Re: Regarding disclosure

[asnider@moose.uvm.edu (Alfred C. Snider)]

Some of my own:

1. I do not think that some information is worse than none. Fragmentary
case lists at least give us some guidance as opposed to stark secrecy.
Besides, once we find out what a case "really" does, the title plus the
notion of "still running X" helps us a lot. There is, of course, no
substitute to actually debating a case (that would be better than just the
plan ... of course, neg students should always copy the plan of the aff
team during 1AR/2AR prep), but it is nice to know something is still being
run.

2. I agree wholeheartedly that REAL disclosure would involve sharing
precise copies of plan text. Carefully reading someone's plan can be quite
revealing.

3. Decisions on the nature and extent of disclosure need to be made by the
debaters. I know that dominant community norms often shape this, but I urge
each team to decide on their own. Our squad policy is that debaters control
what they reveal. I often urge them to reveal less than they do, by the
way. It may be difficult for many to overcome imposed community norms on
this decision and think for themselves, but I must still encourage them to
do so.

Best wishes,


Alfred C. Snider AKA Tuna
Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: Box 54225, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:
http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/dc.html
gopher://beluga.uvm.edu
LAWRENCE DEBATE UNION:
http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/ldu.html

---

• Prev by Date: Regarding disclosure
• Next by Date: Re: Regarding disclosure
• Prev by thread: Re: Regarding disclosure
• Next by thread: Re: Regarding disclosure
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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