[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Transfer - On Point
- To: MWBRYANT@aol.com
- Subject: Re: Transfer - On Point
- From: email@example.com (Shelley D Newton)
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 17:12:22 EST
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:59:41 -0500 MWBRYANT@aol.com writes:
>In a message dated 96-12-03 21:09:32 EST, JK wrote:
>>To: CEDA-L@cornell.edu (Issues concerning CEDA Debate)
>>Whoa! We have seen our market place of ideas filled with dirt. It's
>>playful dirt, of course. The kind you can make into mountains.
>>Mountains capable of blocking our view of the issues.
>We stand warned. Aren't we fortunate?
Bear, I think you're going to make me cry.
>1. It's certainly an assessable risk.
First, sure it's an assessable risk. My alternative example below is
also an assessable risk.
Second, the risk of ethics trials is hardly unique considering that
trials are not precluded by a points ban on transfers. Trials could be
Third, this makes my alternative futures more probable. Trials could be
occuring under a points ban on transfers, but they aren't. Therefore,
without a points ban it seems that ethics trials would not be more
probable. However, a points ban precludes the community from accepting
Fouth, you have basically collapsed down to, "A points ban doesn't solve,
but it unmasks the problem."
>2. Empirically, did happen in the past.
I admit that my CEDA history is no better than my legal training, but
actually, I think we had ethics trials first. Then the community created
a points ban on transfers. However, it seems to me that these two
approaches are not mutually exclusive, so why aren't we having ethics
trials now? I think there are other factors preventing the community
from holding ethics trials, so erasing the points ban does not mean
starting ethics trials.
>3. Doesn't respond to the position that we should then work, first, on
>developing the alternatives.
You're right. I'm simply arguing against your link to ethics trials.
Perhaps it would be important to know that I am a proponent of accepting
all transfers. However, if people fear transfers because of manipulation
by unethical coaches, they should try to deal directly with the ethics
rather than using a policy that denies points eligibility to all students
while still allowing unethical recruiting.
>4. The net benefit of developing alternatives first is avoiding the
>of opportunity for unsrupulous recruiters that I've outlined in several
Hmm...there's not much net benefit there considering that you are
granting that a points ban does not prevent coaches from unethically
recruiting. All the points ban does is keep them from getting points
which you argue is of little value.
Of course there are the masking turns but I don't think they're correct.
>1. Why defer? Why not use THIS crisis to begin the process of discussing
>solutions before jumping into change?
First, that's the masking argument. The points ban masks the problem;
therefore, there is no crisis perceived by the community. Why do you
insist on keeping the points ban? I think it's because you see it as a
solution or at least perceived to be a solution by the community which is
why you claim the advantage of avoiding community tear. My argument is
that the reason a points ban prevents community tear is its masking
Second, I'll ask you a question. Why not erase the points ban and
discuss solutions from there. You are basically collapsing down to, "A
points ban does not solve, but it unmasks the problem." If you're wrong
about the masking turns, there is no reason to keep the points ban,
Third, you are granting the crisis creates opportunity argument, and your
community tear arguments feed my argument that erasing the points ban
would gain a better link to the crisis theory. I will take out your
community tear impacts below.
>2. Masking turn: Delay masks. Waiting to develop the solutions just
>some coaches, benefitting from the lack of rules, to drag their feet on
>consensus-building. Banging out the alternatives now forces everyone
>to defend their perspectives immediately.
First, no one said that we had to wait to develop other solutions. The
argument is that we should not continue a points ban policy that does not
solve even though it does have ill effects like masking ethical problems
and inhibiting student opportunities.
Second, there is no reason we can't erase the points ban and discuss
other solutions. In fact, the crisis theory would indicate that this is
the best way to go about it.
Third, How does delay mask. According to your own analysis, members of
the community would be trying to build consensus on other approachs while
unethical coaches drag their feet. This doesn't sound like masking. It
sounds like a great way to bring everyone's position out in the open.
Remember, the points ban still allows unethical recruiting, so unethical
coaches would probably be fine with keeping thinks as is.
Fourth, the foot dragging you claim as the reason delay masks can occur
with the points ban in place during consensus building.
Fifth, you say banging out the alternatives now would work better because
it would force people to defend their perspectives now. However, the
unethical coaches can still foot drag, right? Also, the existence of the
points ban would inhibit this discussion because it would delay
discussion. People would not be inclined to come up with alternatives if
they perceive that a solution exists now. That is the masking argument
and the crisis argument.
>3. Masking turn: Reifies non-action. Look at the specific rhetorical
>in virtually every pro-repeal post. "Coaches shouldn't be allowed to do
>anything to impede free transfers" is a consistent theme. Do these
>sound like folks interested in developing alternative machinery?
First, you are correct in that I support free transfers. What I'm
arguing, again, is that the points ban does not prevent unethical
recruiting which is the problem proponents of the points ban fear. I
believe you are essentially granting that the points ban does not solve
for unethical recruiting. Why keep the points ban then? Because it
unmasks the problem? I think the members of the community that fear
unethical recruiting will not forget in the absence of a points ban.
They will perceive a crisis.
Second, I think the argument is actually that students should be able to
make their own choices. The argument on the other side of this is that
unethical coaches should not be able to be able to lure all of these
students to their program. The balance between these two positions is
that students should be able to make their own choices, but coaches
shouldn't be able to lure them from another program to theirs. This are
not really contradictory ideas. The rule that students must approach the
school first balances these ideas well.
Third, these folks sound more interested in alternative machinery than
those which insist on keeping a policy in place which does little other
than harm students opportunities (I'll defend that below). Remember, you
are granting the point ban does not solve the problem. I think
non-action is reified by those that insist on keeping a policy that
>4. Eats the "transfer crisis rips community fabric" impact that has also
>outlined previously. Working the alternatives out prior to change seems
>legitimately minimize that risk.
First, the points ban on transfers does not solve for unethical
recruiting, so if you're assuming that there will be rips in community
fabric over unethical transfers absent the points ban, it is not unique.
Second, consensus building will of course involve some conflict. This
will occur whether we discuss alternatives with a point ban in place or
without a point ban.
Third, the assumption behind this argument seems to be that the points
ban somehow masks the problem or placates those people that fear free
transfers. If the points ban does not solve, why not erase it? If the
points ban is perceived as necessary even though it does not solve, isn't
that a mask?
Fourth, the community tear would occur between those people interested in
solutions and those dragging their feet (as you mentioned earlier). This
will occur in any effort to come up with real solutions to the problem.
There will be positive conflict among the people interested in solutoins.
Positive conflict in which people actually discuss the merits of
alternatives. This kind of conflict can not be considered a detrimental
impact of community tear. There will be conflict between the people that
want solutions and the people that want to drag their feet. This
conflict must occur in order to gain solutions, and thus, it can not be
considered a detrimental impact to community tear.
>1. Then why not outline the possible futures so as to clarify policy
First, I have given the example of free transfers as a possible future.
Second, I'm a proponent of free transfers, so my input is only a fraction
of the input possible by the community. My argument is that those people
who fear unethical recruiting can contribute ideas toward better
solutions for the problem they perceive. Unless of course they perceive
the problem is solved by that masking point ban which you seem to agree
does not actually solve. This is why we need to erase the masking point
ban policy that does not solve and create a crisis environment in which
these people feel compelled to come up with solutions.
Third, is it your argument that absent a point ban the community will
agree upon ethics trials as the best solution?
>2. While there may not be certainty of the default to hearings, you have
>admit that there is at least SOME risk of that, particularly given the
historical precedence. Most of us are used to assessing increments of
risk in a policy calculus.
First, I agree, but we can not assume that it is the only possibility,
and it does seem that there are obstacles to ethics trials.
Second, even if ethics trials are the most probable future, I think I've
made a good case for why they would be better than a points ban.
>1. Deterrence of Point Ban is not the question If such a vision can be
impact >turned, it's more of a call to work the alternatives out now. The
masking turns >above become the reason to have community
consensus-building prior to any >change.
First, I think I've shown that your masking turns are incorrect.
Second, why is deterrence of the point ban not the question? The policy
does not solve. Why keep it? You claim that we should keep this policy
in place because it provides a catalyst for finding solutions, but I
think most people see it as the institutional solution in place.
Wouldn't a better catalyst be erasing a policy that does not solve but is
seen as the instituitional fix. As I mentioned earlier, people that are
concerned about unethical recruiting are not going to forget about it.
They also seem large enough of a group and able to work together enough
to get something done. They've done it before.
>2. Point ban deterrence is cumulative. While the point ban doesn't stop
>unethical recruitment of individuals, it clearly provides a means to
highlight to >the community which programs are emphasizing transfers over
internal >development. We notice large programs failing to show up in the
CEDA point >lists. This is, also, another masking turn.
Bear, this is clearly the worst for you.
First, in this statemetn you are obviously collapsing to, "It doesn't
solve, but it highlights the problem."
Second, this is a very small area of advantage for the points ban policy
considering that a) people are not going to forget about unethical
recruiting absent the point ban, b) the community can clearly tell when a
program has transfered students without this crazy method you've
concocted involving points, c) the consensus-building process will
highliqht those members that reserve the capability to unethically
Third, the point ban actually serves as a mask because people feel, as
you do, that the policy serves as a sufficient highlight or reminder when
all it really does is allow the unethical recruiting to
continue...although maybe on stage with spotlights for our amusement.
Where's the action? That's the key part of the masking argument that I
am making...action does not occur.
Fourth, the point ban does not highlight the most important issue which
is the ethical question. It simply reminds the community that
_transfers_ occur. It avoids the issue of whether any of those transfers
were ethical or not.
>1. Your previous rhetoric fails to convince me that you are truly
>concerned about the ethics question. You seem to be envisioning
>where the unfetterred right to transfer outweighs considerations of
First, I am a proponent of free transfers, but as I mentioned earlier, I
can certainly agree with a balance in which students should be able to
make choices absent punishment and in which coaches should not be able to
unethically recruit students. By this I mean the idea that students must
approach the coach first.
Second, my arguments in defense of ethics trials are that it would
acheive this balance by directly dealing with the issue of unethical
recruitment. I admit that it may not be easy to prove, but I think that
it would still serve as a much better solution than a point ban. Of
course there might be an even better solution. Any suggestions?
Third, your argument seems to fit your complaints more. You seem to be
arguing that we should keep a policy that does not deal with solve
ethical problems. In fact, it doesn't even really bring the ethical
considerations into question. It simply "highlights" the fact that
>2. No quantification. OK, somebody might get caught. Seems unlikely
>that anyone would invite witnesses to the conversation, but I'm sure you
>are right that somebody might screw up. I think that post hoc
>ethical intent are fraught with little real for deterring unethical
First, people should not assume that an unethical recruitment occured if
they don't have sufficient evidence to convince themselves of this in the
If there's really _no way_ of proving this occurs, then maybe we have a
simple case of paranoia on our hands.
Second, the very idea of being called to an ethics trial would serve as
more of a deterrent to unethical recruitment than a point ban. Don't you
Third, ethics trials would solve some cases of unethical recruitment
(even if it's a miniscule amount), highlight the important issue which is
ethics in recruitment, and deter some.
>3. The multiple masking turns above all show that working out the
>alternatives prior to change in other direction would be preferable.
First, again, I think I've shown that this assumption is incorrect.
Second, this does not answer my argument that ethics trials would be
feasible. Perhaps then ethics trials are the best alternative?
>1. Not if the probability of enforcement falls below the threshold of
First, the fact that there is a level of deterrence is better than
ignoring the problem.
Second, remember if you can't prove that an unethical recruitment occured
what makes you think it did?
Third, I think the threshold of deterrence is pretty high really. I
think the idea of an ethics trial is a damn good deterrent to unethical
recruitment. It is the idea that there is a mechanism in the community
to catch you. This idea does not exist now.
>2. Amplifies the masking turns - why not work out alternatives rather
>rely on a system that is only minutely more effective than the point
>Yours is the false dichotomy. My alternative is not the point ban. It's
>developing real alternatives before reifying another ineffective system.
This is where I see some confusion you have regarding my position. I am
not arguing that we should junk a point ban for ethics trials and not
discuss other solutions. I'm arguing that we should erase the point ban
because it does not solve the problem and raises barriers to students.
What solutions come up after the point ban is erased? I don't know, but I
think solutions will start coming up. The fact that I am taking out your
link to ethics trials above shows that I do not have the dichotomy you
claim. I'm simply saying that ethics trials are a better solution than a
point ban and taking out your impacts. I'm not saying it should be the
solution or that there aren't other solutions. My arguments above on
your link prove this.
>But it does prove that one of the most commonly mentioned criteria for
>assessing valid transfers is a crock.
We agree. This (educational validity) is a bad criteria. Let's not use
it. This does not deny that there are good criteria to use, i.e. the
student must approach the coach first. There must be some criteria,
right? Otherwise, there's no way to solve the problem feared.
>Excellent. Then let's put this together first. Thanks for starting the
I think I've already commented on why it is unnecessary to keep the point
ban while we do this.
>1. Ad hom: Your legal training is impressive.
First, I realize that you think it is fair since all transfers are
treated the same way, but my argument is that all of these transfers are
students. They are the ones being punished...not the unethical coaches.
Second, Your ad hom was funny, but it was also better than your input on
solutions to this problem.
>2. Makes the false assumption that CEDA points are rights. CEDA has
>the same organizational right to adopt blanket transfer rules as it does
>blanketly limit eligibility to eight semesters, even though some people
>have really good arguments for why they deserve nine semesters.
First, I realize that CEDA points are not rights, but they are part of
the game and should not be witheld from students that decide to change
Second, the points ban does not solve. Even though it is CEDA's "right"
to have a points ban, it is no reason to maintain it if the points ban is
3. Legal precedence fails to support your turns. Courts have failed to
>uphold claims that blanket NCAA transfer restrictions deny due process.
First, this may be true. As you can imagine (based on my display of
legal training) I am not familiar with these cases. What were the
reasons for their decisions?
Second, as I said above, it most likely is CEDA's right to do this, but
I think I'm demonstrating that it is a bad idea. Certainly CEDA also has
the right to remove the points ban.
Third, would you also like to implement CEDA's right to make transfer
student's ineligible to debate for one year or whatever? That would
solve the problem, and it is CEDA's right. However, don't you think that
would be a bum rap for students since the problem feared is unethical
>4. Turn, false charges. Allowing case-by-case simply seems to increase
>the risk that students, when confronted with an unrelenting former
>will engage in self-justifying to the point that they must counter
charges of ethics violations with false countercharges. This becomes
another BIG net benefit to working the alternatives out in advance.
First, I'm still confused I guess about your "work it out first"
argument. I'm not suggesting that any policy be implemented before it is
worked out among the community. I'm simply saying that there is no
reason to keep the points ban in place while we do this. The points ban
does not prevent unethical recruitment. It is not needed as a reminder
about transfers. It harms student opportunities. Why keep it?
Second, if ethics trials were put into effect, it is true that there
could be false counter charges. This would be for the trial to discover.
I think it would be a good idea if certain evidenciary requirements had
to be met before a trial was set.
Third, working the alternatives out in advance will not avoid this type
of situation. We can all agree on a procedure or soluiton, and when
someone gets upset or vengeful they could try to screw with the system.
>1. Multiple recruitment ethics hearings hardly make it look like we are
>taking care of the problem.
First, Why not? That's exactly what would be happening.
Second, I think this proves the masking argument against the point ban.
Administrators and others are not aware of the problem because the points
ban does not deal with it.
>2. Accountability? You admit that the risk of deterrence is only
>better than the point ban.
No, I said it was better than the points ban. The points ban does not
deter unethical recruitment...period. Ethics trials would serve as a
deterrent. I think, although I might be wrong, that you placed the key
word "slightly" in there. Anyway, it's a better policy.
>3. Why not try to work out community consensus. I'm willing to think
>clear delineation of non-acceptable behavior (which is reduced by the
>turns) might result in more tangible benefits than either a point ban or
First, we can work out community consensus, and we should do it without
the points ban in place. Why? Crisis will create opportunity. The
points ban maskes the problem. It doesn't solve, and it inhibits student
Second, you're right that could be much better than a points ban or
ethics trials, but why keep a points ban while we do this? Why not have
ethics trials and a points ban while we do this? It makes about as much
>Damn good question given the multiple masking turns outlined above.
>1. Depends on who's found guilty. If the whole CEDA Executive Council
>goes down in the same year, who knows?
If the whole executive council goes down, we'll get a new executive
council. CEDA is not the executive council. CEDA would come out better
in the end.
>2. Bull call: Both sides end up tainted. The community fabric remains
>for years. And all this for virtually little deterrence or real risk of
How is the community fabric torn? I believe I've answered the possible
reasons you might have above.
>3. Even if true, working the alternatives in advance still gets better
>consensus on how to achieve that accountability.
We can do this without the points ban in place.
>1. Least restrictive mechanism. Courts use them all the time.
First, it is not least restrictive. It affects all transfers regardless
of the legitimacy, and it does this while not being able to solve for its
intended purpose. A less restrictive mechanism would be punishing those
found to have unethically recruited.
Second, if points are this worthless, it is a silly policy to begin with.
I think the creators of this policy had to believe that points were more
important than you claim.
>2. Prevents masking - multiple transfers show up in a program's lack
>of points in the list.
Hmm, looks like Jane Doe from school X is debating for school Y now.
Let's examine the size of school Y compared to their points ranking and
see if we're right.
>1. See previous two arguments.
>2. I think it assumes an era in CEDA when the points race was far more
>central to the nature of the organization than it currently seems to be.
So this points ban policy is probably about the most ineffectual thing
since the placebo. If there is any harm proven to students, shouldn't it
>3. That doesn't justify removing the rule without developing alternative
>means of trying to solve unethical recruitment.
I think it does considering that this policy does not solve and only
inhibits students. Okay, let's imagine that we're trying to come up with
alternative solutions with the points ban in place. My harms are
occuring as we try to come up with solutions (the harms to students).
Coaches are still unethically recruiting talented debaters to steal
points from other schools and win tournaments possibly including
nationals. However, the community is capable of noticing the
disproportion between the number of students on the squad and the amount
of points they are accumulating. There's not a darn thing that can be
done about it, but we can use this handy ratio. Now, let's think of
solutions without the points ban in place. Students are able to change
schools and have equal opportunity to participate in tournaments. Some
schools accumulate a bunch of students (which they do now), but they also
get lots of points (points are no big deal). People are still aware that
there is a problem with unethical recruiting, and I'm sure they feel
motivated to come up with solutions.
>1. You offer NO PROOF of this very central assumption. Can anyone relate
>an example of someone turned down for a transfer because of the lack of
I'm sure that it is a factor in scholarship decisions, but my main
argument is that if a squad can only take one team to a tournament, for
example, and one team is points eligible while the other is not...which
team gets to go? One member of that points inelgible team may not even
be a transfer. How 'bout this? Two teams from the same school hit each
other in out rounds. Who gets to advance? This happens for a year to
this student. I'm sure you're aware of situations like this.
>2. If someone was turned down because a program already had too many
>non-point-earning transfers then my contention has always been that
>fate has done them a favor.
True...but many programs have this factor in the back of their minds when
making these decisions. As you've said...The points ban doesn't solve
>Underview: Reasons why CEDA recruitment anarchy is bad.
>1. Creates bad relations within the community.
>2. Empowers the most unscrupulous amongst us to raid competing
>3. Results in student commodification and manipulation.
>4. Rewards self-interest over squad consciousness.
>5. Kills small programs as they become de facto feeders for wealthy
>6. Trades off with CEDA's expressed committment to novice and junior
Group it (I'm getting tired). This is the crisis that will motivate
coaches to think of solutions to this transfer problem, but the points
ban is not the answer.
>The answer probably isn't a long-term retention of the point ban. But I
>strong feeling that repealing that rule will just become another reason
>delay getting down to the difficult job of resolving a better system.
>not stumble into an alternative - let's start buiding consensus as a
>as opposed to relying on any regulatory scheme.
I don't see any reasoning as to why erasing the points ban would make it
harder to come up with alternatives.
>Some have said that too many coaches are carrying the weight of this
>While I certainly invite student input, I sincerely think that a whole
>more coaches ought to be involved in this thread.
>Hope I didn't OFFEND anyone,
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page