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

Re: Rationale for CEDA Exec Discretion

Prof. Bryant:

If you comprehend nothing else, please comprehend this:  On matters 
of concern to me, I am no longer going to allow you to either bully 
me out of the argument or get by with taking quotations out of 
context, distorting arguments, or otherwise hiding from opposition 
argument.  To wit:

On 12 August 1997, MWBRYANT@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 97-08-11 23:34:56 EDT, Terry West wrote:
> 
> << And I'm astounded that a person in your position cannot do better
>  than sarcasm as argument.  You have referred to the CEDA procedures
>  as undemocratic.  Then you claim you propose to use those same
>  procedures.  OK, Bear, let's just make insinuations about each
>  others' sanity, leave that, then start over.  WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL?
>  HOW DO YOU WISH IT TO BE ENACTED?  Please be clear; remember, I "lack
>  capability."
>   >>
> 
> Prof. West,
> 
> Perhaps if you had asked this question in the first place we could have
> avoided your need to "scold" me, but I have the distinct feeling you needed
> to get something off your chest. How courageous and professional of you. 

What are your qualifications for reviewing my professional standards? 
 I have made no remarks about your professional qualifications.  In 
fact, one of the things that particularly disgusts me about your 
tactics is that I know you to be capable of rational argument.
> 
> Here, let me make it crystal clear:
> 
> First, let's address my "asinine" contention that the current situation is
> undemocratic. My exact word were "lacks democratic accountability." The
> current CEDA constitution, even though it may have been democratically voted
> into existence, contains a deficiency that enables the President to have full
> discretion over format and tabulation procedures. 

Depends on what you mean by democratic accountability; it is far from 
"crystal clear."  For me, it means that when I democratically vote 
for a 2nd VP, I know that person will preside over, among other 
things, the CEDA national tournament in 2 years.  And when a person 
promises to take advisory votes, I think that's democratic 
accountability as well.  Your interpretation (and please clarify if 
I'm wrong; this is MY perception of what you are writing) seems to be 
that certain matters (how many or how few is anyone's guess, but 
certainly including time limits) should be placed for a vote each 
year (or made part of the constitution).  Earlier, you seemed of the 
view that my reminding you that you could offer such an amendment any 
time was tantamount to "shutting off your discourse."  I am glad to 
see below that you have modified that opinion.  Nevertheless, I'm not 
sure how "accountable" I would feel about an organization that might 
vote to go 9-3-6, MPJ, no high-high matches, etc, etc. one year, and 
do exactly the opposite the next.  NOTE:  I am not contending you 
advocated any of these except 9-3-6--just making a point.  While the 
current structure technically ALLOWS a President to do any or all of 
these (there's some disagreement about that on MPJ), "democratic 
accountablility" to me means we elect people who won't make radical 
changes without advisory votes or amendments if necessary.

My contention is that the
> rationales advanced for Presidential discretion in matters dealing with the
> immediate running of the national tournament don't seem to justify why the
> issues of tabulation method and format can't be democratically chosen by the
> overall members of CEDA. Though I hadn't got around to formulating a precise
> proposal, I recognize that this might involve the need for a constitutional
> amendment. I was hoping to engage a dialogue on the matter so as to more
> precisely conceptualize such an amendment. Earlier posts had asked for
> amendment format templates. Though I am sure you will never believe it, this
> is not a personal attack on anyone. I am not slandering Tuna. He seemed fine
> when we had dinner, yesterday. 

I never accused you of slandering Tuna.  And again, I'm glad to see 
your total shift of opinion regarding the issue of constitutional 
amendment.

> 
> Why has this had to be such the supernova flame? 
> 
> Did anyone out there get the feeling from Terry's initial post that he was
> inviting me to engage in more open discourse about this subject?

Wait.  Are we conducting an advisory vote on this too?  I have 
invited you to engage in more civil discourse.  You reacted by 
claiming I was trying to "shut you down."  Bottom line:  my guess is 
that "anyone out there" probably doesn't give a rat's ass what you 
and I have to say to each other.
 
> Please, Terry, as my CEDA Rep, please, please try to understand what I'm
> talking about before branding me as an asinine liar and threat to the
> community. 

I called you no such thing.  I said your contention that the 
processes weren't democratic was asinine.  I also pointed out (and 
you have conceded by omission) that your accusation of me trying to 
shut you down simply cannot be found in my post.  Now you are simply 
resorting to 1) begging your friends on the -L to "interpret" my post 
in that way above, and 2) trying some sort of veiled threat (which I 
have already responded to) with these "as my ceda rep" references.  
I've already told you I would represent your viewpoint to the 
President and to the Executive council.  I haven't had time to post 
it to either yet; I'm trying to get our tournament invite posted 
today, but it should get posted at least to Tuna sometime later today.

> If you continue to address me as you have in backchanneled posts,
> I have no conclusion but to conclude that you have tried, judged and
> disenfranchised for not meeting your code of organizational fealty and
> civility.

Just as I feared when you originally said you were taking this 
backchannel.  Past experience has shown that you either reprint out 
of context or paraphrase out of context things that you invited to go 
backchannel, and the above further proves the point.  I have neither 
tried nor disenfranchised you; but if you expect me to represent 
SOLELY your viewpoint just because you yell the loudest, I guess I'm 
not the representative you want.  I'll try harder, but I'll seek 
input from as much of the region as I can contact.

Have I judged you?  Perhaps.  But no more so than your posts have 
judged me.  And I haven't impugned your professional credentials, 
your chemical sobriety, or your basic intelligence.  I have noted 
some discrepancies in your posts; you are free to publish 
contextually accurate quotations from my posts in refutation.  You 
have not done so.  That's your problem, not mine.

I have grown tired of this, and I'm sure the one or two people who 
aren't just blipping it from the menu are tired of it as well.  If 
you want to continue backchannel, fine.  I will represent your 
viewpoint, and my region's viewpoint, to the best of my ability.  I 
will do what I promised you I would do in presenting your view to the 
leadership.  I may even vote for 9-3-6 myself; I haven't decided yet. 
But I'm not putting any more of it on the edebate lines.

Terry West
Southern Utah



> 
> Sorry, won't accept that,
> 
> Michael Bryant
>      
>
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page