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

Emporia v. Gonzo at Heart

If anyone has any questions about what happened in this round, feel free to ask
, but simply, it went like this: Gonzo ran only normativity against our case,
so in the 2AC, I announced we were shocking the system by taking the ballot,
turning it in with a win for Emporia, and refusing to debate anymore in the
round.  Essentially what happened after that was that the tab room noting that
the ballot was turned in by students, came down and asked what was going on,
and then proceded to change the ballot after asking Trond who did the better jo
b of debating.

The biggest problem Brent and I had with the way the round was handled is that
the tab room, not Trond changed the ballot.  I think a better alternative would
have been to take the ballot to Trond, and say, "Here's the ballot.  If you
want to change the decision, you do it.  If not, the decision stands."  I think
if this had happened, Emporia would have won the round.  The reason is that
Trond, as a participant in the Normativity round, could not make a decision, or
he wouldalso be using normative reasoning, and thus violating the standard by
which Gonzo said we should "judge" the round.

I have a real problem with tab rooms who decide to change ballots.  If it
happens once, what is to stop it from happening again?  What if a judge decides
they would like to change the speaker point/decision given in a round?  Can the
tab room just change the ballot b/c the judge said so?  What if a judge writes
their decision down wrong on the ballot?  Should the tab room change the ballot
to reflect the proper decision?  Given what happened in our round, I don't know
why not.  Unfortunately, it did not happen later in the tournament when it was
discovered that a team who was disclosed 3-5 cleared at 4-4 b/c a judge had
written the wrong decision on the ballot.  Why does the tab room get to have
power to decide what to change and what not too?  It seems there was a clear
double standard presented in terms of ballot changing.

Jeff may contend that since students tuened in the ballot, the tab room had a
right to search out the judge and change the ballot.  My question is: what
happens in brent and I have a judge turn in the ballot for us or if we never
turn in the ballot or if no one sees us (the students) turn in the ballot?
Does the decision stand?  And if so, again, why should the tab room have that
much power over the way a decision in rounds are decided?  I don't know.

One of the other problems with the tab room chaning the ballot is that Trond
never said outright that Gonzo won the round.  In fact, he mad a point of not
saying that.  Why?  I think it is b/c of what was discussed about -- if Trond
makes a decision, he would be as bad as the affirmative.  Jeff asked Trond who
did the better job of debating, and Trond said, "Gonzo."  That was enough for
Jeff to change the ballot.  WHY!?!?!  It seems a silly question to me.  Of
course Gonzo did the better job of debating -- THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES WHO
DEBATED.  Another problem with the "better job debating" standard -- what
happens to low point wins?  Clearly, a low-point win gives the victory to
the team who did the worse job debating, making the ballot an inaccurate
statement (the better job of debating was not done by X, it was done by Y,
but X still wins.)  Should a tab room be able to change that decision?  I
don't know why not, if the standard is who did the better job debating.  One
last thing -- it seems low-point wins prove tams can win without doing the
better job of debating.  And what does this mean?  It means it is up to the
judge to make the decision, not the tab room.  As such, the tab room should
have given the ballot back to Trond and let it go from there.

That's it for now.  Feel free to comment.  Let me reiterate though -- this is
only one round, and as such, it is not some huge deal.  I just want to get
this tab room/judge distinct worked out in theory so that if such an incident
happens again at Nationals (a possibility,) the tab, judges, and debators will
know what to expect.
                              Peace out,
                                    Nick
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page