[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re:
> If debaters put in all that work
> for nine months to be successful at nationals and throughout the debate
> season, it really sucks when you have to be stopped by some "rule" that
> has not evolved with the rest of CEDA debate. I'm sorry but I would like
> to end my career in a real debate with all the guns still smoking instead
> of letting someone or something end it for me.
As I've mentioned before, I have a great deal of sympathy for the
issue of being paired against a team from your own school; I've been
there in the old NDT context. I understand the emotions involved,
but a couple of points remain:
1) It's not just the two teams from the same school who have put in
"all that work." The teams who now have to debate different debates
because brackets were broken probably worked just as hard.
2) This "rule" didn't "evolve" with CEDA. NDT has long practiced
not breaking brackets. It was CEDA which more or less originated the
idea, and in those days it was primarily to help the squad clearing
multiple teams qualify for more CEDA points. I might note that this
was a COMPETITIVE rule, not one for "educational" purposes.
3) I think Ken Broda-Bahm's earlier point has some merit; the shaft
that the team having to end its career in a non-debate is larger than
the shaft for a team which doesn't get its "regularly scheduled
debate." But the potentially career ending impact is the same. So
let's try to go with some combination of the compromise proposals,
among which are:
--re-seeding at the end of each elim, breaking brackets when
appropriate.
--eliminating side constraints in elims, at least in rounds where the
brackets were broken, causing a non-seed-consistent debate.
--finding some way less volatile than speaker points to break seeding
ties.
Terry West
Southern Utah
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page