[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Re ethics

>1. There are no standards for what constitutes an ethical violation, or 
>how we determine when evidence is cut out of context.  Accordingly, for 
>the purposes of transcribed rounds there is no way to contest a round 
>based on what is perceived to be evidence read out of context.

There should be both. If this thread is what it takes to get some ethical
standards, then so be it. I believe that there needs to be a standard, as
well as punitive standards for violations.
I think that is past is past,  but we need to be ready in case the same
situation accurs in the future. Granted, there is nothing we can do about an
incident that may or may not have happened a year ago, but if we don't do
something to prevent the situation from happening again, it most certainly
will. 

>2. What is the point of transcribing said round and researching the 
>evidence read in the debate if there is no process?

Agreed. Let's set some guidelines by which a process can be set in motion.

>3. What can we as a community do to address this problem? 

First, I would argue that there is a big difference between cards which are
power-tagged, and cards which are taken out of context. The former can be
policed by reading the card to see if it says what the tag says. The latter ca
nnot be policed (unless you happen to be carrying around the original
somewhere), and needs stricter scrutiny.

Second, what can be done. Well, the first thing that needs to be done is to
set up strict standards by which cards are cut. I don't have any concrete
ideas here, but one idea would be to mandate that NO cards be cut in the middl
e of a sentence. A team could still underline the parts that they want to
read, but opponents would be able to see that nothing crucial or
contradicting was omitted. If this isn't enough, it could be mandated that
entire paragraphs be included (again underlining would keep all from being
read). Mahoney wouldn't have a problem with this (his cards are usually a
page long), but I can see where it may cause some problems.

Another idea for policing this problem is to set VERY severe penalties for
those caught taking cards out of context. If a person knew that their debate
career hinged on taking a card out of context, they might think twice (or
three times or four times, etc). So rather than simply losing the round where
the challange was made (and presumably found to be true), the offending team
would be banned from CEDA. Although this may seem a bit harsh, it may be
necessary to take harsh measures to prevent abuses.

The one problem I am having with my possible solutions is that they depend on
a standard of "good" evidence that doesn't exist. I simply do not know how to
set up a standard by which a third party can determine an author's intent
(and ultimately, context). This is something those folks with Masters degrees
and PhDs will have to hash out. My mind simply doesn't work that way. Sorry.

More to follow as the thread gets going, I tend to be more of a
counter-puncher.

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page