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

Rogers' response

No, Dr. Tuna, I was not "trolling," per se.  To wit:

First the valid, then the "invalid:"

The basic thread of the arguments against MPJ seem more persuasive to me than 
the opposition's.  I could be persuaded to support MPJ, if you and/or others 
could lead me to believe that "preference" translates into "real" (i.e. valid) 
choices. At a tournament this weekend, I discussed MPJ with several coaches. 
There were over thirty schools, local, regional and three or four with national 
reps, and I made an honest attempt to talk with every coach. Here are their -- 
"our" concerns:

1. If "I" travel to "nationals" and I am unfamiliar with most of the judges, 
how can I make valid choices?  My "A" choice would be based upon what: 
"reputation," "CEDA-L posts," "CEDA rankings," "articles they have written?" I 
may not know most of the judges on the sheet from Adam, but I am asked to make 
an informed choice.  I must choose "A's," "B's," and "C's." The argument is 
that someone from the "national" circuit would presumably make a more informed 
choice, which might give them an advantage.  When we met, they would have a 
real "A" choice and I would have a "guessed at" "A" choice.  Is this really 
mutual preference, or "preference" on the part of the "national" team vs "a 
guess" by the local or regional program?

2. If there are other regional programs at this "national" MPJ tourney, I would 
have a tendency to select the critics that I know.  The "national" folks would 
have a tendency to pick the critics that they know.  I would "A" the regional, 
they would "A" the national.  If we meet, our "A's" might reflect two different 
lists.  MPJ would then select a mutual "C," which means that neither of us gets 
what we want.  Out rounds might be even tougher, if we have "in effect" created 
two different "pools" of "A" critics.  How would the tabroom resolve that 
issue? Again, through "nonpreference."  Our concern, then, is one of 
"workability."  MPJ might end up as MNPJ?

To the "invalid:"

Yes, the backchanneled message was real.  Thanks to Professor West for the 
"confirmation" message.  I'm sorry if you have mixed emotions concerning its 
anonymous use.

My point here is that even though some of the arguments that I made were 
somewhat exaggerated, I think the post is very clear.  There are many "smaller" 
schools that compete almost exclusively at the "regional" level that are:

 1) tired of what they perceive as a "larger" "national circuit" bias.  The 
fact that many of the "larger" schools do not believe that this is either a) 
true, or b) worthy of consideration does not change the fact that the 
perception - right or wrong - exists.  My point is that if the perception 
exists, "flaming" or "belittling" the occasional critical post does nothing but 
widen the misperception.  If it takes "tweaking" a few noses to point this out, 
then so be it.

2) It is interesting that -- as it was pointed out to me by more than one 
CEDA-L "listener" (23 backchannels in four days) -- when one of the "less 
elite" responds passionately to a passionate post by one who could be consider 
a member of the "elite," that the "elite" is suddenly offended and responds 
with "this is not appropriate argumentation" messages.  Perhaps, as it has been 
suggested to me that "fire" is still best fought with "fire?" :-).  My response 
has been that "fire" only burns people.  However, it did get some attention, 
right or wrong.

3) As far as the "anecdotes" vs "empirical data" argument goes, theory backed 
by empirical evidence is fine, even persuasive, in most cases.  However, most 
people have a tendency to rely on what they know via experience when it comes 
to theories that they have a vested interest in.  We all know that most 
debaters have "empirical" studies that prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that 
the world will end tomorrow due to "pick a cause." We vote against them because 
our "real world" experience discounts the validity of the argument.  All I'm 
saying is that I would like more than "assurances" that MPJ will work.  

4) As for the "chilling effect" of not posting.  The sad thing is that it does 
exist.  Mr. Klemz, you were flamed for what I consider to be an honest 
miscommunication on your part.  You added fuel to the fire by trying to 
discount your responsibility.  The fact that you and I are willing to post 
regardless of the flames that we generate does not mean that everyone will 
accept our model, sir.  I have enough faith in the critics and coaches, that I 
am not worried about what they might do to my teams because of what I post, BUT 
that does not mean that everyone does.

5) A couple of people suggest that if I did not have enough faith in the system 
-- the "evil tabroom" thread -- that I should just quit.

 A. I did not start the "evil tabroom" thread." I just responded and picked up 
the usage of the descriptive reference;

 B. This feeds the position that people with problems or concerns are often 
told to quit instead of addressing their concerns.

 C. This dialogue would seem to indicate that I do have faith in the system to 
resolve this issue.  You and I have contributed a great deal of time and energy 
to its discussion.

The posts seem clear enough to me.  I simply ask each of us to examine the way 
in which we communicate and how that communication is perceived by others.  The 
"experiment" ticked off a few folks, but hey, it worked.  If the shoe fits, 
then wear it.  If the shoe doesn't fit, then why get so angry?  Thanks to 
everyone for contributing to the dialogue.

Dr. Jack E. Rogers
Director of Forensics
UT-Tyler
903-566-7099
Jack_Rogers.UT_Tyler@notes.worldcom.com
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page