grandfathers et al.

["michael korcok" <mk48@CORNELL.EDU>]

howdy.  i haven't been following this thread that closely, but a couple of
quick notes (i'm sorry if this has been said before):

i like and respect Greg Achten a lot.

at the 1992 CEDA Nats, I appeared before the exec comm to petition for John
Dean's being allowed to debate at his fifth CEDA Nats.  My argument was
simple: if Jim and Doug were allowed to compete because of a "grandfather
clause" then John ought to be allowed to do so as well.  The response of the
exec comm was unequivocal:  I was told that there was no grandfather clause,
that there had never been a grandfather clause, and that there would not be
a grandfather clause applied to CEDA rules.  Professor Bartanen explained
that the basis of Jim and Doug being allowed to compete at CEDA Nats was
that different portions of the CEDA Constitution governed CEDA-point
eligibility and CEDA-Nats eligibility:  Jim and Doug HAD gone beyond their
CEDA-point eligibility (Doug debated more than 8 semesters NDT & CEDA) but
since neither had gone to 4 CEDA Nats, they were eligible to compete there.
John Dean HAD competed at 4 CEDA Nats, so he was not eligible to compete at
the '92 CEDA Nats even though he was eligible to earn CEDA points (since he
hadn't used up all 8 semesters of debate).  This answer makes sense to me.

as i understand Greg's situation, he is in essentially the position that
Doug was in:  he has used up all 8 semesters (thus has not been eligible to
earn CEDA points this year) but has not attended 4 CEDA Nats (thus is
eligible to compete at this year's tournament).

i understand that Professor Bartanen will propose simplifying amendments to
the Constitution on these matters:  that would be good.

many folks are mad about this situation:  resolving it in a way that doesn't
hurt Greg but that treats CEDA eligibility rules seriously is important.
complicating interpretations, adding exceptions, and arbitrariness will only
anger and confuse folks.

finally, the exec comm messed up last time.  The '92 meetings about Jim and
Doug were secret:  the community was excluded from those deliberations.
the mistake was that there was NO public explanation of the decision, the
issues involved remained rumors, and there was no discussion of how future
cases would be resolved.  that folks are confused, mad, and uninformed is
the result of the exec comm's POOR COMMUNICATION on this matter.  there is
no good reason to repeat that mistake again this year:  let's discuss this
matter publicly and openly instead of behind closed doors.

see ya'll soon,
:( michael korcok :)

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Vanderbuilt
• Next by Date: Cookies, Vandy and the NDA
• Prev by thread: Re: Val's litany against Weiss paradigm
• Next by thread: Re: grandfathers et al.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page