to most judges, but I don't like being a spoiler. Just for fun, I translated my old scale into a 100 point scale. I used division to do it. Translation of my old scale using math: Below average = 92 Average = 93 Clearing = 95 Getting a top 10 speaker award = 97 Getting a very high speaker award = 98 Ugh!! That scale is just as bad as the old broken 5 point scale (27.5-29.5) We all know the old scale isn't very good: The important distinctions (The ones between teams clearing & not, and the ones between the top speakers) are basically statistical "noise." So, the 100 point scale is better. I'm a fan of following the judging pool when it comes to points. I don't think its fair to do otherwise. That does not mean "if you got good points before, you get them from me." That does mean if your debating in the round I judge you is "top ten" quality, you get "top ten" points. I eyeballed the Kentucky results & came up with the following scale, which seems to reflect where the community is going: Below average = 83 (Depends.) Debaters are above average students. Below average competitors don't need a point value to learn how much worse than mediocre they were, unless they were rude or cheated. Average = 85 Clearing (barely)= 87 Clearing high in your not undefeated bracket = 90 Getting a top twenty speaker award = 92 Getting a top ten speaker award = 93 Getting a top five speaker award = 94 Top Speaker = 96 I won't say "this is the proper scale." I won't say it fixes all the problems with the old 30 point scale. I will say that after 2 tournaments, it is the one in use. Out of fairness, I'll stick to it & adjust it according to how others use it if tournaments don't publish guidelines. I'm completely in favor of tournaments setting ground rules for the use of the scale: It makes results more meaningful. If a tournament publishes guidelines, I'll follow them. Bucking the instructions at a tournament just messes up the results. -- JP Brian DeLong wrote: > Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between > pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale. > Some people are on this 87=average boat, while others place average at > around 78-80ish. I'm no numbers game, nor an expert on the history of > point distribution etc. but I do think more discussion on this scale > should occur. > > Reaching consensus is clearly impossible. People are still going to > fight the good fight against point inflation. > > I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites an > interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap. You will > have judges that fight this interpretation and that's fine, but for > the rest of us who just want to make sure points are allocated fairly > to the debaters it would be a great help to at least find a point of > unity somewhere. Without some point of consistent measurement to work > off of we're going to continue to see some fairly decent judges being > reduced on the pref sheets. A counterargument to this is that maybe > these anti-point inflation crusaders aren't that great of judges to > begin with in the first place. Fair enough. But for those of us who > wish to stay in the realm of preferable judge, whether we are good or > not, some baseline is needed. > > Maybe it would be wise for us to vote on scales of measurement to set > a norm for this community. We have the ability to set up an informal > or formal voting system. This method would at least take the > responsibility off a tournament host from arbitrarily choosing a > baseline scale. > > With that said, I am on board with voting for a point system that > looks like this: > > 30-29.6 = 100-96 > 29.5-29.0=95-90 > 28.9-28.5=85-89 > 28.4-28=79-84 > 27.9-27=78-72 > 26.9-26.0=71-60 > > Thoughts? > > To respond to number's games observations, As Ross Smith once claimed, > the most recent scientific data indicates that we naturally cluster > numbers to help us simplify complex information. 5 and 10 clustering > is only inevitable. > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > From mnady74 at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 23:42:34 2009 From: mnady74 at gmail.com (mark nady) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:42:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Towson (em or jm) Citations Message-ID: backchannel me -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091009/6a3c4e68/attachment.htm From sethegannon at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 06:17:07 2009 From: sethegannon at gmail.com (Seth Gannon) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 07:17:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Next Coaches' Poll -- Ballots due 10/17 In-Reply-To: <4bfbc1090910071307r6a742001r40c69f5b052d0776@mail.gmail.com> References: <4bfbc1090910071307r6a742001r40c69f5b052d0776@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4bfbc1090910090417m69c6f06foa3a3842dc0c15064@mail.gmail.com> I will be accepting ballots between now and the end of the day Saturday October 17th. Expect one or two reminders next week. Original schedule over the summer said 10/10. That was dumb; consider it revised. I had a tremendous time seeing everyone in Lexington. Congratulations to everyone who had a impressive week, particularly Emory for a powerful round robin and MSU for beating the 9/26 poll's top four teams in order one after the next on Monday. Similar congrats to UTSA for their success in Vegas. Thanks as always, Kilgore Trout From greta.stahl at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 10:45:54 2009 From: greta.stahl at gmail.com (Greta Stahl) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 11:45:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] MSU Looking to Hire Judging for Wayne Message-ID: <4acf5ab8.0637560a.2bba.4bc1@mx.google.com> MSU is looking to hire out judging for the Wayne State tournament. If you're interested, please contact me at greta.stahl at gmail.com Greta -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091009/eedba567/attachment.htm From gabejmurillo at yahoo.com Fri Oct 9 11:31:00 2009 From: gabejmurillo at yahoo.com (gabe murillo) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:31:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] 87 Average? In-Reply-To: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> References: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> Message-ID: <621924.96925.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I agree that there needs to be a discussion before tournaments about what the 100 point scale means. When I heard that 87 was average at Kentucky I felt terrible for the people I judged. I don't know if I gave above an 87 and I saw many debaters who I consider definitively above average. My scale starts at 70 and probably averages around 80. 90 and above is a range reserved for very very good performances, I was surprised to find out that this was terribly low compared to the "average". I was even more surprised when people who would have in the past called me a "point fairy" were handing out high 90s. To be frank I don't understand the point of the 100 point scale if 87 is average, but that is neither here nor there. I am willing to adjust my interpretation of the 100 point scale if it is clear that my points are unfair given the community trend. I think we need that discussion and hopefully we can come to some conclusion so the differential created by the 100 point scale isn't just based on randomness. all the best gabe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091009/0cc444a9/attachment.htm From ralph.paone at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 12:22:06 2009 From: ralph.paone at gmail.com (Ralph Paone) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 12:22:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments Message-ID: <86f9bd6d0910091022u7915f0e3h6752b96d41508c12@mail.gmail.com> In the spirit of ranks that nobody will ever respond to (Hi Whit and D-Lo).. I suppose this post is a reaction to a trend I've noticed on e-Debate regarding tournament safety and some things that I noticed over the weekend while at the Clay. My overall point (the short version) is this: Debate is good. Shortening tournament length decrease Debate, and that is bad (part 1). If we are going to make smaller schedules the norm, we should reevaluate the structure of the prelims (part 2). Part I - Against Shortening Tournament Length There seems to be a trend towards having fewer prelim rounds at tournaments. A number of arguments are given in support of this claim, but few are very well explained. Among them are.... Perhaps the best argument that I've heard for having fewer rounds is that debaters will be less tired at the end of the tournament, resulting in better elim day debates for those involved and less fatigue for all debaters returning home to the school work they have put off for the past couple days or weeks. In its strongest articulation, the argument for shortening tournament length has focused on the need to improve the general tournament atmosphere, making debate tournaments more habitable for all. Those who began the movement for shorter tournament -- those to whom I am indebted to and far less wise than -- seemed to notice a troubling tide of over-exhaustion, isolation, and general grumpiness at tournaments. Although I am in general supportive of measures that make tournaments more inviting and community-building, I am not yet convinced that shortening tournament length is the appropriate response, and I hope that other solutions will continue to be experimented with. On face, the argument that we should shorten debate tournaments because people get too tired just seems silly. I'm sure, for example, that basketball players get extremely tired during the course of a regular season game and even more exhausted during a play-off series or a long trip on the road. The solution to this fatigue, however, is not to shorten the length of quarters or the number of games being played during the season. Instead, coaches encourage their players to live a lifestyle off the court that enables them to adequately handle the stress of the game. Debaters are not just exhausted after a tournament because they had an 8th debate, they are exhausted because they've been working on little sleep for days/weeks before the tournament, and often up late enjoying themselves each night of the tournament. Neither of those problems are eliminated by having one less debate. Some might argue that the shorter schedule puts less stress on coaches. Admittedly, I do not know a lot about being a coach, and am perhaps ignorant and in need of a schooling. In my opinion, having 1 fewer debate does little to alleviate coach fatigue except for the coaches of doubles teams who do not have to stay up late preparing for doubles. I don't know what about having one fewer debate causes coaches who stay up all night cutting cards (you know who you are) to suddenly decide that they shouldn't do that and should instead go to sleep. Similar to student fatigue, coach fatigue seems a "problem" of personal decisions made by individual coaches and the ethos of competition that courses through the debate community. * From a debater perspective, I'd much rather have another debate than feel marginally less tired Tuesdays after tournaments. I'm sure those who could have cleared 5-3 but didn't because they were 4-3 would agree with me on this*. I have never heard a good answer to the argument that shortening tournament length denies the majority of teams an extra debate in the name of preserving the energy levels of the select few debating on elim day. I am also curious where the data for the 'we're so tired please don't make us debate another round' argument is coming from. Have any tournaments provided participants with a survey of whether or not they would rather debate an additional round or feel less tired on Monday/Tuesday? I would be curious to hear thoughts on this, as I might be in the minority. In any case, it would be interesting if tournaments began posing these sorts of questions to the participants (judges, debaters, and coaches alike). Part II - Revising Prelim Structure for the Short Schedule If we're going to be shortening tournaments, I think it is absolutely paramount that tab rooms alter the prelim structure to reflect this change. I enjoyed my time in Kentucky this past weekend, but the notion of having 4 preset rounds in a 7 round tournament is *PATENTLY ABSURD*. There is simply not enough time in the three following rounds to effectively derive the top 32 teams via rigorous competition. This is particularly troubling given that most critics are still getting used to the 100 pt scale. Speaker points are more important than ever, but the norms dictating what certain points mean are less certain than ever. This problem is probably solved by beginning to power-match debates after 2 or 3 rounds, and I hope that such a practice is adopted for future large national tournaments that decide to shorten their schedules. (I am aware of course that many smaller tournament already pair prelims like this; I think that Wake did last year?).. As a side note, I think it sort of sucks that teams can go 5-2 at a tournament and still not clear, but maybe there's not much to be done about that. Responses and clarifications would be extremely appreciated, -Ralph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091009/90925b97/attachment.htm From delliott at KCKCC.EDU Fri Oct 9 16:18:03 2009 From: delliott at KCKCC.EDU (Darren Elliott) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:18:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 100 pt scale discussion Message-ID: I completely get and understand what D Lo is saying and where he is coming from. I agree--more discussion probably good. But I would like to see it go a step further--maybe make it into judge philosophies--I will try and do the same. I am less concerned about how judges interpret the scale in comparison to the old 30 point scale, just like it doesnt matter to me how you would compare 100 point scale to a 637 point scale. What matters, and where the conversation should go is HOW do you arrive at the numbers you arrive at? And not in comparison to 30--if we want to move away from 30 why still use it as a comparison? In conversations Ross intimated the 100 pt scale made sense in terms of how we grade in a classroom. So the question should be what kind of "rubric" or "baseline" or "standards" determine the points we assign. How important is CX? 10%? 15%? Is asking CX questions more weighted than answering? Is the scale different for a 1A vs a 2N? I am not sure people have thought long and hard about these issues. Maybe they have. But continuously returning to how does it compare to the 30 point scale seems to miss the point of switching altogether. If I am a 2A, it would be great to know what I gotta do to get a 90 versus an 80 in front of different judges. The 30 point scale became obsolete when the norm became a 27.5/28 and we felt bad about giving lower than a 27. We would never grade this way in a classroom I dont imagine. So if the analogy to the point scale and a grading scale is our starting point, then we need to have some "academic" standards for the end point--the final "grade". While running the tournament this weekend I plan to give more thought into my own objectives for grading. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City Kansas Community College ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Brian DeLong [bdelo77 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 3:35 PM To: Edebate Subject: [eDebate] 87 Average? Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale. Some people are on this 87=average boat, while others place average at around 78-80ish. I'm no numbers game, nor an expert on the history of point distribution etc. but I do think more discussion on this scale should occur. Reaching consensus is clearly impossible. People are still going to fight the good fight against point inflation. I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites an interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap. You will have judges that fight this interpretation and that's fine, but for the rest of us who just want to make sure points are allocated fairly to the debaters it would be a great help to at least find a point of unity somewhere. Without some point of consistent measurement to work off of we're going to continue to see some fairly decent judges being reduced on the pref sheets. A counterargument to this is that maybe these anti-point inflation crusaders aren't that great of judges to begin with in the first place. Fair enough. But for those of us who wish to stay in the realm of preferable judge, whether we are good or not, some baseline is needed. Maybe it would be wise for us to vote on scales of measurement to set a norm for this community. We have the ability to set up an informal or formal voting system. This method would at least take the responsibility off a tournament host from arbitrarily choosing a baseline scale. With that said, I am on board with voting for a point system that looks like this: 30-29.6 = 100-96 29.5-29.0=95-90 28.9-28.5=85-89 28.4-28=79-84 27.9-27=78-72 26.9-26.0=71-60 Thoughts? To respond to number's games observations, As Ross Smith once claimed, the most recent scientific data indicates that we naturally cluster numbers to help us simplify complex information. 5 and 10 clustering is only inevitable. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From lacyjp at wfu.edu Fri Oct 9 17:45:37 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:45:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 87 Average? In-Reply-To: <4ACEB777.9050407@wfu.edu> References: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> <4ACEB777.9050407@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <4ACFBD11.5030308@wfu.edu> JP Lacy wrote: > [Quick summary -- Judges should figure out the "community scale" & use > it unless a tournament publishes other guidelines.] > > > I'm not a numbers person at all. I'm also struggling like everyone > else with the 100 point scale. My point assignment at GSU & Kentucky > was basically lousy. > > My old scale: > > You cheated: 0 > Rude: 26 > Below average = 27.5 > Average = 28 > Clearing = 28.5 > Getting a top 10 speaker award = 29 > Getting a very high speaker award = 29.5 > > I know, this scale is not optimal. Its inflated compared to most > judges, but I don't like being a spoiler. > > Just for fun, I translated my old scale into a 100 point scale. I used > division to do it. > > Translation of my old scale using math: > > Below average = 92 > Average = 93 > Clearing = 95 > Getting a top 10 speaker award = 97 > Getting a very high speaker award = 98 > > Ugh!! That scale is just as bad as the old broken 5 point scale > (27.5-29.5) > > We all know the old scale isn't very good: The important distinctions > (The ones between teams clearing & not, and the ones between the top > speakers) are basically statistical "noise." > > So, the 100 point scale is better. > > I'm a fan of following the judging pool when it comes to points. I > don't think its fair to do otherwise. That does not mean "if you got > good points before, you get them from me." That does mean if your > debating in the round I judge you is "top ten" quality, you get "top > ten" points. > > I eyeballed the Kentucky results & came up with the following scale, > which seems to reflect where the community is going: > > Below average = 83 (Depends.) Debaters are above average students. > Below average competitors don't need a point value to learn how much > worse than mediocre they were, unless they were rude or cheated. > Average = 85 > Clearing (barely)= 87 > Clearing high in your not undefeated bracket = 90 > Getting a top twenty speaker award = 92 > Getting a top ten speaker award = 93 > Getting a top five speaker award = 94 > Top Speaker = 96 > > I won't say "this is the proper scale." I won't say it fixes all the > problems with the old 30 point scale. I will say that after 2 > tournaments, it is the one in use. Out of fairness, I'll stick to it & > adjust it according to how others use it if tournaments don't publish > guidelines. > > I'm completely in favor of tournaments setting ground rules for the > use of the scale: It makes results more meaningful. > > If a tournament publishes guidelines, I'll follow them. Bucking the > instructions at a tournament just messes up the results. > > -- JP > > > > > > > Brian DeLong wrote: >> Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between >> pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale. >> Some people are on this 87=average boat, while others place average >> at around 78-80ish. I'm no numbers game, nor an expert on the >> history of point distribution etc. but I do think more discussion on >> this scale should occur. >> >> Reaching consensus is clearly impossible. People are still going to >> fight the good fight against point inflation. >> >> I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites >> an interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap. You >> will have judges that fight this interpretation and that's fine, but >> for the rest of us who just want to make sure points are allocated >> fairly to the debaters it would be a great help to at least find a >> point of unity somewhere. Without some point of consistent >> measurement to work off of we're going to continue to see some >> fairly decent judges being reduced on the pref sheets. A >> counterargument to this is that maybe these anti-point inflation >> crusaders aren't that great of judges to begin with in the first >> place. Fair enough. But for those of us who wish to stay in the >> realm of preferable judge, whether we are good or not, some baseline >> is needed. >> >> Maybe it would be wise for us to vote on scales of measurement to >> set a norm for this community. We have the ability to set up an >> informal or formal voting system. This method would at least take >> the responsibility off a tournament host from arbitrarily choosing >> a baseline scale. >> >> With that said, I am on board with voting for a point system that >> looks like this: >> >> 30-29.6 = 100-96 >> 29.5-29.0=95-90 >> 28.9-28.5=85-89 >> 28.4-28=79-84 >> 27.9-27=78-72 >> 26.9-26.0=71-60 >> >> Thoughts? >> >> To respond to number's games observations, As Ross Smith once >> claimed, the most recent scientific data indicates that we naturally >> cluster numbers to help us simplify complex information. 5 and 10 >> clustering is only inevitable. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> >> > > From sethegannon at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 21:51:33 2009 From: sethegannon at gmail.com (Seth Gannon) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 22:51:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Next Coaches' Poll -- Ballots due 10/17 In-Reply-To: <4bfbc1090910071307r6a742001r40c69f5b052d0776@mail.gmail.com> References: <4bfbc1090910071307r6a742001r40c69f5b052d0776@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4bfbc1090910091951r201ab2fcldbaf4bbe937d8bd@mail.gmail.com> Hello? Is anyone home? Hello? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Seth Gannon Date: Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:07 PM Subject: Next Coaches' Poll -- Ballots due 10/17 To: edebate at ndtceda.com I will be accepting ballots between now and the end of the day Saturday October 17th. Expect one or two more reminders next week. Original schedule over the summer said 10/10. That was dumb; consider it revised. I had a tremendous time seeing everyone in Lexington. Congratulations to everyone who had a impressive week, particularly Emory for a powerful round robin and MSU for beating the 9/26 poll's top four teams in order one after the next on Monday. Similar congrats to UTSA for their success in Vegas. Thanks as always, Kilgore Trout From davismk13 at gmail.com Sat Oct 10 08:54:15 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:54:15 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] Rounds for sale at Harvard Message-ID: <9a7f6f740910100654g63b27e9eg87811b6c448709f3@mail.gmail.com> JMU has 7 rounds for sale at Harvard. Please let me know if you are interested. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091010/cc20ed9f/attachment.htm From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Sat Oct 10 09:17:28 2009 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:17:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Extra Judges for Emporia Tournament Message-ID: <7fd76c680910100717g32e8491an8884d27008636927@mail.gmail.com> ESU is looking to hire and house judges for our tournament. If you are interested, let me know. We will hire current debaters to judge JV/Novice provided that I am satisfied you understand the pedagogical importance of being a helpful teacher during the decision. If you are a judge who is thinking about hiring-out to a school that needs your rounds to fill their commitment but you can't find a place to stay, send me an email and we'll figure something out. We pay well for judging in cash and we are very hospitable towards our extra judges. Sam -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091010/d7ba6400/attachment.htm From goody5534 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 10 10:18:16 2009 From: goody5534 at hotmail.com (rob goodrich) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:18:16 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Judging for Harvard and West Point Message-ID: Hello all: I am available for a full commitment at both of these tournaments. Cost is negotiable. Please back channel me goody5534 at hotmail.com or goodrich007 at wcsu.edu. Sincerely, Robbie Goodrich WCSU May 2009 Graduate 2 years of Policy Debate Experience Currently Taking Grad Courses and Volunteering for Dr. Wilcox _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091010/f328f73f/attachment.htm From odekirk.scott at gmail.com Sat Oct 10 13:10:48 2009 From: odekirk.scott at gmail.com (scott odekirk) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:10:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 4 rounds for sale at Harvard Message-ID: <724663690910101110v64b29cacuef7e8ed5ab1e7663@mail.gmail.com> I charge $30 cash per round. Who is in? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091010/d0555cc1/attachment.htm From zachwesterfield at hotmail.com Sat Oct 10 23:10:22 2009 From: zachwesterfield at hotmail.com (Zach Westerfield) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:10:22 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] what needs to happen to make edebate work? In-Reply-To: <655736.43419.qm@web50205.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <655736.43419.qm@web50205.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Debate Community, There has been discussion for some time about moving away from the current list serve at www.ndtceda.com. I know that the current set up is quite a strain, both in terms of bandwidth and financially, on Phil Kerpen, who has been gracious enough to keep, maintain, and provide this forum to the community. While coaching at the University of Denver, Jared Ellis and myself thought that we might be able to design a new way for the community to interact. Though neither of us coach debate in an official capacity at the University of Denver anymore (we moved into the private sector), both of us still do what we can to help DU out, judge at a few tournaments per year, and keep abreast of what?s happening in the community. We got quite a bit of experience with information sharing after moving DU over to paperless debate a few years ago, and one of the technical things we thought we?d tackle is finding a replacement for ndtceda.com. We agree with Joe, the current list serve is slow, archaic, annoying and in need of a serious upgrade. That?s not an indictment in any way, shape or form on Phil, it?s just that we thought it was time to move forward with something different. The new site that we?ve developed is at www.edebate.com It?s up, running, and modeled after a number of the social networking sites that currently exist. It?s designed to cater to the academic debate community. Feel free to try it out. If you can use facebook, you can use this site. Here are some of the features of the site: ? Multiple Forum discussions can be created ? Tournament information pages/updates/results can be created and archived for easy reference in the future ? User profiles ? Team profiles - keep people updated about your team ? The ability to keep debate information in one central location ? Private emails between users ? no more ?cite requests? sent to every users e-mail account ? Chat feature for people logged into the site ? Ability to upload pictures and full length videos ? Events can be added ? Groups can be created ? It?s 100% free to the debate community. No donations or other financial assistance are needed. Lastly, we all care about the debate community. If other people have ideas, or requests, we have the ability to make some changes and modifications to the site. We?d like to grow the site as the community changes, advances, and continues to move toward a paperless format. Thanks, Zach Westerfield Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:42:37 -0700 From: joe_koehle at yahoo.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] what needs to happen to make edebate work? Edebate never runs on time anymore. Mail is constantly getting delivered days after it was sent, meaning that the listserv is not capable of reliably handling tournament announcements and results because we never know how long things will be out there in the ether. It's time to talk about possible solutions...should there be another donation drive so that Phil can fix the server issues? Is someone else willing to step up to the plate and host a new listserv? Should people capitulate using to the CEDA message board thing? Other ideas? _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091010/8efb783c/attachment.htm From goody5534 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 11 14:00:18 2009 From: goody5534 at hotmail.com (rob goodrich) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:00:18 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Judge for Hire: Harvard and West Point Message-ID: I am available for a Full Commitment at either or both tournaments. Please back channel me at goody5534 at hotmail.com. Robbie Goodrich WCSU Debate _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091011/87bd0346/attachment.html From kkuswa at richmond.edu Sun Oct 11 20:58:43 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:58:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] (no subject) Message-ID: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD1A47B0@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Thanks to everyone for the hard work thus far. All judges are obligated in the morning. Following the schedule, we will post pairings on campus at 7:20 and the rounds will start at 8:15 on the dot. Coaching must cease at 8:00AM. TEAMS CLEARING, RICHMOND TOURNAMENT 2009 NOVICE Bing BeGl Bing BuLi Bing DaSi Bing KoZg Cornell LeSc GMU BaGa John Carroll BrBu John Carroll HoMa Liberty MoWa Liberty QuWo Librty BuMc Librty LaSi Librty LuSt (XX) Pitt MiMy USMA AdBe USMA FoDe (DD) USMA PiWa JUNIOR VARSITY Bing JaTi CUNY ClFo GMU CoTh Liberty ArEl Liberty AuJo Liberty DaTh Liberty LaTr Samford DeLe Wayne JuMe OPEN Cornell HiKa George Wash HeOl Georgia State GrSc GMU HeOf Harvard SaSm Harvard JoSm Harvard StTa Lbrty GaWo Liberty DiGa Liberty PoTu Librty AtBa Mary Wash SaSl Navy AvPa Pitt KuSo Wayne JaPa Wayne KaSi West Georgia BoGa West Georgia McSi Congrats to all! kevin From kkuswa at richmond.edu Sun Oct 11 21:34:42 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:34:42 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] judge list for the morning Message-ID: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD1A47B3@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> NO TEXT MESSAGES IN THE MORNING. Thus: judges and stand-by for the morning... Bowman D'Amico Bellon Wiley Hausrath Hall, Sh Hall, He Pomorski Galloway Webster Waldinger Reid, Sh. Frobish Perkins Evans ________________________________ From: Kuswa, Kevin Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:58 PM To: Kuswa, Kevin; Luchetti, M. Scott (scottL at airlinemuseum.com); Congdon, Kelly Cc: mstruth at gmail.com; tomogorman at gmail.com; ceda-l at ndtceda.com; edebate at ndtceda.com; vikeenan at gmail.com Subject: Thanks to everyone for the hard work thus far. All judges are obligated in the morning. Following the schedule, we will post pairings on campus at 7:20 and the rounds will start at 8:15 on the dot. Coaching must cease at 8:00AM. TEAMS CLEARING, RICHMOND TOURNAMENT 2009 NOVICE Bing BeGl Bing BuLi Bing DaSi Bing KoZg Cornell LeSc GMU BaGa John Carroll BrBu John Carroll HoMa Liberty MoWa Liberty QuWo Librty BuMc Librty LaSi Librty LuSt (XX) Pitt MiMy USMA AdBe USMA FoDe (DD) USMA PiWa JUNIOR VARSITY Bing JaTi CUNY ClFo GMU CoTh Liberty ArEl Liberty AuJo Liberty DaTh Liberty LaTr Samford DeLe Wayne JuMe OPEN Cornell HiKa George Wash HeOl Georgia State GrSc GMU HeOf Harvard SaSm Harvard JoSm Harvard StTa Lbrty GaWo Liberty DiGa Liberty PoTu Librty AtBa Mary Wash SaSl Navy AvPa Pitt KuSo Wayne JaPa Wayne KaSi West Georgia BoGa West Georgia McSi Congrats to all! kevin From brettfarmer at gmail.com Sun Oct 11 22:34:32 2009 From: brettfarmer at gmail.com (Brett Farmer) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:34:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate School Inquiry for Fall 2010 Message-ID: My name is Brett Farmer, I am a fifth-year senior at Kansas State University. I will be graduating in May of 2010, with my bachelors in Philosophy, American Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies. I am interested in pursuing graduate study in Rhetoric or Interpersonal Communication. As well as an interest in pursuing a communication degree, I am a five year member of the Kansas State Debate team, and I have been involed in cross-eximamination debate for nine years. This is experience I would hope to bring to you debate team, while pursuing my graduate studies. Any information on/from schools that are accepting application and that have assistantships would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Brett Farmer -- Brett Farmer Debate Team Co-President Kansas State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091011/ca4b6c85/attachment.htm From brettfarmer at gmail.com Sun Oct 11 22:39:40 2009 From: brettfarmer at gmail.com (Brett Farmer) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:39:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate school inquiry for Fall 2010 Message-ID: My name is Brett Farmer, I am a fifth-year senior at Kansas State University. I will be graduating in May of 2010, with my bachelors in Philosophy, American Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies. I am interested in pursuing graduate study in Rhetoric or Interpersonal Communication. As well as an interest in pursuing a communication degree, I am a five year member of the Kansas State Debate team, and I have been involed in cross-eximamination debate for nine years. This is experience I would hope to bring to you debate team, while pursuing my graduate studies. Any information on schools that are accepting application and that have assistantships would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Brett Farmer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091011/e7aa5f29/attachment.htm From brettfarmer at gmail.com Sun Oct 11 22:46:49 2009 From: brettfarmer at gmail.com (Brett Farmer) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:46:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate school inquiry for Fall 2010 Message-ID: My name is Brett Farmer, I am a fifth-year senior at Kansas State University. I will be graduating in May of 2010, with my bachelors in Philosophy, American Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies. I am interested in pursuing graduate study in Rhetoric or Interpersonal Communication. As well as an interest in pursuing a communication degree, I am a five year member of the Kansas State Debate team, and I have been involed in cross-eximamination debate for nine years. This is experience I would hope to bring to you debate team, while pursuing my graduate studies. Any information on schools that are accepting application and that have assistantships would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Brett Farmer -- Brett Farmer Debate Team Co-President Kansas State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091011/932e56b9/attachment.htm From brettfarmer at gmail.com Sun Oct 11 22:57:23 2009 From: brettfarmer at gmail.com (Brett Farmer) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:57:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate school inquiry for Fall 2010 Message-ID: I am a fifth-year senior at Kansas State University. I will be graduating in May of 2010, with my bachelors in Philosophy, American Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies. I am interested in pursuing graduate study in Rhetoric or Interpersonal Communication. As well as an interest in pursuing a communication degree, I am a five year member of the Kansas State Debate team, and I have been involed in cross-eximamination debate for nine years. This is experience I would hope to bring to you debate team, while pursuing my graduate studies. Any information on/from schools that are accepting application and that have assistantships would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Brett Farmer -- Brett Farmer Debate Team Co-President Kansas State University From brettfarmer at gmail.com Sun Oct 11 23:02:54 2009 From: brettfarmer at gmail.com (Brett Farmer) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:02:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate school inquiry for Fall 2010 Message-ID: I am a fifth-year senior at Kansas State University. I will be graduating in May of 2010, with my bachelors in Philosophy, American Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies. I am interested in pursuing graduate study in Rhetoric or Interpersonal Communication. As well as an interest in pursuing a communication degree, I am a five year member of the Kansas State Debate team, and I have been involed in cross-eximamination debate for nine years. This is experience I would hope to bring to you debate team, while pursuing my graduate studies. Any information on/from schools that are accepting application and that have assistantships would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Brett Farmer -- Brett Farmer Debate Team Co-President Kansas State University From brettf at ksu.edu Sun Oct 11 23:14:42 2009 From: brettf at ksu.edu (Brett Farmer) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:14:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate school inquiry for Fall 2010 Message-ID: I am a fifth-year senior at Kansas State University. I will be graduating in May of 2010, with my bachelors in Philosophy, American Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies. I am interested in pursuing graduate study in Rhetoric or Interpersonal Communication. As well as an interest in pursuing a communication degree, I am a five year member of the Kansas State Debate team, and I have been involed in cross-eximamination debate for nine years. This is experience I would hope to bring to you debate team, while pursuing my graduate studies. Any information on schools that are accepting application and that have assistantships would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Brett Farmer -- Brett Farmer Debate Team Co-President Kansas State University From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Sun Oct 11 23:30:29 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:30:29 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Kansas State Message-ID: <0F3D786F5AB54997971245ACF9AF0C05@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Soul of America Starts:2/12/2010 Ends:2/14/2010 Hosted by: Kansas State Contact: Justin Green Address: 129 Nichols Hall Manhattan, KS 66506 Phone: 703-855-6177 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From brettf at ksu.edu Sun Oct 11 23:31:50 2009 From: brettf at ksu.edu (Brett Farmer) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:31:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate school inquiry for Fall 2010 Message-ID: I am a fifth-year senior at Kansas State University. I will be graduating in May of 2010, with my bachelors in Philosophy, American Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies. I am interested in pursuing graduate study in Rhetoric or Interpersonal Communication. As well as an interest in pursuing a communication degree, I am a five year member of the Kansas State Debate team, and I have been involed in cross-eximamination debate for nine years. This is experience I would hope to bring to you debate team, while pursuing my graduate studies. Any information on/from schools that are accepting application and that have assistantships would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Brett Farmer -- Brett Farmer Debate Team Co-President Kansas State University From brettf at ksu.edu Sun Oct 11 23:31:50 2009 From: brettf at ksu.edu (Brett Farmer) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:31:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate school inquiry for Fall 2010 Message-ID: I am a fifth-year senior at Kansas State University. I will be graduating in May of 2010, with my bachelors in Philosophy, American Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies. I am interested in pursuing graduate study in Rhetoric or Interpersonal Communication. As well as an interest in pursuing a communication degree, I am a five year member of the Kansas State Debate team, and I have been involed in cross-eximamination debate for nine years. This is experience I would hope to bring to you debate team, while pursuing my graduate studies. Any information on/from schools that are accepting application and that have assistantships would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Brett Farmer -- Brett Farmer Debate Team Co-President Kansas State University From edebate at anumbersgame.net Sun Oct 11 23:36:41 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:36:41 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] 87 Average? In-Reply-To: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> References: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> Message-ID: <739f03b0910112136l2a319897sdf8cf6749bfd7027@mail.gmail.com> Longer response with charts at: http://blog.anumbersgame.net/2009/10/ross-k-smith-scale-and-standards.html Shorter inline response, with additional notes, below: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Brian DeLong wrote: > Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between > pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale. By at least one measure there is quite a bit more judge variance this year than at Kentucky tournaments from years past. Where 1.0 would indicate an equal point scale among all judges, the Kentucky tournament jumped from 1.54 to 2.30 in the last year. (for details, see link above) >?Without some point of consistent measurement to work > off of we're going to continue to see some fairly decent judges being > reduced on the pref sheets. Will Repko made a similar point in 2007, pointing out that Aaron Hardy gives lower points overall, but he is still preferred. Repko suggests a lifetime judge variance system to fix the incentive to pref judges just because they often give high points: http://www.mail-archive.com/edebate at www.ndtceda.com/msg03271.html mirrors: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.education.region.usa.edebate/3402 http://osdir.com/ml/education.region.usa.edebate/2007-11/msg00029.html http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2007-November/072838.html > Maybe it would be wise for us to vote on scales of measurement to set > a norm for this community. We have the ability to set up an informal > or formal voting system. If we match up the point distributions from Kentucky in 2008 and 2009, the pool engaged in a vote, in some sense. Matching percentiles: 26.0 is 72 (at ~0.7%) 26.5 is 75 (at ~2.3%) 27.0 is 80 (at ~10.5%) 27.5 is 84.5 (at ~29.5%) 28.0 is 88 (at ~59.7%) 28.5 is 91 (at ~84.7%) 29.0 is 94 (at ~96.3%) 29.5 is 98 (at ~99.8%) This scale is much higher than the scale suggested below or the one suggested by Hester. Either one of those scales would be serious point deflation compared to Kentucky this year. (I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing) (For charts, see the link at the top of this message) > With that said, I am on board with voting for a point system that > looks like this: > > 30-29.6 = 100-96 > 29.5-29.0=95-90 > 28.9-28.5=85-89 > 28.4-28=79-84 > 27.9-27=78-72 > 26.9-26.0=71-60 > > Thoughts? This is pretty close to a very easy to remember system: subtract 20, multiply by 10. 26.5 becomes 65, 28 becomes 80, etc. > To respond to number's games observations, As Ross Smith once claimed, > the most recent scientific data indicates that we naturally cluster > numbers to help us simplify complex information. ?5 and 10 clustering > is only inevitable. I googled around for this, but I couldn't find the right keywords. (Not that I doubt it; I just wanted to read more) When USC mentioned 2_.3 and 2_.8 as benchmarks in their 30-by-0.1 scale, it produced clustering around those values. Perhaps a consensus around a scale like the one you suggest above, with breaks at 71/72, 78/79, 84/85, 89/90, and 95/96, will produce a different set of cluster points. Maybe the fact that there's no clustering around whole-point values in the 30-by-0.5 scale is a sign that a scale change is needed. (If the other signs aren't convincing) From edebate at anumbersgame.net Mon Oct 12 00:38:23 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:38:23 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] 87 Average? In-Reply-To: <739f03b0910112136l2a319897sdf8cf6749bfd7027@mail.gmail.com> References: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> <739f03b0910112136l2a319897sdf8cf6749bfd7027@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <739f03b0910112238l2ec8b128lb8fb8dd87f3beba0@mail.gmail.com> > By at least one measure there is quite a bit more judge variance this > year than at Kentucky tournaments from years past. Where 1.0 would > indicate an equal point scale among all judges, the Kentucky > tournament jumped from 1.54 to 2.30 in the last year. (for details, > see link above) Also of note: there was no jump in judge scale variance when Wake moved to a 100-point scale. Wake provided a full page of instructions on how to use the new scale: http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/DixieClassic/Shirley%20Information%202007.pdf Their scale is much closer to the scale implicitly chosen by the pool at Kentucky in 2009 that it is to the scales suggested by DeLong and Hester: 26 is 70, rather than 60. From tews.rich at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 09:30:08 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:30:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to KCKCC Message-ID: <50002ace0910120730v685e6ad4qf29d4b3ff2f96c7b@mail.gmail.com> I just want to publicly thank Chief and all the Blue Devils for a great weekend. The competition was great, the hospitality was awesome, and best of all I didn't have to fly across half the country to get there! Seriously this is a great central location with a great group of people running this tournament and more of you should come. tews -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091012/7dd948c7/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Oct 12 09:35:33 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:35:33 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by John Carroll Univers Message-ID: <01BED2866C464AF881AF65FFE16F2CE0@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Austin J. Freeley at John Carroll Universiity Starts:12/4/2009 Ends:12/6/2009 Hosted by: John Carroll Univers Contact: Brent Brossmann Address: 20700 North Park Blvd, University Heights Phone: 216-397-4365 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From andy.edebate at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 10:46:20 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:46:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion seeks West Point Judging In-Reply-To: <25fd497f0910081515o2589c82dn16c1b02e573fc2ae@mail.gmail.com> References: <25fd497f0910081515o2589c82dn16c1b02e573fc2ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0910120846o2e3617bej565dda9572ee11d6@mail.gmail.com> Can us free agent judges start asking for pay in euros? On 10/8/09, James Lyle wrote: > This will probably be posted after the tournament is over but...we're > looking to hire at least 3 rounds. Hit me up if interested. Pay in > cash, American dollars, and/or Skittles. > > Jim > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Sent from my mobile device From EMarlow at uco.edu Mon Oct 12 10:52:42 2009 From: EMarlow at uco.edu (Eric Marlow) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:52:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need one double room for Harvard Message-ID: <75671A9DCD21974888C9A2E5E4937B6451E9894121@EXCHANGE.uco.local> If anyone is going to be releasing a double room at Harvard, can you please let me know. Thanks!! Peace, Marlow Eric Marlow Director of Debate University of Central Oklahoma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091012/b9901172/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5675 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091012/b9901172/attachment.jpg From mnady74 at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 11:22:09 2009 From: mnady74 at gmail.com (mark nady) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:22:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Any Towson (em or jm) Citations Message-ID: backchannel me -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091012/70c6dc8b/attachment.htm From repkowil at msu.edu Mon Oct 12 12:58:49 2009 From: repkowil at msu.edu (repkowil at msu.edu) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:58:49 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] MSU Looking to hire judging for Wayne Tourney Message-ID: <20091012135849.199729w4cb40hdg9@mail.msu.edu> Interested parties can backchannel Greta Stahl at: greta.stahl at gmail.com First-come, first-serve. -- Will -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091012/f7dd413e/attachment.htm From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 13:22:36 2009 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:22:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Rounds for Pflaum Message-ID: <7fd76c680910121122y5293fcaeof8c02e6760424319@mail.gmail.com> Kelly Thompson has indicated to me that he can sell 6 rounds of pre-lims for the pflaum. If anyone is interested, contact him at kmikethompson at gmail.com Sam -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091012/071b4881/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 14:36:16 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:36:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 87 Average? In-Reply-To: <4ACEB777.9050407@wfu.edu> References: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> <4ACEB777.9050407@wfu.edu> Message-ID: I basically used a scale very similar to the one JP settled on at the end of his email for both GSU and UK. However, I am really troubled by those judges who are trending MUCH lower and assuming the "average" points means all "average" debaters should get those numbers or, in many cases, lower. As the great Ross Smith told me six of so years ago "you shouldnt punish teams for wanting to prefer you as a judge." It is doubly dangerous to over-adjust down because we are also compressing prelims at all major tournaments. The combination of these trends makes every judge who is starting at the low end of the spectrum a real disadvantage for the teams the prefer them. I really do not like the idea of having to move judges I think are very good down simply because they have decided to embrace a lower than average scale. Josh On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:09 AM, JP Lacy wrote: > [Quick summary -- Judges should figure out the "community scale" & use > it unless a tournament publishes other guidelines.] > > > I'm not a numbers person at all. I'm also struggling like everyone else > with the 100 point scale. My point assignment at GSU & Kentucky was > basically lousy. > > My old scale: > > You cheated: 0 > Rude: 26 > Below average = 27.5 > Average = 28 > Clearing = 28.5 > Getting a top 10 speaker award = 29 > Getting a very high speaker award = 29.5 > > I know, this scale is not optimal. Its inflated compared to most judges, > but I don't like being a spoiler. > > Just for fun, I translated my old scale into a 100 point scale. I used > division to do it. > > Translation of my old scale using math: > > Below average = 92 > Average = 93 > Clearing = 95 > Getting a top 10 speaker award = 97 > Getting a very high speaker award = 98 > > Ugh!! That scale is just as bad as the old broken 5 point scale (27.5-29.5) > > We all know the old scale isn't very good: The important distinctions > (The ones between teams clearing & not, and the ones between the top > speakers) are basically statistical "noise." > > So, the 100 point scale is better. > > I'm a fan of following the judging pool when it comes to points. I don't > think its fair to do otherwise. That does not mean "if you got good > points before, you get them from me." That does mean if your debating in > the round I judge you is "top ten" quality, you get "top ten" points. > > I eyeballed the Kentucky results & came up with the following scale, > which seems to reflect where the community is going: > > Below average = 83 (Depends.) Debaters are above average students. Below > average competitors don't need a point value to learn how much worse > than mediocre they were, unless they were rude or cheated. > Average = 85 > Clearing (barely)= 87 > Clearing high in your not undefeated bracket = 90 > Getting a top twenty speaker award = 92 > Getting a top ten speaker award = 93 > Getting a top five speaker award = 94 > Top Speaker = 96 > > I won't say "this is the proper scale." I won't say it fixes all the > problems with the old 30 point scale. I will say that after 2 > tournaments, it is the one in use. Out of fairness, I'll stick to it & > adjust it according to how others use it if tournaments don't publish > guidelines. > > I'm completely in favor of tournaments setting ground rules for the use > of the scale: It makes results more meaningful. > > If a tournament publishes guidelines, I'll follow them. Bucking the > instructions at a tournament just messes up the results. > > -- JP > > > > > > > Brian DeLong wrote: > > Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between > > pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale. > > Some people are on this 87=average boat, while others place average at > > around 78-80ish. I'm no numbers game, nor an expert on the history of > > point distribution etc. but I do think more discussion on this scale > > should occur. > > > > Reaching consensus is clearly impossible. People are still going to > > fight the good fight against point inflation. > > > > I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites an > > interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap. You will > > have judges that fight this interpretation and that's fine, but for > > the rest of us who just want to make sure points are allocated fairly > > to the debaters it would be a great help to at least find a point of > > unity somewhere. Without some point of consistent measurement to work > > off of we're going to continue to see some fairly decent judges being > > reduced on the pref sheets. A counterargument to this is that maybe > > these anti-point inflation crusaders aren't that great of judges to > > begin with in the first place. Fair enough. But for those of us who > > wish to stay in the realm of preferable judge, whether we are good or > > not, some baseline is needed. > > > > Maybe it would be wise for us to vote on scales of measurement to set > > a norm for this community. We have the ability to set up an informal > > or formal voting system. This method would at least take the > > responsibility off a tournament host from arbitrarily choosing a > > baseline scale. > > > > With that said, I am on board with voting for a point system that > > looks like this: > > > > 30-29.6 = 100-96 > > 29.5-29.0=95-90 > > 28.9-28.5=85-89 > > 28.4-28=79-84 > > 27.9-27=78-72 > > 26.9-26.0=71-60 > > > > Thoughts? > > > > To respond to number's games observations, As Ross Smith once claimed, > > the most recent scientific data indicates that we naturally cluster > > numbers to help us simplify complex information. 5 and 10 clustering > > is only inevitable. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091012/2ef05775/attachment.htm From kearney.debate at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 20:49:50 2009 From: kearney.debate at gmail.com (Mike Kearney) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:49:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 87 Average? In-Reply-To: <621924.96925.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> <621924.96925.qm@web32704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9d4609f90910121849g2ca79b13u837af66003b0c23e@mail.gmail.com> It seems like all of these scales for 'average' are fairly arbitrary. Everyone knows that a 27.5-28.0 is average on the 30 point scale, so why don't we use that average to formulate a better 100 point scale? Ermo has been suggesting for over a year that we take a score on a 30-point-scale, minus 20, and multiple by 10 (OR, just erase the 2 from 28.5 and move the decimal over to the right. Thus, 28.5 becomes 85). This makes sense to me because there is a clear reference point and it gives more flexibility between a 28.0 (80) and a 28.5 (85). Other scales are pretty close to this but the translation from a 30 point score to a 100 point score would be more definite with this one. Here's what the scale would look like- 29.5 = 95 29.0 = 90 28.5 = 85 28.0 = 80 27.5 = 75 27.0 = 70 26.5 = 65 26.0 = lol On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:31 AM, gabe murillo wrote: > > I agree that there needs to be a discussion before tournaments about what > the 100 point scale means. When I heard that 87 was average at Kentucky I > felt terrible for the people I judged. I don't know if I gave above an 87 > and I saw many debaters who I consider definitively above average. My scale > starts at 70 and probably averages around 80. 90 and above is a range > reserved for very very good performances, I was surprised to find out that > this was terribly low compared to the "average". I was even more surprised > when people who would have in the past called me a "point fairy" were > handing out high 90s. To be frank I don't understand the point of the 100 > point scale if 87 is average, but that is neither here nor there. I am > willing to adjust my interpretation of the 100 point scale if it is clear > that my points are unfair given the community trend. I think we need that > discussion and hopefully we can come to some conclusion so the differential > created by the 100 point scale isn't just based on randomness. > all the best > gabe > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20091012/5d2f99c2/attachment.htm From kurtfifelski at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 21:18:12 2009 From: kurtfifelski at gmail.com (Kurt Fifelski) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:18:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Emporia rounds for sale Message-ID: <7f3f88440910121918p38e47471hc9eb55e0d7a4f791@mail.gmail.com> Kelly Thompson has 6 available rounds for the Pflaum this weekend. He can be contacted at kmikethompson at gmail.com. -- -Kurt Fifelski KurtFifelski at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091012/93a7b1e0/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 22:00:54 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:00:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments In-Reply-To: <86f9bd6d0910091022u7915f0e3h6752b96d41508c12@mail.gmail.com> References: <86f9bd6d0910091022u7915f0e3h6752b96d41508c12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: We are trying to simultaneously reduce prelims, increase point-spreads, and decrease power-matched rounds....It seems to mean less rounds for teams after we spend a TON to travel them, make clearing more random and potentially related entirely to speaker points, and also make elim days better....I sure havent noticed a particularly shorter tournament day except on mondays. I am not necessarily against any of the changes, but the rush to accomplish everything at once seems to have really created some wackiness, Josh On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Ralph Paone wrote: > In the spirit of ranks that nobody will ever respond to (Hi Whit and > D-Lo).. > > I suppose this post is a reaction to a trend I've noticed on e-Debate > regarding tournament safety and some things that I noticed over the weekend > while at the Clay. > > My overall point (the short version) is this: Debate is good. Shortening > tournament length decrease Debate, and that is bad (part 1). If we are > going to make smaller schedules the norm, we should reevaluate the structure > of the prelims (part 2). > > Part I - Against Shortening Tournament Length > > There seems to be a trend towards having fewer prelim rounds at > tournaments. A number of arguments are given in support of this claim, but > few are very well explained. Among them are.... Perhaps the best > argument that I've heard for having fewer rounds is that debaters will be > less tired at the end of the tournament, resulting in better elim day > debates for those involved and less fatigue for all debaters returning home > to the school work they have put off for the past couple days or weeks. In > its strongest articulation, the argument for shortening tournament length > has focused on the need to improve the general tournament atmosphere, making > debate tournaments more habitable for all. Those who began the movement for > shorter tournament -- those to whom I am indebted to and far less wise than > -- seemed to notice a troubling tide of over-exhaustion, isolation, and > general grumpiness at tournaments. Although I am in general supportive of > measures that make tournaments more inviting and community-building, I am > not yet convinced that shortening tournament length is the appropriate > response, and I hope that other solutions will continue to be experimented > with. > > On face, the argument that we should shorten debate tournaments because > people get too tired just seems silly. I'm sure, for example, that > basketball players get extremely tired during the course of a regular season > game and even more exhausted during a play-off series or a long trip on the > road. The solution to this fatigue, however, is not to shorten the length > of quarters or the number of games being played during the season. Instead, > coaches encourage their players to live a lifestyle off the court that > enables them to adequately handle the stress of the game. Debaters are not > just exhausted after a tournament because they had an 8th debate, they are > exhausted because they've been working on little sleep for days/weeks before > the tournament, and often up late enjoying themselves each night of the > tournament. Neither of those problems are eliminated by having one less > debate. Some might argue that the shorter schedule puts less stress on > coaches. Admittedly, I do not know a lot about being a coach, and am > perhaps ignorant and in need of a schooling. In my opinion, having 1 fewer > debate does little to alleviate coach fatigue except for the coaches of > doubles teams who do not have to stay up late preparing for doubles. I > don't know what about having one fewer debate causes coaches who stay up all > night cutting cards (you know who you are) to suddenly decide that they > shouldn't do that and should instead go to sleep. Similar to student > fatigue, coach fatigue seems a "problem" of personal decisions made by > individual coaches and the ethos of competition that courses through the > debate community. * From a debater perspective, I'd much rather have > another debate than feel marginally less tired Tuesdays after tournaments. > I'm sure those who could have cleared 5-3 but didn't because they were 4-3 > would agree with me on this*. I have never heard a good answer to the > argument that shortening tournament length denies the majority of teams an > extra debate in the name of preserving the energy levels of the select few > debating on elim day. > > I am also curious where the data for the 'we're so tired please don't make > us debate another round' argument is coming from. Have any tournaments > provided participants with a survey of whether or not they would rather > debate an additional round or feel less tired on Monday/Tuesday? I would be > curious to hear thoughts on this, as I might be in the minority. In any > case, it would be interesting if tournaments began posing these sorts of > questions to the participants (judges, debaters, and coaches alike). > > Part II - Revising Prelim Structure for the Short Schedule > > If we're going to be shortening tournaments, I think it is absolutely > paramount that tab rooms alter the prelim structure to reflect this change. > I enjoyed my time in Kentucky this past weekend, but the notion of having 4 > preset rounds in a 7 round tournament is *PATENTLY ABSURD*. There is > simply not enough time in the three following rounds to effectively derive > the top 32 teams via rigorous competition. This is particularly troubling > given that most critics are still getting used to the 100 pt scale. Speaker > points are more important than ever, but the norms dictating what certain > points mean are less certain than ever. > > This problem is probably solved by beginning to power-match debates after 2 > or 3 rounds, and I hope that such a practice is adopted for future large > national tournaments that decide to shorten their schedules. (I am aware of > course that many smaller tournament already pair prelims like this; I think > that Wake did last year?).. > > As a side note, I think it sort of sucks that teams can go 5-2 at a > tournament and still not clear, but maybe there's not much to be done about > that. > > Responses and clarifications would be extremely appreciated, > > -Ralph > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20091012/c803ca24/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Mon Oct 12 21:58:26 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:58:26 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] plus tab 2.1 available now (debate tab program) Message-ID: Plus Tab 2.1 has now been released. Plus Tab is a free debate tab program that emphasizes ease of use and lots of features. 2.1 has over 100 improvements versus 2.0 (admittedly, many are pretty small improvements but each adds up to a smooth experience tabbing tournaments). We STRONGLY recommend that ALL users of versions 2.070a and earlier upgrade. You just need Excel 2003 or 2007 for Windows. http://www.plustab.com/?s=download jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091012/b9767058/attachment.htm From gregachten at berkeley.edu Mon Oct 12 23:27:24 2009 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:27:24 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments In-Reply-To: <86f9bd6d0910091022u7915f0e3h6752b96d41508c12@mail.gmail.com> References: <86f9bd6d0910091022u7915f0e3h6752b96d41508c12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6d9b42f5d2af6d70bb2957f1b914ee4c.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> I too have been thinking about this a great deal and spent a long time at Kentucky talking to people about this very issue and was actually planning on posting to edebate sometime this week so I thank Ralph for motivating me to sit down and write this. As many of you know I am a big advocate of 6 round tournaments. I think in general 8 round tournaments with 5 elims on Monday are an anachronism from a time when debates actually took 2 hours and we could start at 8 AM and be done by 7 PM. Of course the heightened complexity of debates and the extended decision making times that have corresponded along with the increased demands for pre-round preparation have made this model largely obsolete. I think there is an emerging consensus in the community that 8 round tournaments are not healthy for the community, witness that among the major national tournaments only Harvard, CEDA and the NDT maintain 8 prelims and two of those are 4 day tournaments and Harvard only clears to an octafinal. However in response to the desire to shorten tournaments many directors have decided to move to 7 rounds. After reflecting on this for some time, I have come to believe that 7 round tournaments are the worst possible compromise. I think they reduce the number of prelim rounds while making the schedule net worse for the overwhelming majority of the tournament participants. ] In a typical 7 round tournament, the first day consists of 4 prelims, meaning that there is no difference between a 7 and 8 round tournament. The second day of a 7 round tournament however is MUCH worse for all of the participants. In a typical 8 round tournament there are 4 debates, round 6 is a lag-powered round so only 2 real power matching breaks exist. With 7 round tournaments there are 3 prelims on day 2, all of which are directly power matched meaning that the day is automatically already longer. Then the final debate is not just an elim, but typically the double octa-final. As someone who runs a lot of tabrooms I can assure you this is the most difficult debate to place judges in and is often the most time consuming debate to pair. Added to this is the fact that elim debates generally take longer to decide and that there is usually an awards ceremony before the start of the doubles. At Kentucky, our team arrived at the school at 7:00 AM on Sunday and did leave campus until 11 PM, making this a 16 hour day at the school. This is far worse than day 2 at 8 round tournaments and this day effects everyone at the tournament. Day 3 is clearly better in that there are only 4 elims, but it is really only net better for the 7 people who are involved in the finals and even that is a subjective claim since all of those people are far more tired than they typically would be on elim day since day 2 was so much longer than usual. This should not be read as an argument in favor of 8 round tournaments. My position is clearly that as a community we need to assess how much stress we are putting on our students and ourselves and I think that short of placing substantial limits on decision making time the only workable solution is the 6 round tournament. I agree with Ralph that switching to 6 rounds at makes it more likely that points will determine who clears and who does not and that experimenting with a 100 point scale while shortening tournaments and increasing the importance of points doesn't make sense. I do think that this is an issue we need to confront as a community and discuss. If anyone is interested I have a really good frontline in favor of 6 round tournaments, but I wanted to focus on what I feel are the problems with 7 rounds in this post. Greg > In the spirit of ranks that nobody will ever respond to (Hi Whit and > D-Lo).. > > I suppose this post is a reaction to a trend I've noticed on e-Debate > regarding tournament safety and some things that I noticed over the > weekend > while at the Clay. > > My overall point (the short version) is this: Debate is good. Shortening > tournament length decrease Debate, and that is bad (part 1). If we are > going to make smaller schedules the norm, we should reevaluate the > structure > of the prelims (part 2). > > Part I - Against Shortening Tournament Length > > There seems to be a trend towards having fewer prelim rounds at > tournaments. A number of arguments are given in support of this claim, > but > few are very well explained. Among them are.... Perhaps the best > argument that I've heard for having fewer rounds is that debaters will be > less tired at the end of the tournament, resulting in better elim day > debates for those involved and less fatigue for all debaters returning > home > to the school work they have put off for the past couple days or weeks. In > its strongest articulation, the argument for shortening tournament length > has focused on the need to improve the general tournament atmosphere, > making > debate tournaments more habitable for all. Those who began the movement > for > shorter tournament -- those to whom I am indebted to and far less wise > than > -- seemed to notice a troubling tide of over-exhaustion, isolation, and > general grumpiness at tournaments. Although I am in general supportive of > measures that make tournaments more inviting and community-building, I am > not yet convinced that shortening tournament length is the appropriate > response, and I hope that other solutions will continue to be experimented > with. > > On face, the argument that we should shorten debate tournaments because > people get too tired just seems silly. I'm sure, for example, that > basketball players get extremely tired during the course of a regular > season > game and even more exhausted during a play-off series or a long trip on > the > road. The solution to this fatigue, however, is not to shorten the length > of quarters or the number of games being played during the season. > Instead, > coaches encourage their players to live a lifestyle off the court that > enables them to adequately handle the stress of the game. Debaters are > not > just exhausted after a tournament because they had an 8th debate, they are > exhausted because they've been working on little sleep for days/weeks > before > the tournament, and often up late enjoying themselves each night of the > tournament. Neither of those problems are eliminated by having one less > debate. Some might argue that the shorter schedule puts less stress on > coaches. Admittedly, I do not know a lot about being a coach, and am > perhaps ignorant and in need of a schooling. In my opinion, having 1 fewer > debate does little to alleviate coach fatigue except for the coaches of > doubles teams who do not have to stay up late preparing for doubles. I > don't know what about having one fewer debate causes coaches who stay up > all > night cutting cards (you know who you are) to suddenly decide that they > shouldn't do that and should instead go to sleep. Similar to student > fatigue, coach fatigue seems a "problem" of personal decisions made by > individual coaches and the ethos of competition that courses through the > debate community. * From a debater perspective, I'd much rather have > another > debate than feel marginally less tired Tuesdays after tournaments. I'm > sure > those who could have cleared 5-3 but didn't because they were 4-3 would > agree with me on this*. I have never heard a good answer to the argument > that shortening tournament length denies the majority of teams an extra > debate in the name of preserving the energy levels of the select few > debating on elim day. > > I am also curious where the data for the 'we're so tired please don't make > us debate another round' argument is coming from. Have any tournaments > provided participants with a survey of whether or not they would rather > debate an additional round or feel less tired on Monday/Tuesday? I would > be > curious to hear thoughts on this, as I might be in the minority. In any > case, it would be interesting if tournaments began posing these sorts of > questions to the participants (judges, debaters, and coaches alike). > > Part II - Revising Prelim Structure for the Short Schedule > > If we're going to be shortening tournaments, I think it is absolutely > paramount that tab rooms alter the prelim structure to reflect this > change. > I enjoyed my time in Kentucky this past weekend, but the notion of having > 4 > preset rounds in a 7 round tournament is *PATENTLY ABSURD*. There is > simply > not enough time in the three following rounds to effectively derive the > top > 32 teams via rigorous competition. This is particularly troubling given > that most critics are still getting used to the 100 pt scale. Speaker > points are more important than ever, but the norms dictating what certain > points mean are less certain than ever. > > This problem is probably solved by beginning to power-match debates after > 2 > or 3 rounds, and I hope that such a practice is adopted for future large > national tournaments that decide to shorten their schedules. (I am aware > of > course that many smaller tournament already pair prelims like this; I > think > that Wake did last year?).. > > As a side note, I think it sort of sucks that teams can go 5-2 at a > tournament and still not clear, but maybe there's not much to be done > about > that. > > Responses and clarifications would be extremely appreciated, > > -Ralph > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 08:31:02 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:31:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 87 Average? In-Reply-To: <4ACFBD11.5030308@wfu.edu> References: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> <4ACEB777.9050407@wfu.edu> <4ACFBD11.5030308@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <524839830910130631r6024e2a7u3c38482c6462229b@mail.gmail.com> Not "my scale" (yet), but you could use: 30=100 29.9=99 29-8=98 With most judges not usually giving below a 27 on the 30 scale, this creates a scale of 70-100. I think it effectively deals with one of the rationales for moving to 100 -- creating differentials without moving to 29.8, 29.9, etc. It doesn't deal so well with the second rational for moving to 100 (as opposed to some other change) -- people understand a 100 point grading system. A 27 isn't really a bad score for a debate speach, but a 70, especially for most debaters, is a pretty bad grade. A 60 (which would be awarded if you gave someone a 26) is basically an F. While a 26 certainly signals that you have to do a lot of work to get better, a 60 potentially communicates that you failed at debate. I think that conceptualizing the point scale as a grade is making this someonewhat difficult, especially for instructors who ordinarily give at least an 80 unless work is "really bad." On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 6:45 PM, JP Lacy wrote: > JP Lacy wrote: > > [Quick summary -- Judges should figure out the "community scale" & use > > it unless a tournament publishes other guidelines.] > > > > > > I'm not a numbers person at all. I'm also struggling like everyone > > else with the 100 point scale. My point assignment at GSU & Kentucky > > was basically lousy. > > > > My old scale: > > > > You cheated: 0 > > Rude: 26 > > Below average = 27.5 > > Average = 28 > > Clearing = 28.5 > > Getting a top 10 speaker award = 29 > > Getting a very high speaker award = 29.5 > > > > I know, this scale is not optimal. Its inflated compared to most > > judges, but I don't like being a spoiler. > > > > Just for fun, I translated my old scale into a 100 point scale. I used > > division to do it. > > > > Translation of my old scale using math: > > > > Below average = 92 > > Average = 93 > > Clearing = 95 > > Getting a top 10 speaker award = 97 > > Getting a very high speaker award = 98 > > > > Ugh!! That scale is just as bad as the old broken 5 point scale > > (27.5-29.5) > > > > We all know the old scale isn't very good: The important distinctions > > (The ones between teams clearing & not, and the ones between the top > > speakers) are basically statistical "noise." > > > > So, the 100 point scale is better. > > > > I'm a fan of following the judging pool when it comes to points. I > > don't think its fair to do otherwise. That does not mean "if you got > > good points before, you get them from me." That does mean if your > > debating in the round I judge you is "top ten" quality, you get "top > > ten" points. > > > > I eyeballed the Kentucky results & came up with the following scale, > > which seems to reflect where the community is going: > > > > Below average = 83 (Depends.) Debaters are above average students. > > Below average competitors don't need a point value to learn how much > > worse than mediocre they were, unless they were rude or cheated. > > Average = 85 > > Clearing (barely)= 87 > > Clearing high in your not undefeated bracket = 90 > > Getting a top twenty speaker award = 92 > > Getting a top ten speaker award = 93 > > Getting a top five speaker award = 94 > > Top Speaker = 96 > > > > I won't say "this is the proper scale." I won't say it fixes all the > > problems with the old 30 point scale. I will say that after 2 > > tournaments, it is the one in use. Out of fairness, I'll stick to it & > > adjust it according to how others use it if tournaments don't publish > > guidelines. > > > > I'm completely in favor of tournaments setting ground rules for the > > use of the scale: It makes results more meaningful. > > > > If a tournament publishes guidelines, I'll follow them. Bucking the > > instructions at a tournament just messes up the results. > > > > -- JP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brian DeLong wrote: > >> Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between > >> pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale. > >> Some people are on this 87=average boat, while others place average > >> at around 78-80ish. I'm no numbers game, nor an expert on the > >> history of point distribution etc. but I do think more discussion on > >> this scale should occur. > >> > >> Reaching consensus is clearly impossible. People are still going to > >> fight the good fight against point inflation. > >> > >> I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites > >> an interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap. You > >> will have judges that fight this interpretation and that's fine, but > >> for the rest of us who just want to make sure points are allocated > >> fairly to the debaters it would be a great help to at least find a > >> point of unity somewhere. Without some point of consistent > >> measurement to work off of we're going to continue to see some > >> fairly decent judges being reduced on the pref sheets. A > >> counterargument to this is that maybe these anti-point inflation > >> crusaders aren't that great of judges to begin with in the first > >> place. Fair enough. But for those of us who wish to stay in the > >> realm of preferable judge, whether we are good or not, some baseline > >> is needed. > >> > >> Maybe it would be wise for us to vote on scales of measurement to > >> set a norm for this community. We have the ability to set up an > >> informal or formal voting system. This method would at least take > >> the responsibility off a tournament host from arbitrarily choosing > >> a baseline scale. > >> > >> With that said, I am on board with voting for a point system that > >> looks like this: > >> > >> 30-29.6 = 100-96 > >> 29.5-29.0=95-90 > >> 28.9-28.5=85-89 > >> 28.4-28=79-84 > >> 27.9-27=78-72 > >> 26.9-26.0=71-60 > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> To respond to number's games observations, As Ross Smith once > >> claimed, the most recent scientific data indicates that we naturally > >> cluster numbers to help us simplify complex information. 5 and 10 > >> clustering is only inevitable. > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091013/c60db47b/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 09:10:07 2009 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:10:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fisher and/or Spies, please respond Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70910130710v12e4262cob4576360dcef99e6@mail.gmail.com> i need to get a message to either of these people. hester From dudebate at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 11:07:15 2009 From: dudebate at gmail.com (Boon Poineer) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:07:15 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] The University of Denver Mile High Classic Message-ID: <1a72a330910130907l6368448vb65f2f78dfac2f22@mail.gmail.com> I also just posted this to debateresults.com Dear Debate Coach: The University of Denver Debate Team invites you to attend the Fourth Annual Mile High Classic hosted by the University of Denver. Come and experience the Mile High City right in the middle of the ski season. We are offering a full scale policy debate tournament that will have a very favorable schedule, with a light breakfast and lunch provided for all participants. As many of you know, we like to have a good time here in Denver, and the hospitality will be second to none. Denver is in the middle of the country and is easily accessible by plane, as both Southwest and Frontier Airlines have numerous low cost flights into town. Hope to see you in the mile high city. Sincerely, Justin Eckstein Director of Debate University of Denver Cell: (505) 235-2110 Justin.eckstein at gmail.com Brian Schrader Assistant Debate Coach Bschrade at du.edu TOURNAMENT INFORMATION DIVISIONS: For this tournament we will offer two divisions, open and jv. If there are insufficient entries for jv division, we will collapse into open with JV ?break-out? out rounds . Time limits for the tournament are 9-3-6 with 10 min prep. We will adhere to the CEDA guidelines for eligibility in each division. TOPIC: The 2009-2010 CEDA/NDT Nuclear Weapons topic will be used in each division. ENTRIES: No limits on the number of entries per school so long as an appropriate number of judges are provided. We will be using the Bruschke system, so place your entries online at www.debateresults.com FEES: Each debate team will be charged $75. The charge for an uncovered debate team will be $135 (including the entry fee - not in addition to entry the fee). It is unlikely that we will have a lot of extra judges for hire, so please do your best to cover all of your teams. The fees are used to pay for tournament expenses, meals, and awards. Judging fees go directly to those hired. DEBATES: Each team will debate affirmative and negative three times. There will be an appropriate number of elimination debates in each division. Criteria for qualifying for elimination rounds are (1) win-loss record, (2) total speaker points (3) adjusted speaker points. Brackets will NOT be broken in the elimination rounds. JUDGING: Each school is expected to provide one qualified judge for each 2 debate teams or portions thereof. All judges must be available to judge one round after his/her teams have been eliminated. Judges are expected to assign 1 winner and 1 loser in each debate. If this is not done, or is not done in a reasonable fashion, the tab room will assign a win and a loss via coin toss. REGISTRATION: Debate registration begins at 7:00pm Thursday, January 21, at the Tournament Hotel (La Quinta) and will run until 10:00pm. If you have any issues with registration, please contact Brian Schrader at the above listed phone number and/or e-mail address. LODGING: There are a number of Hotels very near the DU campus. The tournament hotel will be: La Quinta: Cherry Creek 1975 S. Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO (303) 758-8886 5-10 min from campus. $80-$90 per night We are currently in negations for the block rate. As soon as it becomes available I will e-mail edebate with the necessary information. If the block is filled up, or you do not desire to stay at the La Quinta, below is a list of fairly close hotels and their rates: Fairfield Inn 1680 S Colorado Blvd, Denver, CO (303) 691-2223 5-10 min from campus. $80-$90 per night Holiday Inn Select 455 S. Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO. (303) 388-5561 10 min from campus. $120.00 and up per night Rockies Inn 4760 E Evans Ave, Denver, CO (303) 757-7601 5 min from campus. $40-$50 per night DIRECTIONS: The University of Denver is located on South University Blvd. and East Evans Ave. The address for Strum Hall, where all of the tournament will be held, is 2000 Asbury Ave Denver, CO 80208, and is located on the south east corner of Asbury Ave and Race St. E-mail Brian for complete directions. Parking is on Race St., which is on the west side of Sturm Hall. PARKING: The majority of parking on the DU campus is pay parking for a couple of dollars an hour. For those who are not faint of heart, there is free parking to be found, but hunting it out can be a challenge. We will secure free parking for everyone in attendance, but you must tell us in advance that you need a pass. You will pick up your parking pass when you register for the tournament, so don?t be late. There is free city parking about five blocks out from campus, so worst case scenario, people can be dropped off at Sturm Hall and then cars can be parked off campus. Schedule: University of Denver Policy Debate Tournament, January 25-27, 2008 Thursday, January 21 7:00pm ? 10:00pm: Registration at the Tournament Hotel Friday, January 22 8:00am: Light Breakfast, Sturm Hall, 2nd Floor 8:30am: Release of Round I pairings 9:30am: Round I 12:00pm: Lunch (provided by tournament), Sturm Hall, 2nd Floor 1:00pm: Round II 4:00pm Round III 7:00pm Round IV Saturday, January 23 9:00am: Light Breakfast, Sturm Hall, 2nd Floor 9:30am: Release of Round V pairings 10:00am: Round V 12:30pm: Lunch (provided by tournament), Sturm Hall, 2nd Floor 2:00pm: Round VI 5:00pm: Round VII Sunday, January 24 9:00am: Awards Ceremony Pairings will be released 10:00am: Elimination Rounds will begin and will follow every 3 hours as necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091013/808ba5cf/attachment.htm From beth.skinner at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 13:09:09 2009 From: beth.skinner at gmail.com (Beth Skinner) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:09:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Need 3 Rounds of Judging at West Point Message-ID: <4550c7380910131109v5f9a356exd66ca9be1c76f652@mail.gmail.com> Any takers? Let me know what you need. Beth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091013/b2260c7e/attachment.htm From mstruth at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 13:41:31 2009 From: mstruth at gmail.com (Matt Struth) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:41:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Full-text on the Wiki Message-ID: I'm not either for or against full-text on the wiki, but if you're going to post full-text please do so in a way that doesn't make it impossible to read. Several pages have full text cards that make the table of contents impossible to use and the whole page hard to read. I know I would prefer organized cites to disorganized full-text. Anyway, if you're going to post full text, please don?t be sloppy about it. -Matt Struth Liberty Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091013/1824b1e8/attachment.htm From zachwesterfield at hotmail.com Tue Oct 13 14:57:31 2009 From: zachwesterfield at hotmail.com (Zach Westerfield) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:57:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] what needs to happen to make edebate work? In-Reply-To: <771450.73468.qm@web50202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: Message-ID: I tried to post this to the list serve last Saturday, but it never got posted, lost in cyberspace I guess. I'll try again... Dear Debate Community, There has been discussion for some time about moving away from the current list serve at www.ndtceda.com. I know that the current set up is quite a strain, both in terms of bandwidth and financially, on Phil Kerpen, who has been gracious enough to keep, maintain, and provide this forum to the community. While coaching at the University of Denver, Jared Ellis and myself thought that we might be able to design a new way for the community to interact. Though neither of us coach debate in an official capacity at the University of Denver anymore (we moved into the private sector), both of us still do what we can to help DU out, judge at a few tournaments per year, and keep abreast of what?s happening in the community. We got quite a bit of experience with information sharing after moving DU over to paperless debate a few years ago, and one of the technical things we thought we?d tackle is finding a replacement for ndtceda.com. We agree with Joe, the current list serve is slow, archaic, annoying and in need of a serious upgrade. That?s not an indictment in any way, shape or form on Phil, it?s just that we thought it was time to move forward with something different. The new site that we?ve developed is at www.edebate.com It?s up, running, and modeled after a number of the social networking sites that currently exist. It?s designed to cater to the academic debate community. Feel free to try it out. If you can use facebook, you can use this site. Here are some of the features of the site: ? Multiple Forum discussions can be created ? Tournament information pages/updates/results can be created and archived for easy reference in the future ? User profiles ? Team profiles - keep people updated about your team ? The ability to keep debate information in one central location ? Private emails between users ? no more ?cite requests? sent to every users e-mail account ? Chat feature for people logged into the site ? Ability to upload pictures and full length videos ? Events can be added ? Groups can be created ? It?s 100% free to the debate community. No donations or other financial assistance are needed. Lastly, we all care about the debate community. If other people have ideas, or requests, we have the ability to make some changes and modifications to the site. We?d like to grow the site as the community changes, advances, and continues to move toward a paperless format. Thanks, Zach Westerfield _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091013/21a39027/attachment.htm From ianedebate at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 16:57:05 2009 From: ianedebate at gmail.com (Ian Beier) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:57:05 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] 3 rounds available at Idaho Message-ID: <93ac16710910131457l4843273bk1af73dc623422a5c@mail.gmail.com> I know this is late, but I got 3 rounds available at Idaho. Let me know if you want 'em. Ian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091013/9ed2d1d8/attachment.htm From gregachten at berkeley.edu Tue Oct 13 18:47:49 2009 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:47:49 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] 2010 California Swing Tournaments - Invite Message-ID: 2009 Cal Invitational Debates Dear Colleagues, The University of California, Berkeley is pleased to announce the continuation of the California Swing tournaments both of which will be hosted this year on our main campus in Berkeley. The tournaments will run January 3-5 and 7-9 with registration on January 2nd. The tournaments will offer six preliminary rounds of team topic debate as well as appropriate elimination rounds in open, junior and novice divisions. The preliminary rounds will be held on the main Berkeley campus with the elimination rounds held at the Oakland Convention Center. The tournament hotel for the tournament is the Marriott Oakland City Center which is attached to the Convention Center. Cal is planning to host both CEDA and the NDT in 2010 and we are using the same tournament hotel and elimination round facilities that we will use for those tournaments. We sincerely hope that you will attend our tournament this year as we would like to prepare the hotel for these tournaments. Although the Cal team is well versed in running large debate tournaments, the Oakland City Center Marriott is not, so the more teams that attend the more realistic this test-run will be. I strongly urge you to stay at the Marriott. This is an outstanding facility with excellent elimination round facilities. I have managed to secure a tournament rate of $117 per night for up to 4 people per room. We have a block of rooms and the block expires a month before the tournament begins. You can make reservations now by calling 1-888-236-2427 and asking for the Cal Swing Debate Tournament rate. MAKE YOUR HOTEL RESERVATIONS NOW! Last year many people were squeezed out of the tournament hotel because they failed to make reservations in a timely manner. The cutoff date for the event is December 1 and it is possible our block will be full before then. Keep in mind that this is an urban hotel and you will be required to pay for parking. The self parking rate is $22 per night and the valet rate is $26 per night. Two changes to our traditional tournaments to note. First, we will be serving lunch on each of the prelim days in order to both expedite the schedule and to test out catering options for the NDT. Our fee structure reflects this change. Second, in order to help folks defray costs we are going to offer an evidence and people shuttle service to and from campus. This will allow you to avoid renting a car and incurring both rental and parking fees, both of which can add up in Berkeley. We will offer an evidence shuttle and shuttle service to and from campus for $30 per person per tournament. Information about this service will be provided below in the invitation as well as via email as the tournament approachesl For general info about the hotel go to http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/oakdt-oakland-marriott-city-center/ We are pleased to be able to host a tournament at Berkeley. If you have any questions or need any additional information please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Greg Achten Tournament Director/Co-Director of Debate 818-357-8424 Transportation: I strongly urge those flying to use Oakland International. It is much closer to campus, much easier to navigate and often much cheaper as it is served by discount carriers Southwest and JetBlue. Directions to Hotel: Transportation Information: From Oakland International Airport: Mileage: 8 Miles Exit airport. Take Hegenberger Rd to I-880 N. Exit Broadway and turn right. Go 3 blocks, turn left on 10th St. Make right turns around the block to hotel entrance. Evidence/People shuttling: We can get you to and from campus for $30 per person per tournament. There is also a BART train station right across the street from the hotel and one 5 minutes from campus if you wish to go back to the hotel early in the day. You will be responsible for getting yourself to and from the airport. I recommend two shuttle services: Bayporter (bayporter.com) or Super Shuttle (supershuttle.com) Parking: Parking in Berkeley is expensive and scarce. We will have a limited number of parking permits available for sale for $25 each per tournament. This is generally cheaper than you will find in Berkeley and much closer. If you wish to order a parking permit or permits please email that request to me as soon as possible, but by December 1 at the latest. Campus Policies: The Berkeley Campus is a smoke-free campus. There is no smoking in ANY building on campus. PLEASE abide by this policy so that we may continue to use these facilities in subsequent years. The Berkeley campus is also a drug and alcohol free campus. Entry Information: Online entry is required at www.debateresults.com Tab Room: The tab room will be run by myself (Greg Achten), Jon Bruschke. Becky Opsata and Glen Frappier. Procedures: Brackets will not be broken in elimination rounds and sides in elims will be determined by a coin flip between the opponents unless they met in the preliminary rounds. Hybrids and mavericks will be allowed on a case by case basis and only in extraordinary circumstances. Our tournament supports and adheres to the CEDA Anti- Sexual Harassment Policy. Divisions: We will use the joint CEDA-NDT policy topic. We will offer Open (any undergraduate meeting AFA eligibility requirements)and Junior (any undergraduate student that meets the CEDA definition of a JV debater) and Novice (any undergraduate in their first year of debate that meets the CEDA definition of a novice debater). We reserve the right to collapse divisions if entries warrant. In the Varsity division we will clear all 4-2 teams under the following conditions: should entries warrant, we will clear to a full double-octo final (assuming we have 64 entries in the division). Absent that a partial double-octo-final round will be held ONLY if it would involve 8 teams or 4 debates. In the event that fewer than 4 partial debates would occur, we will cut 4-2?s on points and other tie-breakers and will recognize teams not advancing at the awards ceremony. Fees: Fees will be $50 per person including judges and observers. This will include breakfast and lunch each day or prelims. Judging: Each school is expected to provide 3 rounds of judging per team. For each team beyond the first two, we ask that schools provide 4 rounds of judging. This is in line with the judging expectation at many other major national tournaments and we ask this to maximize our ability to place highly preferred judges in important debates. Each judge will be obligated for through the octafinal or one round beyond the elimination of their team. We have some hired judges that we can provide, but not many. Hired judges will be given on a first come, first served basis at a fee of $150 per uncovered team. We are not trying to make money on hired judges. We would much rather have your judges than your money. If you have extra judges available from your school please let me know as we would probably like to hire them. We will use preference/strike sheets for prelims and elims. All judges are expected to render a decision within 2 hours and 45 minutes of the start time of the debate. If a judge has failed to render their decision by this time, the tab room will ask the judge to vote in the next minute. If the judge fails to vote by this time, the tab room will decide the debate through the flip of a coin. This policy applies to preliminary rounds only. Each judge must designate one, and only one, team as the winner of the debate. We will use a 30 point scale. Points may be awarded in full and half point increments only. Questions: If you need to get in touch with me, please call or email Mobile: 818-357-8424 Email:gregachten at berkeley.edu Schedule of Events January 2nd 6-8 PM Registration: Marriott January 3rd 7:00 AM Late registration on campus in Dwinelle Hall: Pairings released on campus and at Marriott: continental breakfast on campus 8:00 AM Round 1 10:45 AM Round 2 1:00 PM Lunch 2:30 PM Round 3 6:00 PM Round 4 8:30 PM First shuttle for hotel departs January 4th 6:15 AM First shuttle departs for campus 7:00 AM Round 5 pairings released on campus and at Marriott: continental breakfast on campus 8:00 AM Round 5 11:45 AM Round 6 2:00 PM Lunch on campus 3:00 PM Awards Ceremony 4:30 PM First Elimination Round in all divisions 7:30 PM First shuttle leaves for hotel January 5th 7:00 AM Pairings for elimination rounds released at Marriott 8:00 AM Varsity Octafinals at Marriott 11:00 AM Subsequent varsity elimination rounds and initial novice and JV elims January 6th Day off 6:00 PM Registration at Marriott for teams only entered in tournament two January 7th 7:00 AM Late registration on campus in Dwinelle Hall: Pairings released on campus and at Marriott: continental breakfast on campus 8:00 AM Round 1 10:45 AM Round 2 1:00 PM Lunch 2:30 PM Round 3 6:00 PM Round 4 8:30 PM First shuttle for hotel departs January 8th 6:15 AM First shuttle departs for campus 7:00 AM Round 5 pairings released on campus and at Marriott: continental breakfast on campus 8:00 AM Round 5 11:45 AM Round 6 2:00 PM Lunch on campus 3:00 PM Awards Ceremony 4:30 PM First Elimination Round in all divisions 7:30 PM First shuttle leaves for hotel January 9th 7:00 AM Pairings for elimination rounds released at Marriott 8:00 AM Varsity Octafinals at Marriott 11:00 AM Subsequent varsity elimination rounds and initial novice and JV elims From rowedan at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 19:05:24 2009 From: rowedan at gmail.com (Dan Rowe) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:05:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor FN Cite Request Message-ID: <645cb0570910131705n34be968cie827c3ebd6af3759@mail.gmail.com> Backchannel me at rowedan at gmail.com if you have the time -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091013/62a002d3/attachment.htm From odekirk.scott at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 19:23:44 2009 From: odekirk.scott at gmail.com (scott odekirk) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:23:44 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 3-4 rounds for sale at harvard Message-ID: <724663690910131723o184c74b2q8691595635e17aee@mail.gmail.com> $30 in cash per round. Scott Odekirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091013/1b71ae34/attachment.htm From goody5534 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 13 20:13:19 2009 From: goody5534 at hotmail.com (rob goodrich) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:13:19 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Judge for Hire: Harvard and West Point Message-ID: I am available for a Full Commitment at either or both tournaments. Please back channel me at goody5534 at hotmail.com. Robbie Goodrich WCSU Debate Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091014/505cf465/attachment.htm From Pacedebate at aol.com Tue Oct 13 21:35:24 2009 From: Pacedebate at aol.com (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:35:24 EDT Subject: [eDebate] College Preview Progam - Heart of Texas Invitational - Last Call Message-ID: I will start photocopying our packets early next week so you have a few days left (anytime before the 19th is fine) to get your materials into me. Also, this year we will make some tables available in our library that you can move outside and set up an information table if you want and the weather permits. Thanks, Tim Mahoney Director of Debate, St. Mark's School of Texas 10600 Preston Road Dallas, TX 75230 214-346-8141 214-734-3673 cell 425-740-9130 fax -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091013/4686a3c8/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 00:35:38 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:35:38 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Judge for Hire: Harvard and West Point In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0910132235p7d56b598n8a946321afd2d6f9@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: rob goodrich Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:20 PM Subject: Judge for Hire: Harvard and West Point To: andy.edebate at gmail.com Andy, could you post this for me I seem incapable of getting this message up on edebate... ------------------------------ From: goody5534 at hotmail.com To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com Subject: Judge for Hire: Harvard and West Point Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:13:19 +0000 I am available for a Full Commitment at either or both tournaments. Please back channel me at goody5534 at hotmail.com. Robbie Goodrich WCSU Debate ------------------------------ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. ------------------------------ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. ------------------------------ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091014/1a529b65/attachment.htm From stevendamico at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 07:10:36 2009 From: stevendamico at gmail.com (stevendamico at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:10:36 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] 8 rounds avail for harvard Message-ID: <1368238972-1255522145-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1403600323-@bda298.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> ... If this makes it to edebate in time... Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From ianedebate at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 11:02:08 2009 From: ianedebate at gmail.com (Ian Beier) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:02:08 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] 3 rounds at ISU Message-ID: <93ac16710910140902j3a93f5bue0b3156532f30d38@mail.gmail.com> lemme know if you want em Ian Beier -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091014/4bdb493a/attachment.htm From bamadebate at yahoo.com Wed Oct 14 11:52:08 2009 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:52:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] 87 Average? - Response from D Heidt In-Reply-To: <4ACFBD11.5030308@wfu.edu> References: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> <4ACEB777.9050407@wfu.edu> <4ACFBD11.5030308@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <397970.58751.qm@web62002.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Put a scale on the ballot. It solves the need to have this conversation. Dave byway of Ed ________________________________ From: JP Lacy To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Fri, October 9, 2009 6:45:37 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] 87 Average? JP Lacy wrote: > [Quick summary -- Judges should figure out the "community scale" & use > it unless a tournament publishes other guidelines.] > > > I'm not a numbers person at all. I'm also struggling like everyone > else with the 100 point scale. My point assignment at GSU & Kentucky > was basically lousy. > > My old scale: > > You cheated: 0 > Rude: 26 > Below average = 27.5 > Average = 28 > Clearing = 28.5 > Getting a top 10 speaker award = 29 > Getting a very high speaker award = 29.5 > > I know, this scale is not optimal. Its inflated compared to most > judges, but I don't like being a spoiler. > > Just for fun, I translated my old scale into a 100 point scale. I used > division to do it. > > Translation of my old scale using math: > > Below average = 92 > Average = 93 > Clearing = 95 > Getting a top 10 speaker award = 97 > Getting a very high speaker award = 98 > > Ugh!! That scale is just as bad as the old broken 5 point scale > (27.5-29.5) > > We all know the old scale isn't very good: The important distinctions > (The ones between teams clearing & not, and the ones between the top > speakers) are basically statistical "noise." > > So, the 100 point scale is better. > > I'm a fan of following the judging pool when it comes to points. I > don't think its fair to do otherwise. That does not mean "if you got > good points before, you get them from me." That does mean if your > debating in the round I judge you is "top ten" quality, you get "top > ten" points. > > I eyeballed the Kentucky results & came up with the following scale, > which seems to reflect where the community is going: > > Below average = 83 (Depends.) Debaters are above average students. > Below average competitors don't need a point value to learn how much > worse than mediocre they were, unless they were rude or cheated. > Average = 85 > Clearing (barely)= 87 > Clearing high in your not undefeated bracket = 90 > Getting a top twenty speaker award = 92 > Getting a top ten speaker award = 93 > Getting a top five speaker award = 94 > Top Speaker = 96 > > I won't say "this is the proper scale." I won't say it fixes all the > problems with the old 30 point scale. I will say that after 2 > tournaments, it is the one in use. Out of fairness, I'll stick to it & > adjust it according to how others use it if tournaments don't publish > guidelines. > > I'm completely in favor of tournaments setting ground rules for the > use of the scale: It makes results more meaningful. > > If a tournament publishes guidelines, I'll follow them. Bucking the > instructions at a tournament just messes up the results. > > -- JP > > > > > > > Brian DeLong wrote: >> Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between >> pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale. >> Some people are on this 87=average boat, while others place average >> at around 78-80ish. I'm no numbers game, nor an expert on the >> history of point distribution etc. but I do think more discussion on >> this scale should occur. >> >> Reaching consensus is clearly impossible. People are still going to >> fight the good fight against point inflation. >> >> I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites >> an interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap. You >> will have judges that fight this interpretation and that's fine, but >> for the rest of us who just want to make sure points are allocated >> fairly to the debaters it would be a great help to at least find a >> point of unity somewhere. Without some point of consistent >> measurement to work off of we're going to continue to see some >> fairly decent judges being reduced on the pref sheets. A >> counterargument to this is that maybe these anti-point inflation >> crusaders aren't that great of judges to begin with in the first >> place. Fair enough. But for those of us who wish to stay in the >> realm of preferable judge, whether we are good or not, some baseline >> is needed. >> >> Maybe it would be wise for us to vote on scales of measurement to >> set a norm for this community. We have the ability to set up an >> informal or formal voting system. This method would at least take >> the responsibility off a tournament host from arbitrarily choosing >> a baseline scale. >> >> With that said, I am on board with voting for a point system that >> looks like this: >> >> 30-29.6 = 100-96 >> 29.5-29.0=95-90 >> 28.9-28.5=85-89 >> 28.4-28=79-84 >> 27.9-27=78-72 >> 26.9-26.0=71-60 >> >> Thoughts? >> >> To respond to number's games observations, As Ross Smith once >> claimed, the most recent scientific data indicates that we naturally >> cluster numbers to help us simplify complex information. 5 and 10 >> clustering is only inevitable. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091014/3b33f3d6/attachment.htm From EMarlow at uco.edu Wed Oct 14 12:32:15 2009 From: EMarlow at uco.edu (Eric Marlow) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:32:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need Room At Harvard Message-ID: <75671A9DCD21974888C9A2E5E4937B6451E9A665FB@EXCHANGE.uco.local> If anyone is releasing a room at the Harvard hotel, could you please contact me. UCO needs one double room in the tournament hotel. Thanks!! Peace, Marlow Eric Marlow Director of Debate University of Central Oklahoma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091014/ef4072b3/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5675 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091014/ef4072b3/attachment.jpg From ralph.paone at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 17:23:13 2009 From: ralph.paone at gmail.com (Ralph Paone) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:23:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] selling 5 rounds at Harvard Message-ID: <86f9bd6d0910141523h5479f8dt4c5ac1c4c9eaf770@mail.gmail.com> Shoot me an offer! peace, -ralph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091014/41d5ff52/attachment.html From davismk13 at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 19:02:06 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:02:06 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] Vandy Prefs Message-ID: <9a7f6f740910141702y7a91ef4bifa30aea2135b53c0@mail.gmail.com> Entries for Vandy are closed. Please send any changes to me and ML. Prefs are open and will be available until noon on Friday. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091014/fd70c792/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Oct 15 01:01:34 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:01:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Scouting "Rules" Message-ID: <4AD6BABE.9080700@wfu.edu> Not really "rules," but proposed norms: 1. "Priority to Public." Priority goes to scouts who will share information publicly. Right now, that means posting stuff on the wiki. Scouts need to eliminate their assumption that "because someone is gathering cites, it will be shared." Often, there are people who gather cites or read evidence for their own purposes after a debate. This is fine, but the time it takes them to read & type cites trades off with those ready to do so for public consumption. The needs of the community far outweigh their concerns. As everyone is aware, there are certain power dynamics involved in cite gathering. Everyone should be aware of those dynamics & make sure that scouting for "squad only" or private purposes is a much lower priority. If a scout who won't agree to share is monopolizing pages, try to figure out how to share with them or alert a debate judge. Most judges will be willing to say that a scout who will share has priority. 2. "Scouts Honor." Don't say you'll share when you won't. Scouts have an obligation to get their stuff posted publicly as soon as they can. After all, its a shared resource. If there are several people waiting on the info you are gathering, obviously you should post it the moment you gather it. Just sign up for the wiki & edit it. If someone is a bit slow getting your cites posted, cut them some slack. They probably lost the cites or forgot. 3. Debaters. Many of you want to share your cites, exchange email addresses, then forget to. This is normal. We need to get better at combating it. If someone emails you for cites, put them on the wiki instead. It takes just as much time as email. If you don't like posting to the wiki, then email your stuff to me & I'll take care of posting it when I have time. If you get cites from someone, put them on the wiki. If you make an argument that someone finds "cite gathering worthy," then try to help them save time by using your own electronic files. 4. Other Protocol Issues. If a debater says "you can have our cites if you put it on the wiki," you should do so. Its called a deal. Maybe a contract. I've heard of some disagreements about this that could have been avoided if the people who agreed to post publicly would have followed through. Just do it right away or email your stuff to me & I'll get it posted...(No guarantee that I'll get it done fast enough to satisfy others.) What is the reason for all of this? Because "closed" scouting is worse for debate than open scouting. Closed scouting benefits the resource rich. Open scouting can make every debate better. How do I sign up for "the wiki?" Easy. Go to opencaselist.wikispaces.com & click the "join" link in the upper right hand corner. -- JP lacyjp at wfu.edu From jtedebate at yahoo.com Thu Oct 15 10:29:53 2009 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Emporia Tournament Update Message-ID: <928495.46358.qm@web110611.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Please finalize your entries today by 5pm.? Prefs will be initialized this evening. Also, the following judges do not have philosophies on debate results: Dustin Rimmey (I am kicking his butt as we speak) Rachel Stevens, UMKC Matt Coleman (probably has his up, but I got an error message) ...and I'm off to make zuchini bread for Registration... W. James Taylor ("JT") Clinical Instructor Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University ***Nothing in this email should be taken to represent Emporia State Debate or Emporia State University. The contents are the sole opinion of the author. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091015/4320def1/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Thu Oct 15 11:50:58 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:50:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky data Message-ID: <4AD70CA2.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> The discussion surrounding the 100 point scale, a theoretical 87 point average, and judge variance has been a valuable one. Inevitably, any change creates a period of disequilibration (which is arguably a good thing in a learning system). Most of the conversation about variance has focused on anecdotal anomalies where some judges consciously or unconsciously set different means. The data from Kentucky confirms that these "anomalies" are indeed real and that judges did apparently approach the task with different interpretations of the mean. The data below arrays the results for each judge in the pool that judged at least one prelim round. But before we conclude too much, let me offer a couple of caveats. First, the assumption of the comparison (and the one that z-scores are based on), is that every judge being compared viewed a statistically similar sample of all of the rounds in the tournament. That is demonstrably false. Second, many of the judges represented judged too small a sample to draw any reliable conclusions about their point assignment practices. Third, distributions are just that. A judge who consistently gives 27.5's on the 30-point scale is just as much an outlier as the judge who on average assigns 80's in the distribution below - even though it doesn't LOOK like as big an anomaly. All that said, it really should be a goal that critics who are observing exactly the same event (although that only happens at the NDT) should be assigning comparable scores to that event. In that case, inter-rater reliability is only achieved if we have some commonly held rubrics for how to reward and punish debate performances (in addition to shared interpretations of the scale) - but I suspect that this is a core issue about which we DON'T have a community consensus. But we also need to remember that with single judge panels, critics NEVER observe the same events, even if two critics judge exactly the same subset of teams during the course of a tournament. Every debate is formally an n of 1. While we can and should agonize about whether scoring systems are better or worse about creating norms while preserving discrimination and necessary variability, there is no such thing as the Holy Grail. Avg Std n 75.75 3.30 4 77.88 4.63 16 78.94 4.28 16 79.25 4.09 12 79.38 6.48 16 79.50 5.04 8 79.50 5.15 8 80.13 3.05 16 80.50 2.94 12 80.54 3.78 24 80.58 4.56 12 81.00 3.66 8 81.00 1.83 4 81.50 6.45 16 81.75 6.85 16 81.94 4.46 16 82.50 2.67 8 82.75 2.55 8 83.33 3.52 12 83.50 3.96 8 83.75 6.42 24 83.75 4.69 20 83.75 2.05 16 83.88 3.05 16 83.88 3.76 8 84.13 7.55 8 84.25 2.02 16 84.25 1.16 8 84.29 4.03 24 84.50 2.53 16 84.50 8.72 12 84.63 4.90 8 84.63 2.97 8 84.75 5.17 16 84.75 0.71 8 84.87 4.91 15 85.00 0.00 4 85.08 3.60 12 85.29 6.02 24 85.31 5.65 16 85.32 2.88 28 85.45 4.95 20 85.50 5.80 4 85.50 9.47 4 85.58 2.91 12 85.65 4.55 20 85.65 5.32 20 85.88 3.52 16 85.88 1.55 8 86.13 4.32 16 86.25 4.39 28 86.25 1.49 8 86.33 3.14 12 86.42 6.19 12 86.44 7.79 16 86.45 2.21 20 86.50 2.20 8 86.50 1.73 4 86.56 3.54 16 86.63 7.23 8 86.67 1.83 12 86.69 3.36 16 86.75 4.88 16 86.86 3.33 28 86.95 2.50 20 87.00 4.88 28 87.13 3.58 16 87.14 3.68 28 87.15 4.42 20 87.33 3.31 12 87.38 2.72 8 87.42 3.06 12 87.44 3.14 16 87.44 4.72 16 87.50 4.08 16 87.50 1.68 12 87.50 0.58 4 87.58 3.68 12 87.68 2.71 28 87.70 3.46 23 87.75 2.77 24 87.75 3.77 4 87.88 2.94 16 87.92 5.12 24 87.92 4.62 12 87.92 1.16 12 88.00 2.95 12 88.00 2.45 4 88.08 3.37 12 88.13 2.75 8 88.18 3.80 28 88.40 2.33 20 88.45 5.25 20 88.50 1.29 4 88.55 2.63 20 88.65 3.10 20 88.75 1.29 12 88.75 6.90 4 88.83 4.47 12 88.88 3.40 16 88.89 4.83 28 88.92 1.08 12 88.94 3.26 16 88.94 1.69 16 89.00 2.36 28 89.00 2.61 28 89.00 2.60 20 89.00 4.24 8 89.13 2.17 8 89.50 3.20 16 89.55 2.37 20 89.56 2.10 16 89.67 1.67 12 89.89 2.13 28 90.00 0.00 4 90.50 0.58 4 90.83 2.29 12 91.50 3.32 24 92.00 2.16 4 92.75 2.71 20 92.85 3.23 20 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091015/c555d61c/attachment.htm From scottyp431 at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 12:10:17 2009 From: scottyp431 at gmail.com (Scott Phillips) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:10:17 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 8 prelim model Message-ID: <12a4de8d0910151010h16bbaba4ha9aeccd7161c3386@mail.gmail.com> Basic outline: 8 preliminary rounds. 5 rounds take place on Saturday. Rounds 1-4 are preset and released by 5pm the Friday beforehand. Round 5 is high high and paired off of only rounds 1-3, the pairing for round 5 would be released during round 4. Some basic assumptions of my model 1. There are not enough high high debates at tournaments. More high high debates would -produce more of the top level head to head matches that determine bid sheets and drive innovation by forcing teams to bust strategies and research new ones -give on the cusp teams a bit of breathing room - if you speak poorly some high high rounds give you a reprieve from a constant beat down- the current system is too one sided -eliminate some of the damage that having a large number of presets has on borderline teams by reducing the likelihood of getting jacked by having to debate a few top level teams in the presets and then win several break rounds in a row that are high low in your bracket. 2. Debaters are given way to much pre round prep- everyone goes for the same crap anyway- the health care disad and cap K are highlighted already, you don't need an hour to get ready for them. Also releasing pairings earlier allows debaters to take advantage of the post round dead time waiting for a decision to prep more for later debates. 3. More prelims are better- people get more practice, who should clear becomes "clearer" etc. 4. Opponent wins should be more important in deciding who clears than speaker points- there I said it. The speaker point system is broken. This is a team activity. Especially with more high high debates which I have already conclusively proven is a moral obligation. 5. Judges need to run a tighter ship- stop prep stealing and time wasting, enforce start times etc. Debaters waste time because they are allowed too. If the choice is between losing a debate or punishing teams who are too lazy and stupid to be efficient it is ridiculous to take away a debate. A strict schedule creates incentives for efficiency by rewarding teams who are well organized and work hard. How long does a round take? 92 minutes. Assume at least 10 minutes for screwing around brings us to 102. If each round is given 2:15 that is 135 minutes, leaving over 1/2 an hour for making a decision. You could even add another 15 minutes on there and that would only lengthen the day by an hour. This would mean the schedule would/could look like (I have added an extra 10 minutes for travel time, and extra time for lunch and dinner, discussed below) Round 1: 7:45 Round 2: 10:10 Round 3: 1:15 Round 4: 3:40 Round 5: 6:45 This gets everyone out around 9. Day 2: Round 6: 8:00 Round 7: 10:30 Round 8: 2:30 Doubles: 6:00 Round 6 and 7 should be paired off round 5 and have one high low and one high high. The pairing should be released at 6am. Since you get out at roughly 9, you should be able to eat and get to sleep by 10 or 11 giving you 7-8 hours of sleep if you decide to get up at 6 and start prepping. If you want to sleep in you can obviously get more sleep but this is a pretty good amount to get considering you would get 2 hours to prep for rounds 6 and 7. Round 8 is obviously important, so there is a lot of extra prep built in for this. If a strict decision time is enforced all the round 7 ballots should be in by 12:45. Giving people 1/2 hour for lunch that means they will still get about an hour to prep for potential break rounds. Finally- opp wins should be more important than speaker points in determining who clears. The main objection to pairing more rounds ahead of time is "we'll get screwed". Using opponent wins helps take the bite out of this argument and opposition to high high rounds. It also allows time to figure out the 100 point scale while only speaker awards are affected. Some of this may seem pretty radical/unworkable but a fundamental assumption is that time is wasted because there are no incentives to not waste it. A strict schedule forces debaters to chose between focusing on competitive gain or other aspects of debate like socializing etc true, but this is already a trade off in many other ways. Top ways time is wasted at tournaments now that would be pressured to reform by judges and debaters 1. Cleaning up- people don't do it until after the decision, throw evidence all over the room during debates so they are later unable to find it etc. 2. Moving- teams mosey around chit chatting 3. Water/bathroom breaks- you're an adult- get a bottle and learn to hold it 4. Being out of the room during decision making Teams who want more prep time can eliminate all of these things to get it. Answers to obvious objections Long decision making/oral critiques are good It shouldn't take that long to figure out most of these prelims. A wise old sage once told me that most debates are hard to decide because the debaters didn't do their job, not because the debates were very good and close. Some judges take a ton of time and vote neg, some take a ton of time and vote aff, some take a ton of time, realize they can't sit out since there is only 1 judge and then flip a coin. Point being- just like debaters do speed drills, some judges should work on figuring things out faster. Each debate should be power matched individually/blah blah blah The value of having more debates outweighs any risk of a negative from pairing 6 and 7 together. The warrant for pairing them together being bad is it will affect clearing- which at its core relies on the idea that more debates are good. Everyone gets a round 8 in this model so its as if you all cleared and this was CEDA. This is also a random element- it will not affect anyone disproportionately where as going to 7 or 6 prelims is a regressive policy- it hurts those at the bottom the most. Days are long/this will take too long etc If MBA and CFL's can make an even more radical version of this schedule work, I'm sure the minds that run college tournaments will be able to handle it. Blah blah blah other objection I wrote way more about this but most have probably stopped reading already so I will leave it here, but will clarify/respond to objections if the need exists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091015/65738e25/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Thu Oct 15 12:44:14 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:44:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments Message-ID: <4AD7191E02000033000061C4@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> I must agree with Greg that the 7 round model with doubles that has 4 presets on day 1, followed by 3 power-matched rounds and doubles on day 2 represents a ?worse? or even ?worst? alternative for all but the participants in the final round. But I?d like to focus a moment on the untested assumption, namely that the inexorable increase in the length of time that it takes to complete a round from the announcement of the pairing until the receipt of the last ballot is both inevitable and perhaps even desirable. On the front end, we?ve gone from an expectation that we should have 30 minutes pre-round prep to a minimum of 45 minutes and a goal of an hour. But the back end is the bigger problem. Not only is the debate itself longer because of a variety of prep-stealing conventions, but the notion that the judge should give a timely decision has changed radically. Evolving from an expectation that the last decision should come in no later than 2:15-2:30 after the announced start time (not the actual start time that a particular round happens to begin), tournaments now write in an expectation of 2:45. If only it were that simple. At Kentucky, rounds 6 and 7 both required about 3:05 to receive the last ballots. For doubles it was 3:15, for octos it was almost 3:30. We follow the unwritten rule that a task expands to fill the time allotted for it (and then some). So whatever time is gained by having fewer rounds is quickly more than lost by having each debate take longer. Even Monday didn?t see as much benefit as we might have hoped since it took between 4:15 and 4:30 to go from start to start for successive rounds. As a community we must decide whether having 8 debates that take 3:15 each (from start to start), 7 debates that take 3:45 each, 6 debates that take 4:15 each and so in is better. I know that there is a quality vs quantity distinction but if the students do really benefit from a decision that takes a half hour or more longer to complete than the norm, we?d have to concede that only a small minority or students are getting that benefit while waiting for the few that do. I think that this is our Achilles heel and there is no practical maximum where it will just take care of itself. But what about the threat of coin flips and the like. Perhaps. But the community still sides in their heart with the judge that they applaud for being extra ?careful? against the tab room that would decide a critical round with a coin flip. I think that this is the conversation that we need to be happening or we will eventually conclude that we can?t have more than 2 rounds a day (and still hope to eat meals, socialize and sleep). Just for context, let me describe the opposite extreme. I run tab for a moderate sized NPDA tournament that Wheaton hosts in February. Due to campus scheduling constraints, the tournament begins on Friday afternoon at 3 and ends on Saturday evening. The tournament has 8 rounds and octas and the last participant each evening leaves the campus by 10. Moreover, the tournament has 2 presets and no lag-paired rounds. Students are also served meals during breaks Friday dinner and Saturday lunch. Now I?m NOT suggesting that we go there with policy debate, but it wasn?t that many years ago that we could with good conscience schedule elim rounds on a 3-hour clock. Oh, and 1 last caveat. It isn?t the tabbing and pairing function that slows things down. The average time at Kentucky from the receipt of the last ballot to the electronic release of the next pairing was about 4 minutes. GARY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091015/c6562c02/attachment.htm From beth.skinner at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 13:36:28 2009 From: beth.skinner at gmail.com (Beth Skinner) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:36:28 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 87 Average? In-Reply-To: <524839830910130631r6024e2a7u3c38482c6462229b@mail.gmail.com> References: <806FE892-8F8D-47EC-9EE2-AAFB07E49159@gmail.com> <4ACEB777.9050407@wfu.edu> <4ACFBD11.5030308@wfu.edu> <524839830910130631r6024e2a7u3c38482c6462229b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4550c7380910151136y7bde658dl368250305499705@mail.gmail.com> I don't have a position on what the translation scale should be but I do have a request for tournament directors. Please describe your tournament's expectations in regard to a 100 point scale (if you use one) in as many places as practical (edebate, invitations, registration, emails to participants, etc.). Here's the reasons. 1. It will take a long time for some new community norm to stabilize. Students debating at your tournament shouldn't unduly suffer the transition costs while judges experiment with the new system. 2. Results will be fairer if all the judges at a particular tournament have some common understandings. I suppose that some folks might fear tab room intrusion into judge freedom but a) the people who feel most ardently about this will violate the understanding anyway and b) too bad. 3. Having to read judging philosophies to figure out changes that may or may not occur after every tournament bites. It definitely privileges schools with the resources to have someone on a full time news feed of what dozens and dozens of judges are feeling. At least facebook status updates all get collected onto one page. 4. It might help research to have different policies/translation scales made explicit on a tournament-by-tournament basis. At the end of the year we could look back and say whether X or Y approach produced less ties, more consistency, etc. Beth On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Stefan Bauschard < stefan.bauschard at gmail.com> wrote: > Not "my scale" (yet), but you could use: > > 30=100 > 29.9=99 > 29-8=98 > > With most judges not usually giving below a 27 on the 30 scale, this > creates a scale of 70-100. > > I think it effectively deals with one of the rationales for moving to 100 > -- creating differentials without moving to 29.8, 29.9, etc. > > It doesn't deal so well with the second rational for moving to 100 (as > opposed to some other change) -- people understand a 100 point grading > system. A 27 isn't really a bad score for a debate speach, but a 70, > especially for most debaters, is a pretty bad grade. A 60 (which would be > awarded if you gave someone a 26) is basically an F. While a 26 certainly > signals that you have to do a lot of work to get better, a 60 > potentially communicates that you failed at debate. > > I think that conceptualizing the point scale as a grade is making this > someonewhat difficult, especially for instructors who ordinarily give at > least an 80 unless work is "really bad." > > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 6:45 PM, JP Lacy wrote: > >> JP Lacy wrote: >> > [Quick summary -- Judges should figure out the "community scale" & use >> > it unless a tournament publishes other guidelines.] >> > >> > >> > I'm not a numbers person at all. I'm also struggling like everyone >> > else with the 100 point scale. My point assignment at GSU & Kentucky >> > was basically lousy. >> > >> > My old scale: >> > >> > You cheated: 0 >> > Rude: 26 >> > Below average = 27.5 >> > Average = 28 >> > Clearing = 28.5 >> > Getting a top 10 speaker award = 29 >> > Getting a very high speaker award = 29.5 >> > >> > I know, this scale is not optimal. Its inflated compared to most >> > judges, but I don't like being a spoiler. >> > >> > Just for fun, I translated my old scale into a 100 point scale. I used >> > division to do it. >> > >> > Translation of my old scale using math: >> > >> > Below average = 92 >> > Average = 93 >> > Clearing = 95 >> > Getting a top 10 speaker award = 97 >> > Getting a very high speaker award = 98 >> > >> > Ugh!! That scale is just as bad as the old broken 5 point scale >> > (27.5-29.5) >> > >> > We all know the old scale isn't very good: The important distinctions >> > (The ones between teams clearing & not, and the ones between the top >> > speakers) are basically statistical "noise." >> > >> > So, the 100 point scale is better. >> > >> > I'm a fan of following the judging pool when it comes to points. I >> > don't think its fair to do otherwise. That does not mean "if you got >> > good points before, you get them from me." That does mean if your >> > debating in the round I judge you is "top ten" quality, you get "top >> > ten" points. >> > >> > I eyeballed the Kentucky results & came up with the following scale, >> > which seems to reflect where the community is going: >> > >> > Below average = 83 (Depends.) Debaters are above average students. >> > Below average competitors don't need a point value to learn how much >> > worse than mediocre they were, unless they were rude or cheated. >> > Average = 85 >> > Clearing (barely)= 87 >> > Clearing high in your not undefeated bracket = 90 >> > Getting a top twenty speaker award = 92 >> > Getting a top ten speaker award = 93 >> > Getting a top five speaker award = 94 >> > Top Speaker = 96 >> > >> > I won't say "this is the proper scale." I won't say it fixes all the >> > problems with the old 30 point scale. I will say that after 2 >> > tournaments, it is the one in use. Out of fairness, I'll stick to it & >> > adjust it according to how others use it if tournaments don't publish >> > guidelines. >> > >> > I'm completely in favor of tournaments setting ground rules for the >> > use of the scale: It makes results more meaningful. >> > >> > If a tournament publishes guidelines, I'll follow them. Bucking the >> > instructions at a tournament just messes up the results. >> > >> > -- JP >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Brian DeLong wrote: >> >> Clearly the results from Kentucky show a large discrepancy between >> >> pockets of judges in how they are interpreting the 100 point scale. >> >> Some people are on this 87=average boat, while others place average >> >> at around 78-80ish. I'm no numbers game, nor an expert on the >> >> history of point distribution etc. but I do think more discussion on >> >> this scale should occur. >> >> >> >> Reaching consensus is clearly impossible. People are still going to >> >> fight the good fight against point inflation. >> >> >> >> I would suggest that tournament providers include in their invites >> >> an interpretation of the scale to help bridge this present gap. You >> >> will have judges that fight this interpretation and that's fine, but >> >> for the rest of us who just want to make sure points are allocated >> >> fairly to the debaters it would be a great help to at least find a >> >> point of unity somewhere. Without some point of consistent >> >> measurement to work off of we're going to continue to see some >> >> fairly decent judges being reduced on the pref sheets. A >> >> counterargument to this is that maybe these anti-point inflation >> >> crusaders aren't that great of judges to begin with in the first >> >> place. Fair enough. But for those of us who wish to stay in the >> >> realm of preferable judge, whether we are good or not, some baseline >> >> is needed. >> >> >> >> Maybe it would be wise for us to vote on scales of measurement to >> >> set a norm for this community. We have the ability to set up an >> >> informal or formal voting system. This method would at least take >> >> the responsibility off a tournament host from arbitrarily choosing >> >> a baseline scale. >> >> >> >> With that said, I am on board with voting for a point system that >> >> looks like this: >> >> >> >> 30-29.6 = 100-96 >> >> 29.5-29.0=95-90 >> >> 28.9-28.5=85-89 >> >> 28.4-28=79-84 >> >> 27.9-27=78-72 >> >> 26.9-26.0=71-60 >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> To respond to number's games observations, As Ross Smith once >> >> claimed, the most recent scientific data indicates that we naturally >> >> cluster numbers to help us simplify complex information. 5 and 10 >> >> clustering is only inevitable. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Stefan Bauschard > > President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com > Debate Coach, Harvard Debate > Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools > Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 > > > (c) 781-775-0433 > (fx) 617-588-0283 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20091015/419d1333/attachment.htm From gregachten at berkeley.edu Thu Oct 15 13:52:57 2009 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:52:57 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Cal Swing Logistics Request Message-ID: <248b5eeaee8a6ffe497d7c472193fb08.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> Greetings, I know these tournaments are two and a half months away but if you could backchannel me and let me know a) roughly how many people will be in your entourage and b) if you would like to utilize our transportation system to and from campus it would help me greatly in logistical planning. Thanks, Greg From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Oct 15 14:37:41 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:37:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments In-Reply-To: <6d9b42f5d2af6d70bb2957f1b914ee4c.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> References: <86f9bd6d0910091022u7915f0e3h6752b96d41508c12@mail.gmail.com>, <6d9b42f5d2af6d70bb2957f1b914ee4c.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD1A47E3@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Hi all, 7 rounds in the current structure does not work very well for the majority of the tournament. Ralph's post was dead on. 8 prelims with travel and debate on different days at the beginning is the superior schedule if done right. Maybe not national, but our tournament approaches 100 teams and Wayne and UNI all have 8 rounds. Add that to NDT, Harvard, and CEDA Nationals and there are still a number of tournaments (I'm sure I am missing some) that are 8 rounds, including some District tournaments. 7 rounds is a terrible compromise--Greg is right on about that--but I am not sure 6 really solves the problem (especially given the arguments that more debates are generally better, we do come to tournaments to debate, and the majority of participants do not compete after out-rounds begin). Our compromise to the long day on Monday will be to only clear 16 teams in each of 3 divisions instead of the "exactly half" rule that the ADA encourages (but does not mandate). There is an important place for 6-round regional tournaments and that makes up a bulk of our schedule, but the national (or larger regional) tournaments looking to have the full prelim experience and a reasonable day of elims for all the competitors can still do well with the 8 round prelim format. At the Spider tournament, we had 8 prelims (or 7 and a teach-in for novices) for almost 100 teams and 5 elims on Monday--but not just "5 elims overall"--five elims in Open and in Novice and 4 elims in JV. For the second elim round we used 60 judges and more than half the teams at the tournament were able to compete on the third day. The tournament was over by 10:00 or 11:00 at night on Monday. There are improvements we can make (we plan to release the full bracket Sunday night as well as the specific judges needed in the morning -- in addition to limiting the elims to 16 teams per division unless a division gets bigger than 40). Thanks to Ralph and Greg for their posts and I hope the conversation continues on this. Sincerely, Kevin ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of gregachten at berkeley.edu [gregachten at berkeley.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 12:27 AM To: Ralph Paone Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments I too have been thinking about this a great deal and spent a long time at Kentucky talking to people about this very issue and was actually planning on posting to edebate sometime this week so I thank Ralph for motivating me to sit down and write this. As many of you know I am a big advocate of 6 round tournaments. I think in general 8 round tournaments with 5 elims on Monday are an anachronism from a time when debates actually took 2 hours and we could start at 8 AM and be done by 7 PM. Of course the heightened complexity of debates and the extended decision making times that have corresponded along with the increased demands for pre-round preparation have made this model largely obsolete. I think there is an emerging consensus in the community that 8 round tournaments are not healthy for the community, witness that among the major national tournaments only Harvard, CEDA and the NDT maintain 8 prelims and two of those are 4 day tournaments and Harvard only clears to an octafinal. However in response to the desire to shorten tournaments many directors have decided to move to 7 rounds. After reflecting on this for some time, I have come to believe that 7 round tournaments are the worst possible compromise. I think they reduce the number of prelim rounds while making the schedule net worse for the overwhelming majority of the tournament participants. ] In a typical 7 round tournament, the first day consists of 4 prelims, meaning that there is no difference between a 7 and 8 round tournament. The second day of a 7 round tournament however is MUCH worse for all of the participants. In a typical 8 round tournament there are 4 debates, round 6 is a lag-powered round so only 2 real power matching breaks exist. With 7 round tournaments there are 3 prelims on day 2, all of which are directly power matched meaning that the day is automatically already longer. Then the final debate is not just an elim, but typically the double octa-final. As someone who runs a lot of tabrooms I can assure you this is the most difficult debate to place judges in and is often the most time consuming debate to pair. Added to this is the fact that elim debates generally take longer to decide and that there is usually an awards ceremony before the start of the doubles. At Kentucky, our team arrived at the school at 7:00 AM on Sunday and did leave campus until 11 PM, making this a 16 hour day at the school. This is far worse than day 2 at 8 round tournaments and this day effects everyone at the tournament. Day 3 is clearly better in that there are only 4 elims, but it is really only net better for the 7 people who are involved in the finals and even that is a subjective claim since all of those people are far more tired than they typically would be on elim day since day 2 was so much longer than usual. This should not be read as an argument in favor of 8 round tournaments. My position is clearly that as a community we need to assess how much stress we are putting on our students and ourselves and I think that short of placing substantial limits on decision making time the only workable solution is the 6 round tournament. I agree with Ralph that switching to 6 rounds at makes it more likely that points will determine who clears and who does not and that experimenting with a 100 point scale while shortening tournaments and increasing the importance of points doesn't make sense. I do think that this is an issue we need to confront as a community and discuss. If anyone is interested I have a really good frontline in favor of 6 round tournaments, but I wanted to focus on what I feel are the problems with 7 rounds in this post. Greg > In the spirit of ranks that nobody will ever respond to (Hi Whit and > D-Lo).. > > I suppose this post is a reaction to a trend I've noticed on e-Debate > regarding tournament safety and some things that I noticed over the > weekend > while at the Clay. > > My overall point (the short version) is this: Debate is good. Shortening > tournament length decrease Debate, and that is bad (part 1). If we are > going to make smaller schedules the norm, we should reevaluate the > structure > of the prelims (part 2). > > Part I - Against Shortening Tournament Length > > There seems to be a trend towards having fewer prelim rounds at > tournaments. A number of arguments are given in support of this claim, > but > few are very well explained. Among them are.... Perhaps the best > argument that I've heard for having fewer rounds is that debaters will be > less tired at the end of the tournament, resulting in better elim day > debates for those involved and less fatigue for all debaters returning > home > to the school work they have put off for the past couple days or weeks. In > its strongest articulation, the argument for shortening tournament length > has focused on the need to improve the general tournament atmosphere, > making > debate tournaments more habitable for all. Those who began the movement > for > shorter tournament -- those to whom I am indebted to and far less wise > than > -- seemed to notice a troubling tide of over-exhaustion, isolation, and > general grumpiness at tournaments. Although I am in general supportive of > measures that make tournaments more inviting and community-building, I am > not yet convinced that shortening tournament length is the appropriate > response, and I hope that other solutions will continue to be experimented > with. > > On face, the argument that we should shorten debate tournaments because > people get too tired just seems silly. I'm sure, for example, that > basketball players get extremely tired during the course of a regular > season > game and even more exhausted during a play-off series or a long trip on > the > road. The solution to this fatigue, however, is not to shorten the length > of quarters or the number of games being played during the season. > Instead, > coaches encourage their players to live a lifestyle off the court that > enables them to adequately handle the stress of the game. Debaters are > not > just exhausted after a tournament because they had an 8th debate, they are > exhausted because they've been working on little sleep for days/weeks > before > the tournament, and often up late enjoying themselves each night of the > tournament. Neither of those problems are eliminated by having one less > debate. Some might argue that the shorter schedule puts less stress on > coaches. Admittedly, I do not know a lot about being a coach, and am > perhaps ignorant and in need of a schooling. In my opinion, having 1 fewer > debate does little to alleviate coach fatigue except for the coaches of > doubles teams who do not have to stay up late preparing for doubles. I > don't know what about having one fewer debate causes coaches who stay up > all > night cutting cards (you know who you are) to suddenly decide that they > shouldn't do that and should instead go to sleep. Similar to student > fatigue, coach fatigue seems a "problem" of personal decisions made by > individual coaches and the ethos of competition that courses through the > debate community. * From a debater perspective, I'd much rather have > another > debate than feel marginally less tired Tuesdays after tournaments. I'm > sure > those who could have cleared 5-3 but didn't because they were 4-3 would > agree with me on this*. I have never heard a good answer to the argument > that shortening tournament length denies the majority of teams an extra > debate in the name of preserving the energy levels of the select few > debating on elim day. > > I am also curious where the data for the 'we're so tired please don't make > us debate another round' argument is coming from. Have any tournaments > provided participants with a survey of whether or not they would rather > debate an additional round or feel less tired on Monday/Tuesday? I would > be > curious to hear thoughts on this, as I might be in the minority. In any > case, it would be interesting if tournaments began posing these sorts of > questions to the participants (judges, debaters, and coaches alike). > > Part II - Revising Prelim Structure for the Short Schedule > > If we're going to be shortening tournaments, I think it is absolutely > paramount that tab rooms alter the prelim structure to reflect this > change. > I enjoyed my time in Kentucky this past weekend, but the notion of having > 4 > preset rounds in a 7 round tournament is *PATENTLY ABSURD*. There is > simply > not enough time in the three following rounds to effectively derive the > top > 32 teams via rigorous competition. This is particularly troubling given > that most critics are still getting used to the 100 pt scale. Speaker > points are more important than ever, but the norms dictating what certain > points mean are less certain than ever. > > This problem is probably solved by beginning to power-match debates after > 2 > or 3 rounds, and I hope that such a practice is adopted for future large > national tournaments that decide to shorten their schedules. (I am aware > of > course that many smaller tournament already pair prelims like this; I > think > that Wake did last year?).. > > As a side note, I think it sort of sucks that teams can go 5-2 at a > tournament and still not clear, but maybe there's not much to be done > about > that. > > Responses and clarifications would be extremely appreciated, > > -Ralph > _______________________________________________ > 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 From stables at usc.edu Thu Oct 15 14:47:46 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:47:46 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Introducing the new CEDA Forums Message-ID: <39c1ac890910151247h57542981p53bd096642eb7356@mail.gmail.com> Greetings, I am happy to announce that thanks to the labors of Jeff Jarman, we have rebuilt and resigned an important aspect of the CEDA website, the forums section. These have been modeled after the successful approach at Crossx.com and they offer us an opportunity to provide an organized way for our community to communicate. Forums are available for tournaments, regional issues, questions of community practice, organizational questions and a lot more. The forums are now active and open for anyone to sign up at http://cedadebate.org/forum/. Registering is free and simple. This is an organizationally sponsored opportunity for us to communicate as a community. For too long, we have been willing to freeride on the labors (and technology) of others, especially Phil Kerpin. Our free-riding has left us unable to organize the discussions or exercise concern when lines are crossed. The forum rules outside the emphasis on free speech and open conversation with the ability to moderate discussions. I want to thank Phil for his years of hard work and service. His forum will continue to be an entirely unmoderated site. Our platform today offers a way to exchange the information that we need. Jeff and community volunteers will help keep the site functioning the best way possible. To that end, if you have suggestions in how to organize forums to better serve your needs, please let us know. For years the community resisted moving to a different platform because of the perceived difficulties of getting everyone to move with them. This prisoner's dilemma should end now. Thanks to the labors of Jon Bruschke, debateresults now sends direct emails with pairings and tournament information. Much of what we would 'miss' without a public listserv is now sent directly to coaches and students. The challenge is to build a place for the rest of the news and discussions. We think the CEDA forums are that place. I am asking coaches, students, alumni and administrators to move your traffic about our community to the forums. I will be the first to take the plunge and announce that CEDA will begin using the forums for our organizational traffic, in addition to using its website emails and the CEDA-L. Please let Jeff or I know if you have any trouble with the site. We have tried to learn from the success of other communities and we think this platform is long overdue. We just need your help in making this transition possible. Thanks Gordon Gordon Stables, Ph.D. President, Cross-Examination Debate Association Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From csedelmyer at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 15:04:16 2009 From: csedelmyer at gmail.com (Chris Sedelmyer) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:04:16 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Vanderbilt Tournament Website Message-ID: The Vanderbilt Tournament will post all logistics updates and pairings on this site: http://vandydebate.wordpress.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091015/e47de6d6/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Thu Oct 15 15:21:33 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:21:33 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Miami (Florida) Message-ID: <0DF045792ED749F0A194CB5542296929@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:The Hurricane Debates Starts:1/29/2010 Ends:1/31/2010 Hosted by: Miami (Florida) Contact: David L. Steinberg Address: Phone: 305-926-8498 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters NOVICE with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From pgk at philkerpen.com Thu Oct 15 21:21:34 2009 From: pgk at philkerpen.com (Phil Kerpen) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:21:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is eDebate still needed? Message-ID: <20091016022134.CC50222E256@mxout-07.mxes.net> In light of the the new CEDA forums, is eDebate still needed? ------------------------ Phil Kerpen www.philkerpen.com Cell: 202.285.9714 Fax: 202.478.0343 Twitter: http://twitter.com/kerpen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091015/41085c72/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 23:15:04 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:15:04 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] Last minute Vandy pref changes Message-ID: <9a7f6f740910152115y7e905cd6y8bc590047cd83938@mail.gmail.com> There have been a few last minute judge changes. Please make sure your pref sheets are up to date. Mike From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Oct 16 04:51:15 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:51:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] what needs to happen to make edebate work? In-Reply-To: References: <771450.73468.qm@web50202.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0910160251s1e29ec80j13765cac0a3d53f8@mail.gmail.com> Jenkies they beat me to the punch I was gonna announce OMGdebate.com as the new alternative. It was gonna be the one place you went any time you said OMG debate...like its awesome or OMG Debate like ugh or OMG debate like whoa. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Zach Westerfield < zachwesterfield at hotmail.com> wrote: > I tried to post this to the list serve last Saturday, but it never got > posted, lost in cyberspace I guess. I'll try again... > > Dear Debate Community, > > > > There has been discussion for some time about moving away > from the current list serve at www.ndtceda.com. I know that the current > set up is quite a strain, both in terms of bandwidth and financially, on > Phil Kerpen, who has been gracious enough to keep, maintain, and provide > this forum to the community. > > > > While coaching at the University of Denver, Jared Ellis and > myself thought that we might be able to design a new way for the community > to interact. Though neither of us coach debate in an official capacity at > the University of Denver anymore (we moved into the private sector), both of > us still do what we can to help DU out, judge at a few tournaments per year, > and keep abreast of what?s happening in the community. We got quite a bit > of experience with information sharing after moving DU over to paperless > debate a few years ago, and one of the technical things we thought we?d > tackle is finding a replacement for ndtceda.com. We agree with Joe, the > current list serve is slow, archaic, annoying and in need of a serious > upgrade. That?s not an indictment in any way, shape or form on Phil, it?s > just that we thought it was time to move forward with something different. > > > > The new site that we?ve developed is at www.edebate.com It?s > up, running, and modeled after a number of the social networking sites that > currently exist. It?s designed to cater to the academic debate community. > Feel free to try it out. If you can use facebook, you can use this > site. Here are some of the features of the site: > > > > ? Multiple Forum discussions can be created > > ? Tournament information pages/updates/results can be created and > archived for easy reference in the future > > ? User profiles > > ? Team profiles - keep people updated about your team > > ? The ability to keep debate information in one central location > > ? Private emails between users ? no more ?cite requests? sent to every > users e-mail account > > ? Chat feature for people logged into the site > > ? Ability to upload pictures and full length videos > > ? Events can be added > > ? Groups can be created > > ? It?s 100% free to the debate community. No donations or other > financial assistance are needed. > > > > > Lastly, we all care about the debate community. If other > people have ideas, or requests, we have the ability to make some changes and > modifications to the site. We?d like to grow the site as the community > changes, advances, and continues to move toward a paperless format. > > > > Thanks, > > Zach Westerfield > > ------------------------------ > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20091016/1a42ae6b/attachment.htm From carrolltondebate at gmail.com Fri Oct 16 11:56:26 2009 From: carrolltondebate at gmail.com (Joseph Carver) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:56:26 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Judge needed at St Marks Message-ID: We pay much better than average. We will get you a room in the hotel but we are looking for a Dallas local and in keeping with our programs traditions, please exlude yourself if you vote for teams that don't defend the implementation of their plan etc etc because we think thats garbage. Thanks Joe Carver Carrollton Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091016/d4d3b0b8/attachment.htm From dave at miami.edu Fri Oct 16 12:11:19 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:11:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Hurricane Debates Invitation Message-ID: The Hurricane Debates University of Miami Coral Gables, Florida January 29-31, 2010 http://debate.miami.edu/college/ Offering 6 preliminary rounds of debate plus appropriate elimination rounds in Open, J.V., and Novice Policy Debate The University of Miami Debate Team and School of Communication invite you to our beautiful campus and exciting community for fun, sun and excellent debate in South Florida on January 29-31, 2010. We promise excellent hospitality and efficient tab room management. This year?s tournament will be recognized by CEDA and ADA. Please join us! Hotel Information: Miami will host the Super Bowl on February 7, so our ?high? season is even higher than usual. For convenience, we have again secured a block of rooms at the Holiday Inn, which is the closest accommodation to campus. If you don?t mind ?budget? lodging, or a longer drive to campus, talk to David Steinberg and we will help you locate a cheaper alternative. In addition, you may wish to stay at famous South Beach or Coconut Grove. Either will cost a drive or higher rates, but with obvious benefits. Ask us for assistance. Holiday Inn University of Miami, 1350 South Dixie Highway, Coral Gables, Florida 33146, directly across US-1 from campus. They have offered us a flat rate of $139. Contact information and bock code will be posted as soon as available. Alternatives: For a list of additional hotels offering UM rates, visit: http://www6.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH_Main/0,1770,29105-1;12593-2;65418-3,00.html?pf=1 As alternatives, we suggest these low budget properties close to campus: Gables Motor Inn, 730 S. Dixie Highway, Coral Gables, 305-661-7999 Terrace Inn, 1430 S. Dixie Highway, Coral Gables, 305-662-8845 (This is the closest and cheapest) Alternate Hotel information at Miami International Airport: http://miami.hotelguide.net/hl1ap.htm Alternate Hotel information in Coral Gables: http://miami.hotelguide.net/hl1cg.htm Alternate Hotel information in Coconut Grove: http://miami.hotelguide.net/hl1co.htm Alternate Hotel information on Miami Beach: http://miami.hotelguide.net/hl1mb.htm Local Events There is always a lot going on in South Florida during the winter. A few of the big events on our weekend include: Homestead Championship Rodeo Miami ING Marathon NFL Pro Bowl Miami Beach Arts Festival Florida Panthers v. NY Islanders (Sunday) Miami Heat v. Milwaukee Bucks (Monday) Transportation: Miami International Airport (MIA) is most convenient to campus. Ft. Lauderdale (FLL) is about 45 minutes away. West Palm Beach International (PBI) is about an hour and a half drive. Southwest Airlines flies into Ft. Lauderdale only. Car rental rates tend to be very reasonable here. For airport transportation (MIA only), we recommend SuperShuttle, http://www.supershuttle.com/default.aspx?content=Miami, or local cabs. Entries: At this time, we will not limit entries, however, we reserve the right to do so as necessary to facilitate the tournament. We have very limited room availability. Please enter as soon as possible, and no later than 5:00 p.m. (Miami time), Monday, January 25th. How to Enter: We will be using the Bruschke website for tournament entries. Please enter at www.debateresults.com If you have difficulty with the entry process or need assistance, please contact Professor Steinberg. Again, the entry cut-off date is Monday, January 25th, at 5:00 p.m. in Miami. Please be sure to enter your school and your students by that date. Contact Information: For information, assistance, etc?, please call the Tournament Director, David L. Steinberg, 305-284-5553 (office), 305-926-8498 (cell), dave at miami.edu Maps and Directions: For Maps and directions to the campus, visit http://miami.edu/maps/ For specific directions to The School of Communication, visit http://com.miami.edu/directions/ For directions to The Holiday Inn, visit http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/hi/1/en/hotel/MIAUM/transportation Debate Information: 6 rounds of team topic policy debate in Open, J.V. and Novice Debate on the 2009-2010 CEDA Resolution: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal. We will maintain the divisions as long as it is possible to pair 6 rounds where each team debates six different opponents. If a division is not large enough to allow for this, divisions will be collapsed, but awards will be given to top speakers in their original division (example, if JV collapses into Open, the top JV speakers will still be recognized.) Format 9-3-6,10 minutes preparation time. University of Miami teams may participate. Judges must assign a winner and a loser in each debate. Eligibility for participation and for divisions will be consistent with current Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) and American Debate Association (ADA) rules. We will honor the CEDA and ADA standards for ethical practice, sexual discrimination, tournament administration and evidence policy. The ADA rules are available at http://www.liberty.edu/academics/communications/debate/index.cfm?PID=15224 (thank you to Liberty University!) Awards will be provided to all elimination round participants, and to at least the top 20% of speakers. Maximum number of elimination rounds as consistent with ADA and CEDA standards will be offered Judging: You must provide one judge for every 2 teams (or fraction thereof). If you are unable to provide judging, we may not be able to accept your entry. We will have a limited amount of hired judging available at $100 per uncovered team. Please let us know as soon as possible if you anticipate needing to hire judging. If the number of teams and judges allows, we will offer some form of mutually preferred judge assignment. If we are able to employ MPF, we will do so across all divisions. Fees: $100 per team to be collected at registration. Please pay by school. Checks should be made out to UM Debate. Amenities: snacks, Saturday breakfast, Saturday lunch, Sunday breakfast, Sunday lunch, and other hospitality will be provided Schedule: Friday, January 29 2:00 ? 3:00 Registration UM School of Communication Courtyard 4:00 Round I 6:30 Round II Saturday, January 30 9:30 posting of Round III 10:00 Round III 1:00 Round IV 4:00 Round V 7:00 Round VI Sunday, January 31 8:30 a.m. posting of Elimination Rounds 9:30 First Elimination Round 12:00 Awards 12:30 Elimination Rounds Continue David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, Lecturer in Communication Studies University of Miami PO Box 248127 Coral Gables, FL 33124 FLW 3015 305-284-5553 204-385-5216 (fax) dave at miami.edu http://debate.miami.edu/ From kkuswa at richmond.edu Fri Oct 16 12:18:21 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:18:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Results from RICHMOND (Oct 10-12) Message-ID: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD3F5EE6@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Thanks to everyone who attended. Congrats to all the participants. We hope to see you here next here. Results are here: http://blog.richmond.edu/debate/2009/10/16/spider_2009_results/ Sincerely, kevin *********************************************************** Dr. Kevin Douglas Kuswa Director of Debate, Dept. of Rhetoric & Comm. Studies 400-A Weinstein Hall (U) University of Richmond, VA 23173 Spide(R)bate (804) 289-8269 debate.richmond.edu/ *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091016/2a5ae4e4/attachment.htm From EMarlow at uco.edu Fri Oct 16 12:28:32 2009 From: EMarlow at uco.edu (Eric Marlow) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:28:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Hotel room found Message-ID: <75671A9DCD21974888C9A2E5E4937B6451E9A668FA@EXCHANGE.uco.local> Thanks to everyone who tried to help us out!!! We have secured a room for Harvard. Peace, Marlow Eric Marlow Director of Debate University of Central Oklahoma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091016/33afea04/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5675 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091016/33afea04/attachment.jpg From aimi.hamraie at gmail.com Fri Oct 16 20:48:40 2009 From: aimi.hamraie at gmail.com (Aimi Hamraie) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:48:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Hire me for the TOC Message-ID: <83d42fa60910161848nefa92bbxda1dc331d042faf0@mail.gmail.com> Email if you are interested. We can negotiate judging, card cutting, etc. -- Aimi Hamraie Graduate fellow Department of Women's Studies Emory University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091016/d85c391d/attachment.htm From jmgreen at ksu.edu Fri Oct 16 21:55:36 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:55:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Pairings up for Emporia Rounds 1-2 at Debateresults Message-ID: <5a6e2a80910161955o176e0545vae85f11a900b806f@mail.gmail.com> See subject. From aimi.hamraie at gmail.com Fri Oct 16 22:20:48 2009 From: aimi.hamraie at gmail.com (Aimi Hamraie) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:20:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Hire me for the TOC In-Reply-To: <83d42fa60910161848nefa92bbxda1dc331d042faf0@mail.gmail.com> References: <83d42fa60910161848nefa92bbxda1dc331d042faf0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <83d42fa60910162020p5891220crbd167807f03f6b0d@mail.gmail.com> Sorry if this gets sent twice... Email if you are interested. We can negotiate judging, card cutting, etc. -- Aimi Hamraie Graduate fellow Department of Women's Studies Emory University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091016/a3c6035c/attachment.htm From sethegannon at gmail.com Sat Oct 17 10:20:19 2009 From: sethegannon at gmail.com (Seth Gannon) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:20:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Coaches' poll ballots due tonight (10/17) Message-ID: <4bfbc1090910170820h77bd7a21neeb934c8c2d14e8d@mail.gmail.com> Hope to hear from everyone who's interested -- just send a list of the top 25 partnerships in the country in rank order In my last reminder, I meant to congratulate the 4 teams whose victories I'd heard about that week, but I sent it off before realizing I had left out Gonzaga... congrats guys Thanks all, Max Bialystock From ralph.paone at gmail.com Sat Oct 17 10:39:58 2009 From: ralph.paone at gmail.com (Ralph Paone) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:39:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] selling 5 rounds at Harvard In-Reply-To: <86f9bd6d0910141523h5479f8dt4c5ac1c4c9eaf770@mail.gmail.com> References: <86f9bd6d0910141523h5479f8dt4c5ac1c4c9eaf770@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <86f9bd6d0910170839vf940a91w5edca552346bb957@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Ralph Paone wrote: > Shoot me an offer! > > peace, > -ralph > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091017/1056b5a8/attachment.htm From christy.webster at gmail.com Sat Oct 17 18:32:10 2009 From: christy.webster at gmail.com (Christy Webster) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:32:10 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] West Point Clearing Teams Message-ID: <59b051810910171632u1e4c681bvc4f3399084c9bf45@mail.gmail.com> Pairings will be out 7AM. Octos will begin at 8AM. ALL JUDGES ARE OBLIGATED FOR THE FIRST ROUND IN THE MORNING. A list of judges need in the morning will be posted later on tonight once the partial doubles round is over. OPEN CLEARING TEAMS BINGHAMTON GRCA BINGHAMTON JATI BINGHATON TOFO CORNELL HIKA GEORGE MASON JAOW GEORGETOWN HAST NAVY AVPA PITT KUSO ROCHESTER KAYA TOWSON COOW JV CLEARING TEAMS BOSTON COLLEGE ARBE CLARION KRSA CLARION STFL CORNELL LEWE CORNELL LOSL FORDHAM FRRA GEORGE MASON MESA WVU COPO WVU HEPA NOVICE CLEARING TEAMS BINGHAMTON DASI BINGHAMTON GLWO BINGHAMTON KOZG BC GRLO BC PAYU CLARION LENA GMU GAFR MONMOUTH MITI NAVY HUNE ROCHESTER AKQU ROCHESTER ANST ROCHESTER DEZH WVU JEPL WILKES COGO Partial Doulbes rounds going on now... NEW SCHOOL GOOP VS ROCHESTER HAKI LAIO, XIN, MAFFIE CORNELL SHWO VS MONMOUTH NOSA KHAN, JOHNSON, FLETCHER -- Best, Christy From christy.webster at gmail.com Sat Oct 17 23:11:10 2009 From: christy.webster at gmail.com (Christy Webster) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:11:10 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] West Point Judges for Sunday AM Message-ID: <59b051810910172111r77ca3e27j16fa9b68d60c569c@mail.gmail.com> Rounds start at 8AM. Pairings and breakfast at 7AM. Antonucci Baker Barcoma Bigelow D'Amico Decker Ellis Flores Gayetsky Girouard Godbey Gunther Hahn Johnson Kahn Katsulus Keenan Kimmer Ku Lattuca Liao Lyle Maffie McDaniel Miller Passesser Povazhuk Rodriguez Schatz Skinner Waldinger Wilcox Woan -- Best, Christy From ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu Sat Oct 17 23:11:53 2009 From: ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu (Sandoz, M L) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:11:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] Emory at Vandy Message-ID: <1216.69.245.0.19.1255839113.squirrel@vuwebmail.vanderbilt.edu> Please have a coach call ML at 615-500-6184 ------------------------------------------------- Sandoz, M L Director of Debate Vanderbilt University Email: mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu From sethegannon at gmail.com Sun Oct 18 13:20:53 2009 From: sethegannon at gmail.com (Seth Gannon) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:20:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] National Top 25 -- as of 10/17 Message-ID: <4bfbc1090910181120i16f9a46rf49cf9db6afdc450@mail.gmail.com> Note that there is now a Top 25 Schools list, in addition to the Top 25 Teams list. Team (First Place Votes) ? Points Per Eligible Ballot (Previous Position) 1. Emory IW (20) -- 24.65 (3) 2. Michigan State LW (3) -- 23.05 (9) 3. Northwestern FS (1) -- 22.65 (2) 4. California BP -- 22.50 (4) 5. UT Dallas BR -- 21.04 (1) 6. Whitman CS -- 19.35 (7) 7. West Georgia BS -- 18.70 (5) 8. Harvard JP -- 18.54 (6) 9. Kansas KQ -- 15.61 (19) 10. Wake Forest MS -- 15.18 (8) 11. Oklahoma GW -- 15.13 (12) 12. Mary Washington KS -- 14.61 (16) 13. California BJ -- 12.61 (13) 14. Georgia CL -- 12.43 (11) 15. Emory GJ -- 11.09 (17) 16. Kansas KS -- 7.91 (14) 17. Harvard KR -- 6.71 (20) 18. Baylor CM -- 6.17 (10) 19. Idaho State JJ -- 6.08 (18) 20. Michigan LZ -- 4.04 (NR) 21. Kansas State MZ -- 3.75 (NR) 22. Southern California HL -- 3.13 (25) 23. UT San Antonio MT -- 2.71 (NR) 24. Gonzaga CJ -- 1.91 (22) 25. Vanderbilt BN -- 1.88 (NR) Dropped out: No. 15 Missouri State FK, No. 21 Towson JM, No. 23 Emory NS, No. 24 Trinity BH Also receiving votes: California GP, California GW, Emory NS, Iowa SV, Missouri State FK, Northwestern BF, Northwestern GL, Redlands IZ, Samford BG, Towson JM, Trinity BH, Central Oklahoma KS, Wake Forest CC, Wichita State BR, Wyoming BH Top 25 Schools (by total points to that school per eligible ballot): 1. Emory -- 36.12 2. California -- 36.07 3. Harvard -- 25.25 4. Northwestern -- 23.86 5. Kansas -- 23.52 6. Michigan State -- 23.05 7. UT Dallas -- 21.04 8. Whitman -- 19.35 9. West Georgia -- 18.70 10. Wake Forest -- 16.68 11. Oklahoma -- 15.13 12. Mary Washington -- 14.61 13. Georgia -- 12.43 14. Baylor -- 6.17 15. Idaho State -- 6.08 16. Michigan -- 4.04 17. Kansas State -- 3.75 18. Southern California -- 3.13 19. UT San Antonio -- 2.71 20. Gonzaga -- 1.91 21. Vanderbilt -- 1.88 22. Iowa -- 1.83 23. Samford -- 1.79 24. Towson -- 1.52 25. Missouri State -- 1.04 Thanks, seth From christy.webster at gmail.com Sun Oct 18 20:07:37 2009 From: christy.webster at gmail.com (Christy Webster) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:07:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] West Point Final Round Results Message-ID: <59b051810910181807o3f74bb34j780ace8c3733cb4f@mail.gmail.com> Congratulations to our winners! Open: Georgetown HS defeated Cornell HK on a 2-1 JV: Cornell LS defeated WVU HP on a 2-1 Novice: Binghamton DS defeated George Mason DF on a 2-1 decision. Complete results can be found on Debateresults in the Real Time Results section. Safe travels home! -- Best, Christy From derekbuescher at gmail.com Sun Oct 18 21:15:23 2009 From: derekbuescher at gmail.com (Derek Buescher) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:15:23 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] I have no idea where to go for information anymore--help Message-ID: Okay, we have edebate or not? We have the ceda-l, we have the new ceda forum, we have another forum started by westerfield? Or is that the ceda forum? and we have debateresults. I like the idea of the ceda forum for consolidating business and debateresuts for managing tournament information and tab and records. But we seem to have a sudden proliferation of sites for discussion. Can someone clear up what is doing what anymore; what is defunct (such as this site), etc. etc. Thanks in advance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091018/51d1afad/attachment.htm From oguevara at hotmail.com Sun Oct 18 23:46:06 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:46:06 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY :) Message-ID: (I am sending my thanks BEFORE the final round in hopes that it will be posted to Edebate sometime in the next 73 years.) Three cheers for ISU! A very well run tournament ? with many unique personal touches. Also, an opportunity for the NEW District II to sit down and sort out its post-merger business. The official handle is, ?Northwest Rockies.? I want to thank ISU for giving us an opportunity to jump start our organization issues and our community. Obviously, times are tough all over. I am worried about the long term viability of our activity. Every day is another sales job. It grinds on you. But it was really nice to escape from that, even for just a spell. It was especially nice to see good debates and debating, and to see all the folks from the OLD D II and the OLD D IX hanging out and having a good time. I?d like to encourage folks to consider adding ISU to their fall rotation; it is a rewarding experience. So battlin? Bengals, good job. Again. (as well as to Glen for running tab). Lastly, Nate Murphy is the Man! OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091018/a9b19e63/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Mon Oct 19 07:01:19 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:01:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] SPIDER TOURNAMENT RESULTS Message-ID: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD1A4837@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> thought this went out--but lo and behold...it did not. Here are the results from Richmond: http://blog.richmond.edu/debate/2009/10/16/spider_2009_results/ sincerely, kevin From bk2nocal at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 09:36:51 2009 From: bk2nocal at gmail.com (Sue Peterson) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:36:51 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate Study Opportunity in Climate Change for ANY field of study Message-ID: <417507f50910190736v5a443424xde00482d83d716cd@mail.gmail.com> Thought some of you on the list might be interested in this... Brad Mello, BMello at natcom.org Call for Applications to attend Institute for Integration of Research on Climate Change and Hazards in the Americas www.aag.org/Grantsawards/pasi.html Anticipated impacts of climate change increase the likelihood and extremity of hazards, and when coupled with the largely unpredictable ways in which local communities may experience new or different kinds of events, the importance of supporting integration at the hemispheric scale rises to a critical level. The Institute for Integration of Research on Climate Change and Hazards in the Americas will address these topics and foster a region-wide community of scholars and practitioners. Up to 50 graduate students and post-doctoral scholars from the US and Latin America will be supported to participate in a two-week long institute in Panama City, Panama to be held in June 2010. The institute will offer lectures, demonstrations, technical training, group discussions, and work sessions at the advanced graduate and post-doctoral level. Participants will collectively produce a research agenda and a set of white papers, and will support development of an online knowledge and col! laboration environment before, during, and after the event. The event, co-organized by the Association of American Geographers (AAG), the PanAmerican Institute for Geography and History (PAIGH) of the Organization of American States, the US Geological Survey (USGS), the National Communication Association (NCA), and the United Nations Environment Programme Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNEP), will take place in collaboration with the Universidad Tecnol?gica de Panam? and will be led by an expert interdisciplinary team of 12 lecturers from the US, Panama, Chile, Brazil, and Mexico. The desired result of the program is a clear roadmap and collaborative mechanism for developing and sharing the knowledge necessary for responding to climate change and hazards in the Americas in an integrative way, using geographic tools and methods as a research and communication framework. Funding for the institute comes from the US Department of Energy and US National Science Foundation sponsored Pan American Advanced Studies Insti! tute Program (NSF PASI). Graduate students, post doctoral students, or early career scientists within 6 years of receiving the PhD, and who are US citizens or permanent residents or are currently enrolled in a US university or academic institution in any field may apply to attend as US Participants. Underrepresented groups and students from Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges are encouraged to apply. Graduate students, post doctoral students, or early career scientists within 10 years of receiving the PhD who are citizens of and residents in any country in Latin America may apply as Regional Participants. Selected participants must attend the full two week institute in Panama and will receive airfare, lodging, local transportation to institute events, training materials, and some meals paid for by the program. Application forms, instructions and selection criteria are available on the website at www.aag.org/Grantsawards/pasi.html. Deadl! ine for submissions is January 16, 2010. For questions or additional information, please contact Patricia Sol?s at psolis at aag.org. Brad Mello, Ph.D. Associate Director for Educational Initiatives The National Communication Association 1765 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (o) 202-534-1103 (f) 202-464-4600 bmello at natcom.org Sue Peterson, Director of Speech and Debate at CSU Chico sepeterson at csuchico.edu 530-898-4771 Please help me raise money for the Ronald McDonald House in Stanford, where me and my family spent more than four months during the last year! http://www.firstgiving.com/suepeterson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091019/12f948ef/attachment.htm From kristopherwillis at hotmail.com Mon Oct 19 09:54:56 2009 From: kristopherwillis at hotmail.com (Kris Willis) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:54:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] AppState entries Message-ID: Hello folks. Please start making entries on debateresults for our tournament. Several folks have indicated they are coming, but have not entered. Several more have said they would enter but thought there wasn't going to be enough to make. So please place your entries. Thanks, Kris _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091019/5c164cf0/attachment.htm From tara_l_tate at hotmail.com Mon Oct 19 11:51:08 2009 From: tara_l_tate at hotmail.com (Tara Tate) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:51:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for judges in the Cedar Rapids, Iowa area Message-ID: Glenbrook South is looking for a policy judge or two for the Cedar Rapids - Washington tournament (Iowa) for the weekend of October 30-November 01. Competitive pay, housing, and gas money provided. Please let me know if you are available. Email me at ttate at glenbrook.k12.il.us. Tara Tate Glenbrook South _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091019/449426d8/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 12:41:54 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:41:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Proposed NDT Scouting Rule Changes Message-ID: <524839830910191041y66e86d44n8369d14f565ce9d4@mail.gmail.com> In light of the growth in paperless debate, I have been considering proposing/suggesting some scouting rule changes/additions for the NDT. The new rules would be something along the following: (1) Teams should inform the scouting director prior to the tournament if the overwhelming majority of their debating will be "paperless." (2) When assigning scouts, the scouting directors should prioritize the scouting of "paper teams" -- even sending more than one scout to the rooms where there are paper teams. (3) Paperless teams should self-report the following within 30 minutes of the conclusion of the debate: (a) Any new 1ACs (tags, cites, new plans) that are read in the debate (b) Any modifications/additions to existing 1ACs (tags, cites, plan changes (c) Tags & Cites for cards read in the 1NC (d) CPs & K alts read in the 1NC/block. (e) Tags & cites for cards read in the 2AC (f) Tags and cites for any cards read in any other speeches My rationale: We encourage self-reporting prior to the tournament, so why not during the tournament. Taking 2 minutes to post your own stuff is way more efficient than having scouts re-type it all after the debate (and they often run out of time). #s 2 & 3 are not mutually exclusive. Having people self-report with scouts in the room just ensures that more information is collected. Thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091019/392e6715/attachment.htm From rwgallow at samford.edu Mon Oct 19 14:01:33 2009 From: rwgallow at samford.edu (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:01:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Proposed Rule Change on the "Clear Half" ADA Rule Message-ID: Greetings from Birmingham, I just arrived home from a wonderful tournament at Vanderbilt University. ML was great, all the debaters fought hard, and we look forward to returning next year. However, the final round I judged ended at approximately 2AM. After the debate, I walked out in pitch black to the SUV I had left in the parking lot at the tournament. Not planning on staying the night, I drove around the streets of Nashville to find a place to stay. My fine motor skills were weak. I was having difficulty steering the SUV even down the street and navigating a few U-Turns to find a hotel in a strange city. I seriously contemplated taking a nap in the van. Meanwhile, Abi drove our kids home after we lost in the semis, and arrived home at after 5am. She has been suffering from exhaustion and throwing up. The motivation to not stay was to make sure our students who were competing late at Richmond (another ADA tournament that did 5 rounds in a day) could get back home to go to school. Folks, this isn't safe. A cause of this problem is that the ADA rules clear half of the teams. Vandy did 5 debates in a day and the awards ceremony. The first debate had almost everyone getting a bye, delaying the start of the octafinals until almost noon. I would like to suggest a minor modification to the ADA rules on this question. *If clearing half the teams would require a partial double-octafinals means that there are less than 3 debates taking place in the double-octafinals, that the tournament not clear said teams, that the teams receive a double-octafinals award and points appropriate for winning such a debate. For purposes of CEDA, ADA, and NDT points, those competing in the Octas will receive the equivalent number of points as if they had won a double-octafinals debate. 5 debates and an awards ceremony in a day is too much. National tournaments increasingly believe this, now it may be time to clean up the ADA rules for the regional tournaments for the health and well-being of all participants. The Vandy tournament had 2 varsity debates in the Octas and 1 close-out. Meanwhile THIRTEEN TEAMS received a bye through the Doubles, meaning they had to wait at the tournament till apx 11:45AM to start their first debate of the day. The Vandy tournament had 1 jv debate in the Octas and 7 teams advanced with a bye. Novice Octas was reasonable, 4 debates three byes. My proposal is just a conversation starter. I'm the biggest fan in the world of getting more debates for people, but we've got to have a compromise at some point. A handful of double-octafinal debates that cause a tournament to try to get 5 debates and an awards ceremony in a day may be a reasonable start. Recognizing that this may not be popular, but may be necessary... Dr. Ryan W. Galloway Director of Debate Samford University From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 14:39:09 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:39:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 8 prelim model In-Reply-To: <12a4de8d0910151010h16bbaba4ha9aeccd7161c3386@mail.gmail.com> References: <12a4de8d0910151010h16bbaba4ha9aeccd7161c3386@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with all of this except: 1. 4 prelims sat, 4 prelims sunday doubles on out-round day (let people get as many rounds as possible and make the hard day a hard day for the host not the travelers - teams that stay will get a room, teams that lose will leave and be more rested when they do because the prelims didnt wear them out. 2. Opp wins is a poor substitute because you cannot control who you debate. Not saying its any less arbitrary than the speaker point system...Just suggesting some stat head has to be able to come up with a more reliable meaningful substitute. Josh On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Scott Phillips wrote: > Basic outline: 8 preliminary rounds. 5 rounds take place on Saturday. > Rounds 1-4 are preset and released by 5pm the Friday beforehand. Round 5 is > high high and paired off of only rounds 1-3, the pairing for round 5 would > be released during round 4. > > Some basic assumptions of my model > 1. There are not enough high high debates at tournaments. More high high > debates would > -produce more of the top level head to head matches that determine bid > sheets and drive innovation by forcing teams to bust strategies and research > new ones > -give on the cusp teams a bit of breathing room - if you speak poorly some > high high rounds give you a reprieve from a constant beat down- the current > system is too one sided > -eliminate some of the damage that having a large number of presets has on > borderline teams by reducing the likelihood of getting jacked by having to > debate a few top level teams in the presets and then win several break > rounds in a row that are high low in your bracket. > 2. Debaters are given way to much pre round prep- everyone goes for the > same crap anyway- the health care disad and cap K are highlighted already, > you don't need an hour to get ready for them. Also releasing pairings > earlier allows debaters to take advantage of the post round dead time > waiting for a decision to prep more for later debates. > 3. More prelims are better- people get more practice, who should clear > becomes "clearer" etc. > 4. Opponent wins should be more important in deciding who clears than > speaker points- there I said it. The speaker point system is broken. This is > a team activity. Especially with more high high debates which I have > already conclusively proven is a moral obligation. > 5. Judges need to run a tighter ship- stop prep stealing and time wasting, > enforce start times etc. Debaters waste time because they are allowed too. > If the choice is between losing a debate or punishing teams who are too lazy > and stupid to be efficient it is ridiculous to take away a debate. A strict > schedule creates incentives for efficiency by rewarding teams who are well > organized and work hard. > > > > > How long does a round take? 92 minutes. Assume at least 10 minutes for > screwing around brings us to 102. If each round is given 2:15 that is 135 > minutes, leaving over 1/2 an hour for making a decision. You could even add > another 15 minutes on there and that would only lengthen the day by an hour. > This would mean the schedule would/could look like (I have added an extra 10 > minutes for travel time, and extra time for lunch and dinner, discussed > below) > > Round 1: 7:45 > Round 2: 10:10 > Round 3: 1:15 > Round 4: 3:40 > Round 5: 6:45 > > This gets everyone out around 9. > > Day 2: > Round 6: 8:00 > Round 7: 10:30 > Round 8: 2:30 > Doubles: 6:00 > > Round 6 and 7 should be paired off round 5 and have one high low and one > high high. The pairing should be released at 6am. Since you get out at > roughly 9, you should be able to eat and get to sleep by 10 or 11 giving you > 7-8 hours of sleep if you decide to get up at 6 and start prepping. If you > want to sleep in you can obviously get more sleep but this is a pretty good > amount to get considering you would get 2 hours to prep for rounds 6 and 7. > Round 8 is obviously important, so there is a lot of extra prep built in for > this. If a strict decision time is enforced all the round 7 ballots should > be in by 12:45. Giving people 1/2 hour for lunch that means they will still > get about an hour to prep for potential break rounds. > > Finally- opp wins should be more important than speaker points in > determining who clears. The main objection to pairing more rounds ahead of > time is "we'll get screwed". Using opponent wins helps take the bite out of > this argument and opposition to high high rounds. It also allows time to > figure out the 100 point scale while only speaker awards are affected. > > Some of this may seem pretty radical/unworkable but a fundamental > assumption is that time is wasted because there are no incentives to not > waste it. A strict schedule forces debaters to chose between focusing on > competitive gain or other aspects of debate like socializing etc true, but > this is already a trade off in many other ways. > > Top ways time is wasted at tournaments now that would be pressured to > reform by judges and debaters > 1. Cleaning up- people don't do it until after the decision, throw evidence > all over the room during debates so they are later unable to find it etc. > 2. Moving- teams mosey around chit chatting > 3. Water/bathroom breaks- you're an adult- get a bottle and learn to hold > it > 4. Being out of the room during decision making > > Teams who want more prep time can eliminate all of these things to get it. > > > Answers to obvious objections > > Long decision making/oral critiques are good > > It shouldn't take that long to figure out most of these prelims. A wise old > sage once told me that most debates are hard to decide because the debaters > didn't do their job, not because the debates were very good and close. Some > judges take a ton of time and vote neg, some take a ton of time and vote > aff, some take a ton of time, realize they can't sit out since there is only > 1 judge and then flip a coin. Point being- just like debaters do speed > drills, some judges should work on figuring things out faster. > > Each debate should be power matched individually/blah blah blah > The value of having more debates outweighs any risk of a negative from > pairing 6 and 7 together. The warrant for pairing them together being bad is > it will affect clearing- which at its core relies on the idea that more > debates are good. Everyone gets a round 8 in this model so its as if you all > cleared and this was CEDA. This is also a random element- it will not affect > anyone disproportionately where as going to 7 or 6 prelims is a regressive > policy- it hurts those at the bottom the most. > > Days are long/this will take too long etc > If MBA and CFL's can make an even more radical version of this schedule > work, I'm sure the minds that run college tournaments will be able to handle > it. > > > Blah blah blah other objection > I wrote way more about this but most have probably stopped reading already > so I will leave it here, but will clarify/respond to objections if the need > exists. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20091019/2626dc7a/attachment.htm From lenehan20 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 19 19:16:24 2009 From: lenehan20 at hotmail.com (Katherine Lavelle) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:16:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments In-Reply-To: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD1A47E3@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> References: <86f9bd6d0910091022u7915f0e3h6752b96d41508c12@mail.gmail.com>, <6d9b42f5d2af6d70bb2957f1b914ee4c.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: For UNI, we have a few reasons for the 8 round tournament: 1. For many of the competitors, it's their first tournament of the year. If you can get 8 rounds in at the first tournament, it's a good jump start on the year of competition. I guess that supports Kevin's argument that since most teams won't be in the elim rounds, we wanted to offer the most competition to the most students. 2. It allows us to have a novice workshop, as well as 6 full rounds of prelims for our new debaters. 3. As many of you know, UNI isn't close to much else besides corn. Iowa is the closest school, and beyond that, most people are putting in a 6-8 hour drive to reach our tournament. Based on some conversations I had with coaches during the tournament, if we were going to move to a 6 round format, it would not make the tournament worth the drive. We can't get into most of our classrooms until after 4 on Friday, and given the drive, it would be hard to expect schools to take all of Thursday off to do the drive.4. We had lunch on campus on Sunday afternoon, which allowed us to shorten the time between round 6-7 since everyone was on campus. For us, we actually added 15 minutes in between each round because it was the first tournament of the year, there is some lag time getting between two of our competition buildings, and we found that on Sunday night, our tournament ended around 8:30pm, which is about the same time that it ended last year on Sunday with a tighter schedule. We had four elims and awards on Monday, and our open finals ended around 8:30 or 9 on Monday. We are pretty vigilant about getting rounds started on time, as well as getting ballots, maybe that helps? I agree that we are probably away from the days that each tournament is 8 rounds, but I think having some 8 round tournaments is good practice, and is also helpful for students trying to make sure that have varsity eligibility for the NDT. kll Katherine L. Lavelle Director of Forensics University of Northern Iowa You must strive to find your own voice. Because the longer you wait to begin, the less likely you are to find it at all. Thoreau said, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." Don't be resigned to that. Break out! ? Mr. Keating, Tom Schulman Dead Poets Society > From: kkuswa at richmond.edu > To: gregachten at berkeley.edu; ralph.paone at gmail.com > Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:37:41 -0400 > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments > > Hi all, > > 7 rounds in the current structure does not work very well for the majority of the tournament. Ralph's post was dead on. > > 8 prelims with travel and debate on different days at the beginning is the superior schedule if done right. Maybe not national, but our tournament approaches 100 teams and Wayne and UNI all have 8 rounds. > > Add that to NDT, Harvard, and CEDA Nationals and there are still a number of tournaments (I'm sure I am missing some) that are 8 rounds, including some District tournaments. > > 7 rounds is a terrible compromise--Greg is right on about that--but I am not sure 6 really solves the problem (especially given the arguments that more debates are generally better, we do come to tournaments to debate, and the majority of participants do not compete after out-rounds begin). > > Our compromise to the long day on Monday will be to only clear 16 teams in each of 3 divisions instead of the "exactly half" rule that the ADA encourages (but does not mandate). > > There is an important place for 6-round regional tournaments and that makes up a bulk of our schedule, but the national (or larger regional) tournaments looking to have the full prelim experience and a reasonable day of elims for all the competitors can still do well with the 8 round prelim format. > > At the Spider tournament, we had 8 prelims (or 7 and a teach-in for novices) for almost 100 teams and 5 elims on Monday--but not just "5 elims overall"--five elims in Open and in Novice and 4 elims in JV. For the second elim round we used 60 judges and more than half the teams at the tournament were able to compete on the third day. The tournament was over by 10:00 or 11:00 at night on Monday. There are improvements we can make (we plan to release the full bracket Sunday night as well as the specific judges needed in the morning -- in addition to limiting the elims to 16 teams per division unless a division gets bigger than 40). > > Thanks to Ralph and Greg for their posts and I hope the conversation continues on this. > > Sincerely, > > Kevin > > ________________________________________ > From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of gregachten at berkeley.edu [gregachten at berkeley.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 12:27 AM > To: Ralph Paone > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments > > I too have been thinking about this a great deal and spent a long time at > Kentucky talking to people about this very issue and was actually planning > on posting to edebate sometime this week so I thank Ralph for motivating > me to sit down and write this. > > As many of you know I am a big advocate of 6 round tournaments. I think in > general 8 round tournaments with 5 elims on Monday are an anachronism from > a time when debates actually took 2 hours and we could start at 8 AM and > be done by 7 PM. Of course the heightened complexity of debates and the > extended decision making times that have corresponded along with the > increased demands for pre-round preparation have made this model largely > obsolete. I think there is an emerging consensus in the community that 8 > round tournaments are not healthy for the community, witness that among > the major national tournaments only Harvard, CEDA and the NDT maintain 8 > prelims and two of those are 4 day tournaments and Harvard only clears to > an octafinal. > > However in response to the desire to shorten tournaments many directors > have decided to move to 7 rounds. After reflecting on this for some time, > I have come to believe that 7 round tournaments are the worst possible > compromise. I think they reduce the number of prelim rounds while making > the schedule net worse for the overwhelming majority of the tournament > participants. ] > > In a typical 7 round tournament, the first day consists of 4 prelims, > meaning that there is no difference between a 7 and 8 round tournament. > The second day of a 7 round tournament however is MUCH worse for all of > the participants. In a typical 8 round tournament there are 4 debates, > round 6 is a lag-powered round so only 2 real power matching breaks exist. > With 7 round tournaments there are 3 prelims on day 2, all of which are > directly power matched meaning that the day is automatically already > longer. Then the final debate is not just an elim, but typically the > double octa-final. As someone who runs a lot of tabrooms I can assure you > this is the most difficult debate to place judges in and is often the most > time consuming debate to pair. Added to this is the fact that elim debates > generally take longer to decide and that there is usually an awards > ceremony before the start of the doubles. At Kentucky, our team arrived at > the school at 7:00 AM on Sunday and did leave campus until 11 PM, making > this a 16 hour day at the school. This is far worse than day 2 at 8 round > tournaments and this day effects everyone at the tournament. Day 3 is > clearly better in that there are only 4 elims, but it is really only net > better for the 7 people who are involved in the finals and even that is a > subjective claim since all of those people are far more tired than they > typically would be on elim day since day 2 was so much longer than usual. > > This should not be read as an argument in favor of 8 round tournaments. My > position is clearly that as a community we need to assess how much stress > we are putting on our students and ourselves and I think that short of > placing substantial limits on decision making time the only workable > solution is the 6 round tournament. I agree with Ralph that switching to 6 > rounds at makes it more likely that points will determine who clears and > who does not and that experimenting with a 100 point scale while > shortening tournaments and increasing the importance of points doesn't > make sense. > > I do think that this is an issue we need to confront as a community and > discuss. If anyone is interested I have a really good frontline in favor > of 6 round tournaments, but I wanted to focus on what I feel are the > problems with 7 rounds in this post. > > Greg > > > In the spirit of ranks that nobody will ever respond to (Hi Whit and > > D-Lo).. > > > > I suppose this post is a reaction to a trend I've noticed on e-Debate > > regarding tournament safety and some things that I noticed over the > > weekend > > while at the Clay. > > > > My overall point (the short version) is this: Debate is good. Shortening > > tournament length decrease Debate, and that is bad (part 1). If we are > > going to make smaller schedules the norm, we should reevaluate the > > structure > > of the prelims (part 2). > > > > Part I - Against Shortening Tournament Length > > > > There seems to be a trend towards having fewer prelim rounds at > > tournaments. A number of arguments are given in support of this claim, > > but > > few are very well explained. Among them are.... Perhaps the best > > argument that I've heard for having fewer rounds is that debaters will be > > less tired at the end of the tournament, resulting in better elim day > > debates for those involved and less fatigue for all debaters returning > > home > > to the school work they have put off for the past couple days or weeks. In > > its strongest articulation, the argument for shortening tournament length > > has focused on the need to improve the general tournament atmosphere, > > making > > debate tournaments more habitable for all. Those who began the movement > > for > > shorter tournament -- those to whom I am indebted to and far less wise > > than > > -- seemed to notice a troubling tide of over-exhaustion, isolation, and > > general grumpiness at tournaments. Although I am in general supportive of > > measures that make tournaments more inviting and community-building, I am > > not yet convinced that shortening tournament length is the appropriate > > response, and I hope that other solutions will continue to be experimented > > with. > > > > On face, the argument that we should shorten debate tournaments because > > people get too tired just seems silly. I'm sure, for example, that > > basketball players get extremely tired during the course of a regular > > season > > game and even more exhausted during a play-off series or a long trip on > > the > > road. The solution to this fatigue, however, is not to shorten the length > > of quarters or the number of games being played during the season. > > Instead, > > coaches encourage their players to live a lifestyle off the court that > > enables them to adequately handle the stress of the game. Debaters are > > not > > just exhausted after a tournament because they had an 8th debate, they are > > exhausted because they've been working on little sleep for days/weeks > > before > > the tournament, and often up late enjoying themselves each night of the > > tournament. Neither of those problems are eliminated by having one less > > debate. Some might argue that the shorter schedule puts less stress on > > coaches. Admittedly, I do not know a lot about being a coach, and am > > perhaps ignorant and in need of a schooling. In my opinion, having 1 fewer > > debate does little to alleviate coach fatigue except for the coaches of > > doubles teams who do not have to stay up late preparing for doubles. I > > don't know what about having one fewer debate causes coaches who stay up > > all > > night cutting cards (you know who you are) to suddenly decide that they > > shouldn't do that and should instead go to sleep. Similar to student > > fatigue, coach fatigue seems a "problem" of personal decisions made by > > individual coaches and the ethos of competition that courses through the > > debate community. * From a debater perspective, I'd much rather have > > another > > debate than feel marginally less tired Tuesdays after tournaments. I'm > > sure > > those who could have cleared 5-3 but didn't because they were 4-3 would > > agree with me on this*. I have never heard a good answer to the argument > > that shortening tournament length denies the majority of teams an extra > > debate in the name of preserving the energy levels of the select few > > debating on elim day. > > > > I am also curious where the data for the 'we're so tired please don't make > > us debate another round' argument is coming from. Have any tournaments > > provided participants with a survey of whether or not they would rather > > debate an additional round or feel less tired on Monday/Tuesday? I would > > be > > curious to hear thoughts on this, as I might be in the minority. In any > > case, it would be interesting if tournaments began posing these sorts of > > questions to the participants (judges, debaters, and coaches alike). > > > > Part II - Revising Prelim Structure for the Short Schedule > > > > If we're going to be shortening tournaments, I think it is absolutely > > paramount that tab rooms alter the prelim structure to reflect this > > change. > > I enjoyed my time in Kentucky this past weekend, but the notion of having > > 4 > > preset rounds in a 7 round tournament is *PATENTLY ABSURD*. There is > > simply > > not enough time in the three following rounds to effectively derive the > > top > > 32 teams via rigorous competition. This is particularly troubling given > > that most critics are still getting used to the 100 pt scale. Speaker > > points are more important than ever, but the norms dictating what certain > > points mean are less certain than ever. > > > > This problem is probably solved by beginning to power-match debates after > > 2 > > or 3 rounds, and I hope that such a practice is adopted for future large > > national tournaments that decide to shorten their schedules. (I am aware > > of > > course that many smaller tournament already pair prelims like this; I > > think > > that Wake did last year?).. > > > > As a side note, I think it sort of sucks that teams can go 5-2 at a > > tournament and still not clear, but maybe there's not much to be done > > about > > that. > > > > Responses and clarifications would be extremely appreciated, > > > > -Ralph > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091019/7c34631a/attachment.htm From maffiemd at muohio.edu Mon Oct 19 20:14:16 2009 From: maffiemd at muohio.edu (Mike Maffie) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:14:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Lost laptop at the West Point tournament Message-ID: One of my debaters lost a silver sony viao laptop at the West Point tournament. If anyone has seen it, drop an email my way. Thanks - mike From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Mon Oct 19 20:18:23 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:18:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments In-Reply-To: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD1A47E3@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> References: <86f9bd6d0910091022u7915f0e3h6752b96d41508c12@mail.gmail.com> <6d9b42f5d2af6d70bb2957f1b914ee4c.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD1A47E3@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <524839830910191818o13384b89y4f786402e842ce7e@mail.gmail.com> I don't necessarily think that 8 rounds is a response to a by-gone era were we could run all the doubles on Monday and be done by 7pm. In fact, I remember the time (probably about 7-8 years ago) when GSU and KY transitioned from octos to doubles in response to the growing number of teams entered in the tournaments. It is quite clear in my mind because they had meetings about this on day 2, asked people to offer up hotel rooms for the extra rounds on Monday, etc. In fact, I'm pretty sure that for a long time only Wake, NW, and UNI (which was the large season opener at the time) cleared to a field of 32 that was expected to run/finish all the elims in one day. Perhaps some of those nights were quite late, but everyone survived. If my memory serves me correctly, the tournaments would end around 1 am, not 4am. 4am finishes are what triggered the revolt and that is fair. With tournaments becoming even larger, clearing to doubles is no longer a debate. Debates are late (now very late (4am)), so we try to cut things on the other send -- sustain the doubles and cut the prelims. Is this a good idea? I agree that 7 is bad. I didn't make GSU ,but thought it was odd that no one was complaining when they were leaving the building at 11pm on Sunday -- far later than I ever left GSU on a Sunday. In this world, most tournament participants have a very late evening, whereas in the Monday doubles world it is only those who are in the late elims that have to stay up very late. I do see two big problems with 6: (a) As discussed, two fewer debates, so point variance on the 100 scale is more problematic; (b) No H-H. H-Ls are pretty good for seeding, but as Scotty P pointed out, they stink for having better"/equivalent" debates in the prelims. If a tournament with 140 teams has only 6 rounds, and all the rounds are H-L (I don't see a good arg for a H-H in a 6 round tournament), then all the debates except those int eh middle of the H-L will be mis-matches, with both sides gaining a lot less from the experience. At least with 8 rounds you can have a H-H and the variation in the H-L starts to dissipate in rounds 7 and 8. So, I think 8 is certainly better than 7 (no real gain) and better than 6. I also think 4 am stinks (though I don't think 1am is so bad) . So, what's the solution -- eliminate the culprits. The culprits are pretty easily identified -- decisions that take way too long and there is too much pre-round prep. Pre-round prep should be cut to 30 minutes -- fewer teams have to move significant numbers of tubs, scouting information is widespread and advanced preparation is easier, elim brackets are released the night before so you can project who you are debating and you can start preparing for the next debate as soon as your debate is finished, Post-round decision time should be cut to 45 minutes in prelims and an hour in elims. Perhaps this is too radical, but paperless evidence can be looked at much faster in a debate because it's all on one document and deciding debates shouldn't REQUIRE an hour more than the debate itself. In a world of "inifnite prep,"I guess I don't care how long people take, but in a world where taking 2.5 hours to decide a debate is resulting in significantly fewer debates then it stinks. There is some marginal gains as some decisions start to approach "perfection," but I don't think it's worth it if it is causing a lot of debates to get cut. And, does the extra time make decisions that much better? Are there fewer 2-1 and 3-2 decisions because people now take more time to figure out what "actually" happened? At the very least, it's much easier to quantify the educational loss of two debates than the competitive perfection of 5 additional hours of decision time across 5 debates on Monday. Finally, I do think that a lot of the complaining about late Monday nights has been given too much credibility -- (A) As pointed out, it impacts few people. The debaters it impacts get to be the champions of the tournament and are considered for the Copeland -- a trophy given to the very best debate team in America. The judges it impacts are usually either people who volunteer/want to judge the debate, or are people who usually could have taken a good nap before the debate started. And how many prelims are these highly preferred judges who are judging the finalsof the majors judging? Certainly no more half, and often just 1 or 2. (B) No solvency for sickness -- Many people stay up until all hours of the night at these tournaments, regardless as to whether or not they are debating or judging. Maybe 1 of the 7 people involved in the final round would get a couple hours more sleep if we don't have a late Monday elim. We are eliminating 50+ (7 rounds) or 100+ (6 rounds) debates for this? 99% of the people who don't get enough sleep (6-7 hours) at debate tournaments stay up very late socializing and/or cutting cards till all hours of the morning. (C) Really? Debaters who participate in late elims are incredibly ambitious and competitive people. Once their debate ends many will spend many late nights in the law firm or starting their own businesses. Their lack of sleep in these situations will be insignificant compared to the number of times they were up late debating in a late elim at a major. I do think we all agree that we only have 3 days to hold a tournament, so -- a) What's a reasonable amount of decision-making time? b) How late are most people willing to stay on the prelim days? c) How late is way too late for a final round to be held? d) What's the educational gain of two more debates for 200 more people (100 2 person teams)? d) Is it better to have more rounds or longer decisions? -- Do longer decisions make the decisions better? -- Are longer decisions more educational? Personally, I just find eliminating a bunch of prelims a high price to pay for decisions that take 2.5 hours instead of one hour. On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > Hi all, > > 7 rounds in the current structure does not work very well for the majority > of the tournament. Ralph's post was dead on. > > 8 prelims with travel and debate on different days at the beginning is the > superior schedule if done right. Maybe not national, but our tournament > approaches 100 teams and Wayne and UNI all have 8 rounds. > > Add that to NDT, Harvard, and CEDA Nationals and there are still a number > of tournaments (I'm sure I am missing some) that are 8 rounds, including > some District tournaments. > > 7 rounds is a terrible compromise--Greg is right on about that--but I am > not sure 6 really solves the problem (especially given the arguments that > more debates are generally better, we do come to tournaments to debate, and > the majority of participants do not compete after out-rounds begin). > > Our compromise to the long day on Monday will be to only clear 16 teams in > each of 3 divisions instead of the "exactly half" rule that the ADA > encourages (but does not mandate). > > There is an important place for 6-round regional tournaments and that makes > up a bulk of our schedule, but the national (or larger regional) tournaments > looking to have the full prelim experience and a reasonable day of elims for > all the competitors can still do well with the 8 round prelim format. > > At the Spider tournament, we had 8 prelims (or 7 and a teach-in for > novices) for almost 100 teams and 5 elims on Monday--but not just "5 elims > overall"--five elims in Open and in Novice and 4 elims in JV. For the > second elim round we used 60 judges and more than half the teams at the > tournament were able to compete on the third day. The tournament was over > by 10:00 or 11:00 at night on Monday. There are improvements we can make > (we plan to release the full bracket Sunday night as well as the specific > judges needed in the morning -- in addition to limiting the elims to 16 > teams per division unless a division gets bigger than 40). > > Thanks to Ralph and Greg for their posts and I hope the conversation > continues on this. > > Sincerely, > > Kevin > > ________________________________________ > From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf > Of gregachten at berkeley.edu [gregachten at berkeley.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 12:27 AM > To: Ralph Paone > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments > > I too have been thinking about this a great deal and spent a long time at > Kentucky talking to people about this very issue and was actually planning > on posting to edebate sometime this week so I thank Ralph for motivating > me to sit down and write this. > > As many of you know I am a big advocate of 6 round tournaments. I think in > general 8 round tournaments with 5 elims on Monday are an anachronism from > a time when debates actually took 2 hours and we could start at 8 AM and > be done by 7 PM. Of course the heightened complexity of debates and the > extended decision making times that have corresponded along with the > increased demands for pre-round preparation have made this model largely > obsolete. I think there is an emerging consensus in the community that 8 > round tournaments are not healthy for the community, witness that among > the major national tournaments only Harvard, CEDA and the NDT maintain 8 > prelims and two of those are 4 day tournaments and Harvard only clears to > an octafinal. > > However in response to the desire to shorten tournaments many directors > have decided to move to 7 rounds. After reflecting on this for some time, > I have come to believe that 7 round tournaments are the worst possible > compromise. I think they reduce the number of prelim rounds while making > the schedule net worse for the overwhelming majority of the tournament > participants. ] > > In a typical 7 round tournament, the first day consists of 4 prelims, > meaning that there is no difference between a 7 and 8 round tournament. > The second day of a 7 round tournament however is MUCH worse for all of > the participants. In a typical 8 round tournament there are 4 debates, > round 6 is a lag-powered round so only 2 real power matching breaks exist. > With 7 round tournaments there are 3 prelims on day 2, all of which are > directly power matched meaning that the day is automatically already > longer. Then the final debate is not just an elim, but typically the > double octa-final. As someone who runs a lot of tabrooms I can assure you > this is the most difficult debate to place judges in and is often the most > time consuming debate to pair. Added to this is the fact that elim debates > generally take longer to decide and that there is usually an awards > ceremony before the start of the doubles. At Kentucky, our team arrived at > the school at 7:00 AM on Sunday and did leave campus until 11 PM, making > this a 16 hour day at the school. This is far worse than day 2 at 8 round > tournaments and this day effects everyone at the tournament. Day 3 is > clearly better in that there are only 4 elims, but it is really only net > better for the 7 people who are involved in the finals and even that is a > subjective claim since all of those people are far more tired than they > typically would be on elim day since day 2 was so much longer than usual. > > This should not be read as an argument in favor of 8 round tournaments. My > position is clearly that as a community we need to assess how much stress > we are putting on our students and ourselves and I think that short of > placing substantial limits on decision making time the only workable > solution is the 6 round tournament. I agree with Ralph that switching to 6 > rounds at makes it more likely that points will determine who clears and > who does not and that experimenting with a 100 point scale while > shortening tournaments and increasing the importance of points doesn't > make sense. > > I do think that this is an issue we need to confront as a community and > discuss. If anyone is interested I have a really good frontline in favor > of 6 round tournaments, but I wanted to focus on what I feel are the > problems with 7 rounds in this post. > > Greg > > > In the spirit of ranks that nobody will ever respond to (Hi Whit and > > D-Lo).. > > > > I suppose this post is a reaction to a trend I've noticed on e-Debate > > regarding tournament safety and some things that I noticed over the > > weekend > > while at the Clay. > > > > My overall point (the short version) is this: Debate is good. Shortening > > tournament length decrease Debate, and that is bad (part 1). If we are > > going to make smaller schedules the norm, we should reevaluate the > > structure > > of the prelims (part 2). > > > > Part I - Against Shortening Tournament Length > > > > There seems to be a trend towards having fewer prelim rounds at > > tournaments. A number of arguments are given in support of this claim, > > but > > few are very well explained. Among them are.... Perhaps the best > > argument that I've heard for having fewer rounds is that debaters will be > > less tired at the end of the tournament, resulting in better elim day > > debates for those involved and less fatigue for all debaters returning > > home > > to the school work they have put off for the past couple days or weeks. > In > > its strongest articulation, the argument for shortening tournament length > > has focused on the need to improve the general tournament atmosphere, > > making > > debate tournaments more habitable for all. Those who began the movement > > for > > shorter tournament -- those to whom I am indebted to and far less wise > > than > > -- seemed to notice a troubling tide of over-exhaustion, isolation, and > > general grumpiness at tournaments. Although I am in general supportive > of > > measures that make tournaments more inviting and community-building, I am > > not yet convinced that shortening tournament length is the appropriate > > response, and I hope that other solutions will continue to be > experimented > > with. > > > > On face, the argument that we should shorten debate tournaments because > > people get too tired just seems silly. I'm sure, for example, that > > basketball players get extremely tired during the course of a regular > > season > > game and even more exhausted during a play-off series or a long trip on > > the > > road. The solution to this fatigue, however, is not to shorten the > length > > of quarters or the number of games being played during the season. > > Instead, > > coaches encourage their players to live a lifestyle off the court that > > enables them to adequately handle the stress of the game. Debaters are > > not > > just exhausted after a tournament because they had an 8th debate, they > are > > exhausted because they've been working on little sleep for days/weeks > > before > > the tournament, and often up late enjoying themselves each night of the > > tournament. Neither of those problems are eliminated by having one less > > debate. Some might argue that the shorter schedule puts less stress on > > coaches. Admittedly, I do not know a lot about being a coach, and am > > perhaps ignorant and in need of a schooling. In my opinion, having 1 > fewer > > debate does little to alleviate coach fatigue except for the coaches of > > doubles teams who do not have to stay up late preparing for doubles. I > > don't know what about having one fewer debate causes coaches who stay up > > all > > night cutting cards (you know who you are) to suddenly decide that they > > shouldn't do that and should instead go to sleep. Similar to student > > fatigue, coach fatigue seems a "problem" of personal decisions made by > > individual coaches and the ethos of competition that courses through the > > debate community. * From a debater perspective, I'd much rather have > > another > > debate than feel marginally less tired Tuesdays after tournaments. I'm > > sure > > those who could have cleared 5-3 but didn't because they were 4-3 would > > agree with me on this*. I have never heard a good answer to the argument > > that shortening tournament length denies the majority of teams an extra > > debate in the name of preserving the energy levels of the select few > > debating on elim day. > > > > I am also curious where the data for the 'we're so tired please don't > make > > us debate another round' argument is coming from. Have any tournaments > > provided participants with a survey of whether or not they would rather > > debate an additional round or feel less tired on Monday/Tuesday? I would > > be > > curious to hear thoughts on this, as I might be in the minority. In any > > case, it would be interesting if tournaments began posing these sorts of > > questions to the participants (judges, debaters, and coaches alike). > > > > Part II - Revising Prelim Structure for the Short Schedule > > > > If we're going to be shortening tournaments, I think it is absolutely > > paramount that tab rooms alter the prelim structure to reflect this > > change. > > I enjoyed my time in Kentucky this past weekend, but the notion of having > > 4 > > preset rounds in a 7 round tournament is *PATENTLY ABSURD*. There is > > simply > > not enough time in the three following rounds to effectively derive the > > top > > 32 teams via rigorous competition. This is particularly troubling given > > that most critics are still getting used to the 100 pt scale. Speaker > > points are more important than ever, but the norms dictating what certain > > points mean are less certain than ever. > > > > This problem is probably solved by beginning to power-match debates after > > 2 > > or 3 rounds, and I hope that such a practice is adopted for future large > > national tournaments that decide to shorten their schedules. (I am aware > > of > > course that many smaller tournament already pair prelims like this; I > > think > > that Wake did last year?).. > > > > As a side note, I think it sort of sucks that teams can go 5-2 at a > > tournament and still not clear, but maybe there's not much to be done > > about > > that. > > > > Responses and clarifications would be extremely appreciated, > > > > -Ralph > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091019/0fd9450d/attachment.htm From antonucci23 at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 00:24:36 2009 From: antonucci23 at gmail.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:24:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] New Debate Software Suite Message-ID: <4a71966c0910192224p5eec2dbq7ecaba1b507422f4@mail.gmail.com> Alex Gulakov has designed a new paperless debate system with accompanying software. It includes virtual tubs, a new flowing system and an integrated paperless system. Although it is extremely useful for paperless debating, it can be used by the paperful and paperless alike. Find and download Debate Synergy 1.0. http://georgetowndebateseminar.wikispaces.com/synergy A note on the distribution: Georgetown University Debate is offering small grants for distribution of similar free, open-source material. If you have a similar product, please feel free to contact us. The current slate of Debate Advanced Research Projects include a new robot to automatically cut cards from first and last words of caselisted cites. When completed, this robot may resolve the dilemma over fulltext disclosure. Electives on the use of these new programs will be offered during the summer seminar. -- Michael Antonucci Debate Coach Georgetown University Mobile: 617-838-3345 Office: 202-687-4079 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091020/99f377dd/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Tue Oct 20 00:22:18 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:22:18 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] isu: thank you Message-ID: <310E06E3A12447CDA5D268F181C2ACEE@whitman.edu> thank you to sarah, glenn (tab), and all of the isu folks for a great weekend. the hospitality was really, really nice. thanks for all the food, rides, and a well run tournament. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091019/25c5d1e1/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Tue Oct 20 00:22:18 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:22:18 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] isu: thank you Message-ID: <310E06E3A12447CDA5D268F181C2ACEE@whitman.edu> thank you to sarah, glenn (tab), and all of the isu folks for a great weekend. the hospitality was really, really nice. thanks for all the food, rides, and a well run tournament. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091019/25c5d1e1/attachment-0001.htm From Roy.Eno at utsa.edu Tue Oct 20 07:59:27 2009 From: Roy.Eno at utsa.edu (Roy Eno) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:59:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need Judging at UCO Message-ID: <7CE039ACB3DF9645B48718D2FDB21DCA0118560A@opal1604.UTSARR.NET> UTSA is seeking nine rounds of judging at UCO. Will pay $30 per round, cash. Skip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091020/ecc82ec3/attachment.htm From dperkins at fas.harvard.edu Tue Oct 20 09:41:45 2009 From: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu (Dallas Perkins) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:41:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments In-Reply-To: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD1A47E3@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> References: <86f9bd6d0910091022u7915f0e3h6752b96d41508c12@mail.gmail.com>, <6d9b42f5d2af6d70bb2957f1b914ee4c.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD1A47E3@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Message-ID: I think everything Kevin says is correct. However, I want to reiterate what Gary Larson said as well: judge decision times are driving the longer days at the big national tournaments. Richmond is indeed well run, but the ethic among ADA judges who generally decide rounds within 150 minutes of the announced start time, is immensely important in keeping the days shorter. No "conversation" is complete without considering that fact. dp On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Kuswa, Kevin wrote: From japoapst at liberty.edu Tue Oct 20 12:57:05 2009 From: japoapst at liberty.edu (Poapst, Jacquelyn Ann) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:57:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ADI timer Message-ID: <7BF6C52683A60F4FA15F3CD1864DC5501B6D6F767B@LUEMS01VS.University.liberty.edu> My partner only wants to use the timer he got from ADI. Sadly, his broke, and he has been moping around about it ever since. Could someone who knows where ADI bought their timers get in contact with me so I can go buy him a new one? Thanks! Jackie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091020/f2969278/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 13:49:06 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:49:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Where the Wild Things Aren't Message-ID: Hello, I remember reading a very well considered article about debate being a special enclave where everyone from communists to anarchists to post-modernists could/would be welcomed and protected within an inclusive community. It can certainly be argued that things like "the code of conduct" and the "policy debate forums" are attempts at making what we do "safer" to the outside world, I worry more than a little (after decades of foulcault debates) that we are beginning to "tame" our wild things to make us all fit into an outside world acceptable package. This is certainly not to denigrate the fine work of Gordon (maybe the only thing aside from the Yankees I have ever disagreed with him about) or Jeff (who is one of my oldest friends in the activity) but this move seems, at best, non-organic to me. Many of you will be suprised I take this position, but those people probably misread many of the things I have posted in the past. My position was never that "wild things" should not exist or that we should "silence" or "discipline" them. My position was to present some arguments that could be made against people in debate rounds when they were "wild." Reason was the emphasis of my arguments (actually the crux of my arguments have always been best educational practices/experiences). To many, these are calls to the same thing (judges decision disciplines - teachers grading disciplines - etc etc) but to me it was a call to dialog between people on the so-called inside (tradition) and outside (wild things) in order to find a place we could all have meaningful discussions together. In other words, I value the ORGANIC process of good arguments beating bad arguments. If, the arguments were all made for this forums value...but people still prefer receiving and discussing things on edebate...why are we trying to "force" a move to this space? Talking about those reasons should be the basis of an argument that attempts to persuade the larger community to vote with its feet and participatate in this space instead of an alternative space. I have heard the arguments from my professional colleagues but remain unconvinced that the best solution is to participate here and let edebate die the death of a thousand swords. I know there is a kind of legitimacy that only a cleaned up Times Square could provide to a revitalized New York City and that a starbucks on every corner gives instead of an ethnic deli....But I really miss the old NYC. I don't want debate to become Giulianni's or Bloomberg's debate 2.0 Part of me likes the world where outsiders, outliers, pirates, and rogues roam the bandwidth. I think we lose something very special about our activity when we stop embracing the corners (dark or otherwise) of our debate reality. Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091020/719fa4bc/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 13:51:31 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:51:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Introducing the new CEDA Forums In-Reply-To: <39c1ac890910151247h57542981p53bd096642eb7356@mail.gmail.com> References: <39c1ac890910151247h57542981p53bd096642eb7356@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0910201151s3bdc2e0cm73ad4b6fac761c29@mail.gmail.com> Way to go CEDA, its badass how on top of 10 year old technology you are. Seriously, get out of this business, you are bad at it. Let the new edebate do its thing. On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Gordon Stables wrote: > Greetings, > > I am happy to announce that thanks to the labors of Jeff Jarman, we > have rebuilt and resigned an important aspect of the CEDA website, the > forums section. These have been modeled after the successful approach > at Crossx.com and they offer us an opportunity to provide an organized > way for our community to communicate. Forums are available for > tournaments, regional issues, questions of community practice, > organizational questions and a lot more. > > The forums are now active and open for anyone to sign up at > http://cedadebate.org/forum/. Registering is free and simple. This is > an organizationally sponsored opportunity for us to communicate as a > community. For too long, we have been willing to freeride on the > labors (and technology) of others, especially Phil Kerpin. Our > free-riding has left us unable to organize the discussions or exercise > concern when lines are crossed. The forum rules outside the emphasis > on free speech and open conversation with the ability to moderate > discussions. > > I want to thank Phil for his years of hard work and service. His forum > will continue to be an entirely unmoderated site. Our platform today > offers a way to exchange the information that we need. Jeff and > community volunteers will help keep the site functioning the best way > possible. To that end, if you have suggestions in how to organize > forums to better serve your needs, please let us know. > > For years the community resisted moving to a different platform > because of the perceived difficulties of getting everyone to move with > them. This prisoner's dilemma should end now. Thanks to the labors of > Jon Bruschke, debateresults now sends direct emails with pairings and > tournament information. Much of what we would 'miss' without a public > listserv is now sent directly to coaches and students. The challenge > is to build a place for the rest of the news and discussions. We think > the CEDA forums are that place. > > I am asking coaches, students, alumni and administrators to move your > traffic about our community to the forums. I will be the first to take > the plunge and announce that CEDA will begin using the forums for our > organizational traffic, in addition to using its website emails and > the CEDA-L. > > Please let Jeff or I know if you have any trouble with the site. We > have tried to learn from the success of other communities and we think > this platform is long overdue. We just need your help in making this > transition possible. > > Thanks > Gordon > > Gordon Stables, Ph.D. > President, Cross-Examination Debate Association > Director of Debate & Forensics > Annenberg School for Communication > University of Southern California > Office: 213 740 2759 > Fax: 213 740 3913 > www.usctrojandebate.com > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091020/31e4be24/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 14:05:40 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:05:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is eDebate still needed? In-Reply-To: <20091016022134.CC50222E256@mxout-07.mxes.net> References: <20091016022134.CC50222E256@mxout-07.mxes.net> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0910201205t4c25f1e0t4d053694c55217bd@mail.gmail.com> In light of the new ceda forums yes edebate is still needed. In light of the new edebate, not at all. On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Phil Kerpen wrote: > In light of the the new CEDA forums, is eDebate still needed? > > ------------------------ > Phil Kerpen > www.philkerpen.com > Cell: 202.285.9714 > Fax: 202.478.0343 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/kerpen > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20091020/2e8b822e/attachment.htm From sarahtp73 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 20 16:19:49 2009 From: sarahtp73 at yahoo.com (Sarah Partlow) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:19:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Need to hire judging for Whitman Message-ID: <2328.76583.qm@web31603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> We need at least 6 rounds (Maybe more) for Whitman. Please contact me. We pay $30 a round. Cash. Sarah Idaho State Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091020/5ecc3fd6/attachment.htm From mike_girouard at yahoo.com Tue Oct 20 17:40:18 2009 From: mike_girouard at yahoo.com (Mike Girouard) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] 4 rounds for sale at Harvard Message-ID: <134872.3153.qm@web32904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just let me know if you want to buy them. Thanks,Mike GirouardDir of Debate - The New School -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091020/821f1f92/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 17:54:58 2009 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:54:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] seeking housing for Chicago NCA Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70910201554n387374b6yeaeb5dd4f608d01e@mail.gmail.com> i'm flying in Tuesday night and flying back out Wednesday evening. just need a place to crash Tuesday. anyone want to snuggle? hester From jtedebate at yahoo.com Wed Oct 21 12:48:14 2009 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] ESU Tournament--LOST & FOUND Message-ID: <97334.3191.qm@web110603.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I'd like to thank everyone for coming...here are a few lost & found items Gray checkered zip-up hoody Black Banana Republic Jacket (M) Gray Sheatshirt? says:? Cass Lake Episcopal Camp 3 Belkin 2.0 USB printer cables (new & in packaging) If these items belong to you, just let me know and I'm sure we can get them returned! W. James Taylor ("JT") Clinical Instructor Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University ***Nothing in this email should be taken to represent Emporia State Debate or Emporia State University. The contents are the sole opinion of the author. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091021/2f211c72/attachment.htm From jpolin at berkeley.edu Wed Oct 21 14:50:36 2009 From: jpolin at berkeley.edu (jpolin at berkeley.edu) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:50:36 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: From Kuntal: Rounds for sale at Harvard Message-ID: <2032b4ead4854850a33f18c2c9d07dea.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Rounds for sale at Harvard From: "Kuntal C" Date: Wed, October 21, 2009 12:42 pm To: jpolin at berkeley.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have up to 6 rounds for sale at Harvard - e-mail me if you're interested kuntalcholera at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091021/7837e959/attachment.htm From Roy.Eno at utsa.edu Wed Oct 21 16:35:03 2009 From: Roy.Eno at utsa.edu (Roy Eno) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:35:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Repost of Judges Needed by UTSA Message-ID: <7CE039ACB3DF9645B48718D2FDB21DCAF00F8A@opal1604.UTSARR.NET> I tried this once; so, here goes again: UTSA is seeking nine rounds of judging at UCO at $30 per round, cash. skip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091021/8990207b/attachment.htm From justinwkirk at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 08:12:37 2009 From: justinwkirk at gmail.com (justin kirk) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:12:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 4 rounds for sale at harvard Message-ID: -- Justin Kirk UTD Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091022/25a7788a/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 08:56:01 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:56:01 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Hired Judging for Liberty Message-ID: <9a7f6f740910220656u37ca6c52xc79820124da3347b@mail.gmail.com> JMU needs to hire a ton of rounds for Liberty. Anyone have some they are willing to sell? Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091022/549049e1/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 14:22:02 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:22:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Last Call For Summer Meeting Bids Message-ID: <9a7f6f740910221222g5a6b4c87g9c0a15b84441734e@mail.gmail.com> I am going to close summer meeting bids this week so if you would care to make a bid for the summer meeting please do so. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091022/f0a94b99/attachment.htm From bratt at capitol-debate.com Thu Oct 22 19:34:17 2009 From: bratt at capitol-debate.com (bratt at capitol-debate.com) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:34:17 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Judges for Capitol Debate Fall Classic HS Tournament - Oct 31 and Nov 1 Message-ID: <20091022173417.8cce6020757326d78a2cd7ce56dd3822.ae12b813ea.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Capitol Debate Fall Classic High School Tournament, held near DC, is still looking to hire a couple more judges for its tournament on October 31 and November 1. If you think you will be highly preferred on the MPJ, lets talk. We will pay your travel and hotel expenses. We are getting a nice draw for this tourney and want to have an exceptional TOC judge pool. You can email me at bratt at capitol-debate.com Thanks. __________________ Ronald Bratt CEO & Founder Capitol Debate From seanluechtefeld at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 13:50:30 2009 From: seanluechtefeld at gmail.com (Sean Luechtefeld) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:50:30 -0000 Subject: [eDebate] Shirley Judging Message-ID: I have six rounds I can sell. Email me with an offer. Thanks, Sean Luechtefeld seanluechtefeld at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091020/b0835b11/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sat Oct 24 14:36:09 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:36:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] I have no idea where to go for information anymore--help In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0910241236m40da7ac2g7ebcdc90f05e891@mail.gmail.com> 1. Debate Results Is Still Debate Results 2. Ceda-L is Still CEDA L 3. Edebate V.02 (This list Serv) Has about as much chance of existing in to the future as the right does of derailing health care. You take that how you will. Here is where it get complicated. 4. Ceda has introduced official forums. They use technology very similar to cross-x.com. Things are broken into catagories that cover logistics, theory and you can read what you want. There is also an open forum. My guess is that posts that say Gordon Stables is about as web progressive as john mccain, that are posted in the say what you like catagory will not be moderated. However posts that say obama is a kenyan in the northwest tournaments thread will at least be moved to the open thread. If there is moderation who will moderate is unclear. The link is here http://cedadebate.org/forum/ 5. Zach Westerfield and some other folks have created a social network like facebook located at http://www.edebate.com this service provides all of the features of the ceda forums, but is more social less official. It links to a free riding disadvantage that gordon points out that when the extraorganizational management of the site loses the will to maintain it then our communication mechanisms are disabled, however it captures the social nature of the old edebate better...this is more like what edebate would be like if it where created with todays technology. Its the new new edebate 6. I have set up a facebook page called OMG debate. It is here. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/pages/OMG-Debate/158476778525?ref=nfWithout any work it will do everything that the old edebate did...In facebook. It is the simplest answer to how do we create a reliable listserv. Plus did i mention it works through facebook, which means you can subscribe to it and get all the posts in your news feed, share it with your debaters, etc...I trust facebook to maintain their servers more than i trust phil..easy replacement..could expand, but right now its the new old edebate On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Derek Buescher wrote: > Okay, we have edebate or not? We have the ceda-l, we have the new ceda > forum, we have another forum started by westerfield? Or is that the ceda > forum? and we have debateresults. > > I like the idea of the ceda forum for consolidating business and > debateresuts for managing tournament information and tab and records. But we > seem to have a sudden proliferation of sites for discussion. Can someone > clear up what is doing what anymore; what is defunct (such as this site), > etc. etc. > > Thanks in advance > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20091024/8ce7e0ae/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sun Oct 25 02:10:20 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:10:20 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] wnpt: nov 14-15, join us . . . Message-ID: <40F159EDF4E842D1918FA0CD4629FB64@whitman.edu> teams from outside the nw rockies region have NO ENTRY FEES and: --we will provide free shuttle transportation throughout the tournament. --we will provide free bfast, lunch, and dinner --you will not pay any registration fees --need free housing? a school can stay at my house free just bring a good judge. the invitation is at: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/54wnpt2009.htm check it out--we have a lot of nice features at this tournament. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091025/1a8c4906/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Mon Oct 26 08:09:24 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:09:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Phil, Shut Down edebate--its OK Message-ID: <20091026080924.12582l85lgas3kp0@webmail.grandecom.net> I want to thank Mr. Kerpen for maintaining edebate. (He is also a real hoot to watch on the Glen Beck show.) However, it is time to shut this site down. Its ok. We really do not need it anymore. Maintaining the site is causing confusion and delaying the transition to the CEDA sponsored listserves. Based on the dearth of postings, and the delays in needed postings, it is apparent that edebate has outlived its purpose. It would save time, money and bandwidth to just get rid of it. Having had more fun than just about anyone ranting on edebate, I am a little saddened by its demise. But it is time to pull the plug on edebate. Scott Elliott From runlittleman at gmail.com Mon Oct 26 12:43:25 2009 From: runlittleman at gmail.com (Nick Ryan) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:43:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Debate Tournament Hosted by Liberty University (Important Update) Message-ID: <886dd32a0910261043l635187f6v75971baedaa24210@mail.gmail.com> For schools entering the Liberty University Debate Tournament, please be aware that we have reached the 80 team limit on entries. We are currently attempting to find additional rooms to accommodate teams on the wait list. To facilitate this process, if you still have teams to enter, please enter them ASAP, so that we know how many extra rooms we need to find. If you have any questions, please contact myself or Michael Hall. John Nagy Liberty University Assistant Director of Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091026/883ef9f8/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Oct 26 15:51:20 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:51:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] obama gets C- on health care so far Message-ID: kudos for aiming to get it done. however, caveat to the kudos. yes, 6 administrations have tried and failed but after 6 failures the option of blocking health reform is no longer viable. more like, in the right place at the right time last october when obama got a free gift to the white house. good thing hillary forced health reform to the forefront of the primaries. despite kudos, obama deserves criticism for confusing the debate or for not clarifying the debate to strengthen the reform effort. holding onto the public option as a symbol for the left has proven disastrous. the explanation before the joint congress of the public option as a minor piece that only applies to 5% of the population who don't have insurance was RIDICULOUS. if so, then why even continue to entertain the idea except as a symbol for the left. the explanation was incomplete. "only applies to 5% who do not have insurance." ok, so what about those who cancel their insurance after the public option is available. are they eligible? of course, the acritical media let a stupid explanation of the public option fly. no one is allowed to ask obama a question that would damage his credibility because we need to restore the image of the presidency. the poor explanation has fed concerns that the intent is to gradually whittle away at private insurance and expand the public option over time. well, we need the public option to insure competition where there is none. why is the refrain continually repeated ignoring the republican counter-proposal to allow insurance to be sold across state lines? if that proposal were even publicly considered once by the obama administration, would they even be able to need the public option to insure competition? how come there is no comparative analysis coming from the white house of the different mechanisms to create competition? and lastly, if the public option is so miniscule in size that it should not be mis-represented as "big government" then how much will really help foster competition? good thing he got off the policy side of the debate in his speech and moved onto the no-brain area of the moral argument. baucus proposed the health cooperative. this idea was not completely ignored. obama actually mentioned the word "coops" in his speech but we have seen no investigation into the viability of cooperatives by his administration effectively killing that idea as a viable alternative to the lame 5% public option. he's afraid of his base which has stalled the reform. to get the bipartisan support of snowe and some blue-dogs, he will have to change his strategy and go with more offense on the alternatives. he should have done this earlier to help clarify the debate instead of hiding behind half explanations and relying upon public ignorance to postpone moving the debate forward. _________________________________________________________________ Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more. http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen2:102009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091026/8c7465b4/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Tue Oct 27 10:47:50 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:47:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY :) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dittos. From: oguevara at hotmail.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:46:06 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY :) (I am sending my thanks BEFORE the final round in hopes that it will be posted to Edebate sometime in the next 73 years.) Three cheers for ISU! A very well run tournament ? with many unique personal touches. Also, an opportunity for the NEW District II to sit down and sort out its post-merger business. The official handle is, ?Northwest Rockies.? I want to thank ISU for giving us an opportunity to jump start our organization issues and our community. Obviously, times are tough all over. I am worried about the long term viability of our activity. Every day is another sales job. It grinds on you. But it was really nice to escape from that, even for just a spell. It was especially nice to see good debates and debating, and to see all the folks from the OLD D II and the OLD D IX hanging out and having a good time. I?d like to encourage folks to consider adding ISU to their fall rotation; it is a rewarding experience. So battlin? Bengals, good job. Again. (as well as to Glen for running tab). Lastly, Nate Murphy is the Man! OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. _________________________________________________________________ Windows 7: Simplify your PC. Learn more. http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen1:102009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091027/66b4fd63/attachment.htm From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Tue Oct 27 15:45:22 2009 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:45:22 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] UNLV Wants Judging at Harvard Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091027/fce2921b/attachment.htm From anj36 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 27 20:54:48 2009 From: anj36 at hotmail.com (Anjali Vats) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:54:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Washington Debate Coalition Message-ID: Hi everyone, I am excited to announce the launch of the Washington Debate Coalition (WDC), a non-profit organization dedicated to providing opportunities for students to participate in high school and college debate in the State of Washington. The Board of Directors of the WDC includes myself, Jim Hanson, Glen Frappier, Greg Achten, Erik Cornellier, Karen Rathe, and Ben Meiches. The WDC was founded in response to a need for support for high school and college debate teams in the Pacific Northwest. With only three college policy debate teams remaining in Washington, none in Oregon, and one in Idaho, it is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain high school and college policy debate in the region. While the decline of policy debate is a serious issue with many causes, the WDC hopes to make improvements in Washington by providing opportunities, incentives, infrastructure, and promotional support for debate. More specifically, the WDC aims to help start new debate programs at high schools and institutions of higher learning in the State of Washington, encourage partnerships between speech and debate programs, educational institutions, and other relevant organizations, coordinate and host local tournaments, train and place speech and debate coaches, provide funding and resources for research and travel, and offer scholarships to qualified students. A year into the WDC?s operations, we are already making enormous strides in achieving our stated goals. In the last few months the WDC has: *Worked with the Seattle Debate Foundation and ALOUD to begin building a constituency throughout Washington; *Begun establishing a rapport with the University of Washington, Seattle University and a number of high school programs in the region; *Aided in planning a public debate in cooperation with the EPA and Debate Solutions, participated in one EPA public debate in the region, and planned to participate in a second; *Provided training, support, and coach placement for a new program at Ingraham High School; *Co-hosted a two-day training program for novices with Whitman College at the University of Washington; *Planned a round robin to be held in December; and, *Secured debate scholarships to be awarded at the first annual round robin. Even though the WDC has come a long way, we have a long ways to go. We?re currently looking to build partnerships with other debate and non-debate organizations and schools in and out of Washington, develop curricular materials for new programs, put together a list of best practices for starting and sustaining debate programs, recruit assistant coaches for high school programs, and compile a list of Washington debate alums. We?re also looking for volunteers with experience and skills in curriculum development, teaching, coaching, alumni research (or know of debate alums in the area), and graphic design. If you fit any of those criteria and or are interested in helping in some other way, please drop me an email. You can also sign-up for our mailing list and donate to the WDC at www.washingtondebate.org. If you have any questions or are looking for coaching support or resources, please don't hesitate to contact me at anjali at washingtondebate.org or leave a message here. And, of course, thank you so much for your support. Anjali Vats Founder and President, Washington Debate Coalition Head Policy Debate Coach, University of Puget Sound _________________________________________________________________ Windows 7: Simplify your PC. Learn more. http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen1:102009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091027/b63fc688/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Wed Oct 28 08:11:11 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:11:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Proposed Rule Change on the "Clear Half" ADA Rule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD1A4908@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Ryan, Good point...agreed. We're putting this language in our invitation next year and think it is consistent with the ADA provisions if announced before the tournament starts: Approximately half the teams at the tournament will clear. Up to 16 teams will clear in each division. If a single division is 40 teams or larger, we will have a partial double octofinal round with half the teams clearing (rounding down). This language works with your suggestion as well....but we're putting this in the invite for next year for sure. Stay safe--congrats on the debate successes. Sometimes you just have to avoid a lot of back-to-back travel no matter how the schedule is set up. Sincerely, Kevin ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Galloway, Ryan W. [rwgallow at samford.edu] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:01 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Proposed Rule Change on the "Clear Half" ADA Rule Greetings from Birmingham, I just arrived home from a wonderful tournament at Vanderbilt University. ML was great, all the debaters fought hard, and we look forward to returning next year. However, the final round I judged ended at approximately 2AM. After the debate, I walked out in pitch black to the SUV I had left in the parking lot at the tournament. Not planning on staying the night, I drove around the streets of Nashville to find a place to stay. My fine motor skills were weak. I was having difficulty steering the SUV even down the street and navigating a few U-Turns to find a hotel in a strange city. I seriously contemplated taking a nap in the van. Meanwhile, Abi drove our kids home after we lost in the semis, and arrived home at after 5am. She has been suffering from exhaustion and throwing up. The motivation to not stay was to make sure our students who were competing late at Richmond (another ADA tournament that did 5 rounds in a day) could get back home to go to school. Folks, this isn't safe. A cause of this problem is that the ADA rules clear half of the teams. Vandy did 5 debates in a day and the awards ceremony. The first debate had almost everyone getting a bye, delaying the start of the octafinals until almost noon. I would like to suggest a minor modification to the ADA rules on this question. *If clearing half the teams would require a partial double-octafinals means that there are less than 3 debates taking place in the double-octafinals, that the tournament not clear said teams, that the teams receive a double-octafinals award and points appropriate for winning such a debate. For purposes of CEDA, ADA, and NDT points, those competing in the Octas will receive the equivalent number of points as if they had won a double-octafinals debate. 5 debates and an awards ceremony in a day is too much. National tournaments increasingly believe this, now it may be time to clean up the ADA rules for the regional tournaments for the health and well-being of all participants. The Vandy tournament had 2 varsity debates in the Octas and 1 close-out. Meanwhile THIRTEEN TEAMS received a bye through the Doubles, meaning they had to wait at the tournament till apx 11:45AM to start their first debate of the day. The Vandy tournament had 1 jv debate in the Octas and 7 teams advanced with a bye. Novice Octas was reasonable, 4 debates three byes. My proposal is just a conversation starter. I'm the biggest fan in the world of getting more debates for people, but we've got to have a compromise at some point. A handful of double-octafinal debates that cause a tournament to try to get 5 debates and an awards ceremony in a day may be a reasonable start. Recognizing that this may not be popular, but may be necessary... Dr. Ryan W. Galloway Director of Debate Samford University _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From davismk13 at gmail.com Wed Oct 28 08:29:07 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:29:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Proposed Rule Change on the "Clear Half" ADA Rule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9a7f6f740910280629w6d385e56sfc96eabeb6fde97f@mail.gmail.com> As a counter proposal - how about if we say no five rounds on the final day of a tournament? If people want to clear small partials that push debates then let them find a new schedule that allows them to do. But no more five rounds on the final day of the tournament. Mike On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Galloway, Ryan W. wrote: > Greetings from Birmingham, > > I just arrived home from a wonderful tournament at Vanderbilt University. > ML was great, all the debaters fought hard, and we look forward to > returning next year. > > However, the final round I judged ended at approximately 2AM. > > After the debate, I walked out in pitch black to the SUV I had left in the > parking lot at the tournament. Not planning on staying the night, I drove > around the streets of Nashville to find a place to stay. > > My fine motor skills were weak. I was having difficulty steering the SUV > even down the street and navigating a few U-Turns to find a hotel in a > strange city. I seriously contemplated taking a nap in the van. > > Meanwhile, Abi drove our kids home after we lost in the semis, and arrived > home at after 5am. She has been suffering from exhaustion and throwing up. > The motivation to not stay was to make sure our students who were competing > late at Richmond (another ADA tournament that did 5 rounds in a day) could > get back home to go to school. > > Folks, this isn't safe. > > A cause of this problem is that the ADA rules clear half of the teams. > Vandy did 5 debates in a day and the awards ceremony. The first debate had > almost everyone getting a bye, delaying the start of the octafinals until > almost noon. > > I would like to suggest a minor modification to the ADA rules on this > question. > > *If clearing half the teams would require a partial double-octafinals means > that there are less than 3 debates taking place in the double-octafinals, > that the tournament not clear said teams, that the teams receive a > double-octafinals award and points appropriate for winning such a debate. > For purposes of CEDA, ADA, and NDT points, those competing in the Octas > will receive the equivalent number of points as if they had won a > double-octafinals debate. > > 5 debates and an awards ceremony in a day is too much. National > tournaments increasingly believe this, now it may be time to clean up the > ADA rules for the regional tournaments for the health and well-being of all > participants. > > The Vandy tournament had 2 varsity debates in the Octas and 1 close-out. > Meanwhile THIRTEEN TEAMS received a bye through the Doubles, meaning they > had to wait at the tournament till apx 11:45AM to start their first debate > of the day. > > The Vandy tournament had 1 jv debate in the Octas and 7 teams advanced with > a bye. > > Novice Octas was reasonable, 4 debates three byes. > > My proposal is just a conversation starter. I'm the biggest fan in the > world of getting more debates for people, but we've got to have a compromise > at some point. A handful of double-octafinal debates that cause a > tournament to try to get 5 debates and an awards ceremony in a day may be a > reasonable start. > > Recognizing that this may not be popular, but may be necessary... > > Dr. Ryan W. Galloway > Director of Debate > Samford University > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091028/ca09d150/attachment.html From jtedebate at yahoo.com Wed Oct 28 09:39:26 2009 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:39:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] edebate freakin' Message-ID: <281361.67890.qm@web110608.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Anyone else still receiveing week-old edebate posts?? They pop in at random about a week after they were posted, but most others get through OK??? W. James Taylor ("JT") Clinical Instructor Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University ***Nothing in this email should be taken to represent Emporia State Debate or Emporia State University. The contents are the sole opinion of the author. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091028/ed132986/attachment.htm From neal.travis at gmail.com Wed Oct 28 09:42:19 2009 From: neal.travis at gmail.com (travis neal) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:42:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 8 prelim model In-Reply-To: References: <12a4de8d0910151010h16bbaba4ha9aeccd7161c3386@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Maybe the solution to the time problem is more debating and not less. Why does everyone's proposal show such fidelity to the elim system? What if instead we just expanded the number of prelim rounds, so everyone is guaranteed to debate more, and shrunk the elim portion of the tournaments? Break the top four teams, surely after 10 prelim rounds we could come to a reasonable determination of whom those four teams would be. Why clear any teams at any tournament save the final championship tournaments? If intra-year rankings are based on top vs top matchups then large prelim rounded tournaments would still provide quality data sets for comparison. We could easily do 10 prelim rounds within a shorter time frame than it takes to do a 7 round plus 4 elims tournament. On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Josh wrote: > I agree with all of this except: > > 1. 4 prelims sat, 4 prelims sunday doubles on out-round day (let people > get as many rounds as possible and make the hard day a hard day for the host > not the travelers - teams that stay will get a room, teams that lose will > leave and be more rested when they do because the prelims didnt wear them > out. > > 2. Opp wins is a poor substitute because you cannot control who you > debate. Not saying its any less arbitrary than the speaker point > system...Just suggesting some stat head has to be able to come up with a > more reliable meaningful substitute. > > Josh > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Scott Phillips wrote: > >> Basic outline: 8 preliminary rounds. 5 rounds take place on Saturday. >> Rounds 1-4 are preset and released by 5pm the Friday beforehand. Round 5 is >> high high and paired off of only rounds 1-3, the pairing for round 5 would >> be released during round 4. >> >> Some basic assumptions of my model >> 1. There are not enough high high debates at tournaments. More high high >> debates would >> -produce more of the top level head to head matches that determine bid >> sheets and drive innovation by forcing teams to bust strategies and research >> new ones >> -give on the cusp teams a bit of breathing room - if you speak poorly some >> high high rounds give you a reprieve from a constant beat down- the current >> system is too one sided >> -eliminate some of the damage that having a large number of presets has on >> borderline teams by reducing the likelihood of getting jacked by having to >> debate a few top level teams in the presets and then win several break >> rounds in a row that are high low in your bracket. >> 2. Debaters are given way to much pre round prep- everyone goes for the >> same crap anyway- the health care disad and cap K are highlighted already, >> you don't need an hour to get ready for them. Also releasing pairings >> earlier allows debaters to take advantage of the post round dead time >> waiting for a decision to prep more for later debates. >> 3. More prelims are better- people get more practice, who should clear >> becomes "clearer" etc. >> 4. Opponent wins should be more important in deciding who clears than >> speaker points- there I said it. The speaker point system is broken. This is >> a team activity. Especially with more high high debates which I have >> already conclusively proven is a moral obligation. >> 5. Judges need to run a tighter ship- stop prep stealing and time wasting, >> enforce start times etc. Debaters waste time because they are allowed too. >> If the choice is between losing a debate or punishing teams who are too lazy >> and stupid to be efficient it is ridiculous to take away a debate. A strict >> schedule creates incentives for efficiency by rewarding teams who are well >> organized and work hard. >> >> >> >> >> How long does a round take? 92 minutes. Assume at least 10 minutes for >> screwing around brings us to 102. If each round is given 2:15 that is 135 >> minutes, leaving over 1/2 an hour for making a decision. You could even add >> another 15 minutes on there and that would only lengthen the day by an hour. >> This would mean the schedule would/could look like (I have added an extra 10 >> minutes for travel time, and extra time for lunch and dinner, discussed >> below) >> >> Round 1: 7:45 >> Round 2: 10:10 >> Round 3: 1:15 >> Round 4: 3:40 >> Round 5: 6:45 >> >> This gets everyone out around 9. >> >> Day 2: >> Round 6: 8:00 >> Round 7: 10:30 >> Round 8: 2:30 >> Doubles: 6:00 >> >> Round 6 and 7 should be paired off round 5 and have one high low and one >> high high. The pairing should be released at 6am. Since you get out at >> roughly 9, you should be able to eat and get to sleep by 10 or 11 giving you >> 7-8 hours of sleep if you decide to get up at 6 and start prepping. If you >> want to sleep in you can obviously get more sleep but this is a pretty good >> amount to get considering you would get 2 hours to prep for rounds 6 and 7. >> Round 8 is obviously important, so there is a lot of extra prep built in for >> this. If a strict decision time is enforced all the round 7 ballots should >> be in by 12:45. Giving people 1/2 hour for lunch that means they will still >> get about an hour to prep for potential break rounds. >> >> Finally- opp wins should be more important than speaker points in >> determining who clears. The main objection to pairing more rounds ahead of >> time is "we'll get screwed". Using opponent wins helps take the bite out of >> this argument and opposition to high high rounds. It also allows time to >> figure out the 100 point scale while only speaker awards are affected. >> >> Some of this may seem pretty radical/unworkable but a fundamental >> assumption is that time is wasted because there are no incentives to not >> waste it. A strict schedule forces debaters to chose between focusing on >> competitive gain or other aspects of debate like socializing etc true, but >> this is already a trade off in many other ways. >> >> Top ways time is wasted at tournaments now that would be pressured to >> reform by judges and debaters >> 1. Cleaning up- people don't do it until after the decision, throw >> evidence all over the room during debates so they are later unable to find >> it etc. >> 2. Moving- teams mosey around chit chatting >> 3. Water/bathroom breaks- you're an adult- get a bottle and learn to hold >> it >> 4. Being out of the room during decision making >> >> Teams who want more prep time can eliminate all of these things to get it. >> >> >> >> Answers to obvious objections >> >> Long decision making/oral critiques are good >> >> It shouldn't take that long to figure out most of these prelims. A wise >> old sage once told me that most debates are hard to decide because the >> debaters didn't do their job, not because the debates were very good and >> close. Some judges take a ton of time and vote neg, some take a ton of time >> and vote aff, some take a ton of time, realize they can't sit out since >> there is only 1 judge and then flip a coin. Point being- just like debaters >> do speed drills, some judges should work on figuring things out faster. >> >> Each debate should be power matched individually/blah blah blah >> The value of having more debates outweighs any risk of a negative from >> pairing 6 and 7 together. The warrant for pairing them together being bad is >> it will affect clearing- which at its core relies on the idea that more >> debates are good. Everyone gets a round 8 in this model so its as if you all >> cleared and this was CEDA. This is also a random element- it will not affect >> anyone disproportionately where as going to 7 or 6 prelims is a regressive >> policy- it hurts those at the bottom the most. >> >> Days are long/this will take too long etc >> If MBA and CFL's can make an even more radical version of this schedule >> work, I'm sure the minds that run college tournaments will be able to handle >> it. >> >> >> Blah blah blah other objection >> I wrote way more about this but most have probably stopped reading already >> so I will leave it here, but will clarify/respond to objections if the need >> exists. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091028/f8aef0f6/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Wed Oct 28 16:00:13 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:00:13 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments In-Reply-To: <524839830910191818o13384b89y4f786402e842ce7e@mail.gmail.com> References: <86f9bd6d0910091022u7915f0e3h6752b96d41508c12@mail.gmail.com><6d9b42f5d2af6d70bb2957f1b914ee4c.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu><0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD1A47E3@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> <524839830910191818o13384b89y4f786402e842ce7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 100% agree with stefan. I want our students, all of them, to have 8 rounds when they travel for 10-14 hours to get to the tournament. enforce 1ac start times and decision completion times. make them reasonable but also capable of getting 4 prelims on sat, 4 prelims on sun, and elims finished at reasonable times. is having a few outlier decisions a reason to cut out debates for everyone at the tournament? jim hanson :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: Stefan Bauschard Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 6:18 PM To: Kuswa, Kevin Cc: Ralph Paone ; edebate at ndtceda.com ; Gary Larson Subject: Re: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments I don't necessarily think that 8 rounds is a response to a by-gone era were we could run all the doubles on Monday and be done by 7pm. In fact, I remember the time (probably about 7-8 years ago) when GSU and KY transitioned from octos to doubles in response to the growing number of teams entered in the tournaments. It is quite clear in my mind because they had meetings about this on day 2, asked people to offer up hotel rooms for the extra rounds on Monday, etc. In fact, I'm pretty sure that for a long time only Wake, NW, and UNI (which was the large season opener at the time) cleared to a field of 32 that was expected to run/finish all the elims in one day. Perhaps some of those nights were quite late, but everyone survived. If my memory serves me correctly, the tournaments would end around 1 am, not 4am. 4am finishes are what triggered the revolt and that is fair. With tournaments becoming even larger, clearing to doubles is no longer a debate. Debates are late (now very late (4am)), so we try to cut things on the other send -- sustain the doubles and cut the prelims. Is this a good idea? I agree that 7 is bad. I didn't make GSU ,but thought it was odd that no one was complaining when they were leaving the building at 11pm on Sunday -- far later than I ever left GSU on a Sunday. In this world, most tournament participants have a very late evening, whereas in the Monday doubles world it is only those who are in the late elims that have to stay up very late. I do see two big problems with 6: (a) As discussed, two fewer debates, so point variance on the 100 scale is more problematic; (b) No H-H. H-Ls are pretty good for seeding, but as Scotty P pointed out, they stink for having better"/equivalent" debates in the prelims. If a tournament with 140 teams has only 6 rounds, and all the rounds are H-L (I don't see a good arg for a H-H in a 6 round tournament), then all the debates except those int eh middle of the H-L will be mis-matches, with both sides gaining a lot less from the experience. At least with 8 rounds you can have a H-H and the variation in the H-L starts to dissipate in rounds 7 and 8. So, I think 8 is certainly better than 7 (no real gain) and better than 6. I also think 4 am stinks (though I don't think 1am is so bad) . So, what's the solution -- eliminate the culprits. The culprits are pretty easily identified -- decisions that take way too long and there is too much pre-round prep. Pre-round prep should be cut to 30 minutes -- fewer teams have to move significant numbers of tubs, scouting information is widespread and advanced preparation is easier, elim brackets are released the night before so you can project who you are debating and you can start preparing for the next debate as soon as your debate is finished, Post-round decision time should be cut to 45 minutes in prelims and an hour in elims. Perhaps this is too radical, but paperless evidence can be looked at much faster in a debate because it's all on one document and deciding debates shouldn't REQUIRE an hour more than the debate itself. In a world of "inifnite prep,"I guess I don't care how long people take, but in a world where taking 2.5 hours to decide a debate is resulting in significantly fewer debates then it stinks. There is some marginal gains as some decisions start to approach "perfection," but I don't think it's worth it if it is causing a lot of debates to get cut. And, does the extra time make decisions that much better? Are there fewer 2-1 and 3-2 decisions because people now take more time to figure out what "actually" happened? At the very least, it's much easier to quantify the educational loss of two debates than the competitive perfection of 5 additional hours of decision time across 5 debates on Monday. Finally, I do think that a lot of the complaining about late Monday nights has been given too much credibility -- (A) As pointed out, it impacts few people. The debaters it impacts get to be the champions of the tournament and are considered for the Copeland -- a trophy given to the very best debate team in America. The judges it impacts are usually either people who volunteer/want to judge the debate, or are people who usually could have taken a good nap before the debate started. And how many prelims are these highly preferred judges who are judging the finalsof the majors judging? Certainly no more half, and often just 1 or 2. (B) No solvency for sickness -- Many people stay up until all hours of the night at these tournaments, regardless as to whether or not they are debating or judging. Maybe 1 of the 7 people involved in the final round would get a couple hours more sleep if we don't have a late Monday elim. We are eliminating 50+ (7 rounds) or 100+ (6 rounds) debates for this? 99% of the people who don't get enough sleep (6-7 hours) at debate tournaments stay up very late socializing and/or cutting cards till all hours of the morning. (C) Really? Debaters who participate in late elims are incredibly ambitious and competitive people. Once their debate ends many will spend many late nights in the law firm or starting their own businesses. Their lack of sleep in these situations will be insignificant compared to the number of times they were up late debating in a late elim at a major. I do think we all agree that we only have 3 days to hold a tournament, so -- a) What's a reasonable amount of decision-making time? b) How late are most people willing to stay on the prelim days? c) How late is way too late for a final round to be held? d) What's the educational gain of two more debates for 200 more people (100 2 person teams)? d) Is it better to have more rounds or longer decisions? -- Do longer decisions make the decisions better? -- Are longer decisions more educational? Personally, I just find eliminating a bunch of prelims a high price to pay for decisions that take 2.5 hours instead of one hour. On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Kuswa, Kevin wrote: Hi all, 7 rounds in the current structure does not work very well for the majority of the tournament. Ralph's post was dead on. 8 prelims with travel and debate on different days at the beginning is the superior schedule if done right. Maybe not national, but our tournament approaches 100 teams and Wayne and UNI all have 8 rounds. Add that to NDT, Harvard, and CEDA Nationals and there are still a number of tournaments (I'm sure I am missing some) that are 8 rounds, including some District tournaments. 7 rounds is a terrible compromise--Greg is right on about that--but I am not sure 6 really solves the problem (especially given the arguments that more debates are generally better, we do come to tournaments to debate, and the majority of participants do not compete after out-rounds begin). Our compromise to the long day on Monday will be to only clear 16 teams in each of 3 divisions instead of the "exactly half" rule that the ADA encourages (but does not mandate). There is an important place for 6-round regional tournaments and that makes up a bulk of our schedule, but the national (or larger regional) tournaments looking to have the full prelim experience and a reasonable day of elims for all the competitors can still do well with the 8 round prelim format. At the Spider tournament, we had 8 prelims (or 7 and a teach-in for novices) for almost 100 teams and 5 elims on Monday--but not just "5 elims overall"--five elims in Open and in Novice and 4 elims in JV. For the second elim round we used 60 judges and more than half the teams at the tournament were able to compete on the third day. The tournament was over by 10:00 or 11:00 at night on Monday. There are improvements we can make (we plan to release the full bracket Sunday night as well as the specific judges needed in the morning -- in addition to limiting the elims to 16 teams per division unless a division gets bigger than 40). Thanks to Ralph and Greg for their posts and I hope the conversation continues on this. Sincerely, Kevin ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of gregachten at berkeley.edu [gregachten at berkeley.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 12:27 AM To: Ralph Paone Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments I too have been thinking about this a great deal and spent a long time at Kentucky talking to people about this very issue and was actually planning on posting to edebate sometime this week so I thank Ralph for motivating me to sit down and write this. As many of you know I am a big advocate of 6 round tournaments. I think in general 8 round tournaments with 5 elims on Monday are an anachronism from a time when debates actually took 2 hours and we could start at 8 AM and be done by 7 PM. Of course the heightened complexity of debates and the extended decision making times that have corresponded along with the increased demands for pre-round preparation have made this model largely obsolete. I think there is an emerging consensus in the community that 8 round tournaments are not healthy for the community, witness that among the major national tournaments only Harvard, CEDA and the NDT maintain 8 prelims and two of those are 4 day tournaments and Harvard only clears to an octafinal. However in response to the desire to shorten tournaments many directors have decided to move to 7 rounds. After reflecting on this for some time, I have come to believe that 7 round tournaments are the worst possible compromise. I think they reduce the number of prelim rounds while making the schedule net worse for the overwhelming majority of the tournament participants. ] In a typical 7 round tournament, the first day consists of 4 prelims, meaning that there is no difference between a 7 and 8 round tournament. The second day of a 7 round tournament however is MUCH worse for all of the participants. In a typical 8 round tournament there are 4 debates, round 6 is a lag-powered round so only 2 real power matching breaks exist. With 7 round tournaments there are 3 prelims on day 2, all of which are directly power matched meaning that the day is automatically already longer. Then the final debate is not just an elim, but typically the double octa-final. As someone who runs a lot of tabrooms I can assure you this is the most difficult debate to place judges in and is often the most time consuming debate to pair. Added to this is the fact that elim debates generally take longer to decide and that there is usually an awards ceremony before the start of the doubles. At Kentucky, our team arrived at the school at 7:00 AM on Sunday and did leave campus until 11 PM, making this a 16 hour day at the school. This is far worse than day 2 at 8 round tournaments and this day effects everyone at the tournament. Day 3 is clearly better in that there are only 4 elims, but it is really only net better for the 7 people who are involved in the finals and even that is a subjective claim since all of those people are far more tired than they typically would be on elim day since day 2 was so much longer than usual. This should not be read as an argument in favor of 8 round tournaments. My position is clearly that as a community we need to assess how much stress we are putting on our students and ourselves and I think that short of placing substantial limits on decision making time the only workable solution is the 6 round tournament. I agree with Ralph that switching to 6 rounds at makes it more likely that points will determine who clears and who does not and that experimenting with a 100 point scale while shortening tournaments and increasing the importance of points doesn't make sense. I do think that this is an issue we need to confront as a community and discuss. If anyone is interested I have a really good frontline in favor of 6 round tournaments, but I wanted to focus on what I feel are the problems with 7 rounds in this post. Greg > In the spirit of ranks that nobody will ever respond to (Hi Whit and > D-Lo).. > > I suppose this post is a reaction to a trend I've noticed on e-Debate > regarding tournament safety and some things that I noticed over the > weekend > while at the Clay. > > My overall point (the short version) is this: Debate is good. Shortening > tournament length decrease Debate, and that is bad (part 1). If we are > going to make smaller schedules the norm, we should reevaluate the > structure > of the prelims (part 2). > > Part I - Against Shortening Tournament Length > > There seems to be a trend towards having fewer prelim rounds at > tournaments. A number of arguments are given in support of this claim, > but > few are very well explained. Among them are.... Perhaps the best > argument that I've heard for having fewer rounds is that debaters will be > less tired at the end of the tournament, resulting in better elim day > debates for those involved and less fatigue for all debaters returning > home > to the school work they have put off for the past couple days or weeks. In > its strongest articulation, the argument for shortening tournament length > has focused on the need to improve the general tournament atmosphere, > making > debate tournaments more habitable for all. Those who began the movement > for > shorter tournament -- those to whom I am indebted to and far less wise > than > -- seemed to notice a troubling tide of over-exhaustion, isolation, and > general grumpiness at tournaments. Although I am in general supportive of > measures that make tournaments more inviting and community-building, I am > not yet convinced that shortening tournament length is the appropriate > response, and I hope that other solutions will continue to be experimented > with. > > On face, the argument that we should shorten debate tournaments because > people get too tired just seems silly. I'm sure, for example, that > basketball players get extremely tired during the course of a regular > season > game and even more exhausted during a play-off series or a long trip on > the > road. The solution to this fatigue, however, is not to shorten the length > of quarters or the number of games being played during the season. > Instead, > coaches encourage their players to live a lifestyle off the court that > enables them to adequately handle the stress of the game. Debaters are > not > just exhausted after a tournament because they had an 8th debate, they are > exhausted because they've been working on little sleep for days/weeks > before > the tournament, and often up late enjoying themselves each night of the > tournament. Neither of those problems are eliminated by having one less > debate. Some might argue that the shorter schedule puts less stress on > coaches. Admittedly, I do not know a lot about being a coach, and am > perhaps ignorant and in need of a schooling. In my opinion, having 1 fewer > debate does little to alleviate coach fatigue except for the coaches of > doubles teams who do not have to stay up late preparing for doubles. I > don't know what about having one fewer debate causes coaches who stay up > all > night cutting cards (you know who you are) to suddenly decide that they > shouldn't do that and should instead go to sleep. Similar to student > fatigue, coach fatigue seems a "problem" of personal decisions made by > individual coaches and the ethos of competition that courses through the > debate community. * From a debater perspective, I'd much rather have > another > debate than feel marginally less tired Tuesdays after tournaments. I'm > sure > those who could have cleared 5-3 but didn't because they were 4-3 would > agree with me on this*. I have never heard a good answer to the argument > that shortening tournament length denies the majority of teams an extra > debate in the name of preserving the energy levels of the select few > debating on elim day. > > I am also curious where the data for the 'we're so tired please don't make > us debate another round' argument is coming from. Have any tournaments > provided participants with a survey of whether or not they would rather > debate an additional round or feel less tired on Monday/Tuesday? I would > be > curious to hear thoughts on this, as I might be in the minority. In any > case, it would be interesting if tournaments began posing these sorts of > questions to the participants (judges, debaters, and coaches alike). > > Part II - Revising Prelim Structure for the Short Schedule > > If we're going to be shortening tournaments, I think it is absolutely > paramount that tab rooms alter the prelim structure to reflect this > change. > I enjoyed my time in Kentucky this past weekend, but the notion of having > 4 > preset rounds in a 7 round tournament is *PATENTLY ABSURD*. There is > simply > not enough time in the three following rounds to effectively derive the > top > 32 teams via rigorous competition. This is particularly troubling given > that most critics are still getting used to the 100 pt scale. Speaker > points are more important than ever, but the norms dictating what certain > points mean are less certain than ever. > > This problem is probably solved by beginning to power-match debates after > 2 > or 3 rounds, and I hope that such a practice is adopted for future large > national tournaments that decide to shorten their schedules. (I am aware > of > course that many smaller tournament already pair prelims like this; I > think > that Wake did last year?).. > > As a side note, I think it sort of sucks that teams can go 5-2 at a > tournament and still not clear, but maybe there's not much to be done > about > that. > > Responses and clarifications would be extremely appreciated, > > -Ralph > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/20091028/ad072161/attachment.htm From catspathat at gmail.com Wed Oct 28 17:48:43 2009 From: catspathat at gmail.com (Abers) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:48:43 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] On 7 Round Tournaments In-Reply-To: <524839830910191818o13384b89y4f786402e842ce7e@mail.gmail.com> References: <86f9bd6d0910091022u7915f0e3h6752b96d41508c12@mail.gmail.com> <6d9b42f5d2af6d70bb2957f1b914ee4c.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F06BD1A47E3@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> <524839830910191818o13384b89y4f786402e842ce7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I think there are some strong arguments against limiting judging time that makes a 6 round tournament desirable -- essentially, judges need time to get their stuff together and debaters need time to absorb all the information the judge has to dish-out. I have a sense that there are parts of our community that either think a judges decision is a small concern (an attitude of 'after they've cast the ballot, who care's') or think that debaters think a judges decision is a small concern (which in some instances, with some debaters, is a fair argument), but honestly the majority of things I take out of debate rounds comes from the judge. While it's really easy to say 'well the judges should just make decisions faster, we're here for the students,' in my experience, if the judge has not had time to adequately prepare, study the flow, possibly read evidence, possibly even write out their decision that they were planning to just say to the debaters, then the entire debate can be ruined. I really cannot think of a thing worse than you're judge, saying after an extremely competitive round, "you might have won if i'd had more time to fully think through the round." This happened in at least two of my rounds last year at the northwestern tournament. But in addition to avoiding snafu's like that, long decisions that involve teams asking multiple questions of the judge are awesome. 1.) learn better stuff about the topic -- I've found the post round invaluable in gaining new ideas and perspectives about arguments i'm running. This may be a bit obvious, but judges are in unique positions to help argument developments since not only have they just heard you're entire argument but chances are (because they're from a different school, different debate circle, whatever) they have a perspective to offer that can at least help you debate the argument better in front of that critic, if not improve the argument over all. 2.) learn better stuff in general -- as anyone who's ever had a judge like Calum or Pointer explain some extremely difficult acedemic concept like string theory or a particular authors view on macro biology, judges (as frequent products of debate themselves) are smart. Taking the time to allow them to teach us, seems also smart. 3.) helps prefs -- hearing what a judge thinks about specific instances of T or theory, along with evidence comparison or risk analysis is invaluable when designing a successful pref sheet. Yes you could also get this information off debateresults or by asking the judge outside of rounds, however, again in my experience, none of those have been as reliable as hearing what the judge has to say after the round. I also generally find eight round tournaments exhausting. Abe - GU -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091028/ce2c88d8/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Wed Oct 28 21:28:19 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:28:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Forest University - Dir of Debate Position Message-ID: <4AE8FDC3.9080909@wfu.edu> The Department of Communication invites applications for a tenure-track assistant professor to begin fall 2010 to serve as Director of Debate. In addition to administering the debate program the successful candidate would demonstrate teaching and peer reviewed research suitable to Wake Forest and will have a reduction of two courses from the standard teaching load. Terms of tenure and promotion specific to the position will be negotiated. Candidates demonstrating experience with civic engagement venues (/e.g.,/ public argument, grant work, etc.) are encouraged. Ph.D. required. Women and minority candidates are especially encouraged to apply. An application consists of a cover letter of interest, a current C.V., contact information for three references, sample teaching evaluations, and appropriate evidence of coaching/directing experience. Formal review of applications begins November 20. Applications will be accepted until the search is completed. Materials can be submitted electronically to louden at wfu.edu or mailed to Allan Louden, Search Committee Chair, Department of Communication, Box 7347, Reynolda Station, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109 (336-758-5408; fax 336-758-4691). Wake Forest University is an AA/EEO From bamadebate at yahoo.com Thu Oct 29 18:17:54 2009 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Liberty - Emory looking for judging Message-ID: <889195.64426.qm@web62002.mail.re1.yahoo.com> pays in cash. e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091029/009a9324/attachment.htm From dave at miami.edu Fri Oct 30 11:24:44 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:24:44 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Hurricane Debates, New Hotel Info Message-ID: Good news, the Holiday Inn has agreed to lower our rate from $139 to $119. Given the season in South Florida, and the many events going on that weekend (marathon, Pro-Bowl, etc...), that is an excellent rate. Please make your reservations early. It is better to make them now and cancel if you must than to wait and try to find rooms after the block fills. To make reservations, go to this link: UM Debate Team 2010 Our contact at the Holiday Inn is Adriana Simon, Director of Sales and Marketing Holiday Inn University of Miami 1350 South Dixie Highway (US1) Coral Gables, FL 33146 Direct: 305-215-1512 Telephone: (305) 667-5611 Fax: (305) 665-6691 asimon at soundhospitality.com www.hicoralgables.com David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091030/6e03fd3a/attachment.htm From EMarlow at uco.edu Fri Oct 30 12:09:05 2009 From: EMarlow at uco.edu (Eric Marlow) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:09:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UCO updates Message-ID: <75671A9DCD21974888C9A2E5E4937B6451EA8F14D5@EXCHANGE.uco.local> Just a couple of things...please finalize your entries as soon as you can. I have to place a food order today and I need the numbers as close as possible to make sure everyone is well fed. Additionally, please note that the D3 district meeting has been moved to 2 pm on Friday. We have half of a doubles bracket in open right now, so there will be partials on Saturday and I want to try to make the schedule more humane for those who win in doubles and have to debate on Sunday morning. Please let us know if you need any special accommodations and we will do our utmost to make your experience as fun and competitive as possible. Looking forward to hosting you all in Edmond next weekend!!! Peace, Marlow Eric Marlow Director of Debate University of Central Oklahoma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091030/8e1b5ef2/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5675 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20091030/8e1b5ef2/attachment.jpg From steveticker at gmail.com Sat Oct 31 23:09:09 2009 From: steveticker at gmail.com (Steve Ticker) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 00:09:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Georgetown HS Message-ID: <5b4b224e0910312109i68db0480ve37f9563f728980b@mail.gmail.com> Can I get the cites for the framework cards you read in the block today? Really impressed by the 1nr. Hao killed that. Impressed with Georgetown HS especially given the year off. Still a bit slow. I think Hao can carry this team.