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

Re: Emporia v. Gonzo at Heart


On Tue, 28 Feb 1995, Nick Ayres wrote:

> As one of the participants in the now infamous "stolen ballot" round at Heart,
> I feel obligated to defend the actions of Brent and myself in the round in
> question.  I should begin by saying that we are not mad at Jeff and Kelly about
> the incident -- it is one round at one tournament, and that is all.  We do,
> however, feel that the incident could have been handled a little better, and
> that will be the line of this note.
> 
> 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.

Actually, i told trond that since he didn't turn in the ballot, he could 
just tell me how to record the debate.  I didn't ask who did the better 
debating, i asked how it should be recorded.
> 
> 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.

First, i think that you miss the point of the ballot.  it seems to me 
that the ballot serves the function of "clarity" to the tab room.  Since 
trond reported the decision directly to the tab room (i.e., I was 
standing right there) the necessity of the ballot was not there.  Second, 
you seem to assume that you "won" the argument.  Did it occur to you that 
after you left Gonzaga defeated your argument?  This would mean that 
Trond could have signed the ballot.  Finally, your argument seems to 
indicate some kind of performative inconsistency with the normativity 
argument.  Rather than be angry at the tab room, talk more with Trond.  
Find out why he thinks you lost.  HE DOES THINK YOU LOST.  HE CAME DOWN 
TO THE TAB ROOM DURING THE NEXT DEBATE TO FIND OUT WHAT ALL OF THE FUSS 
WAS ABOUT.  HE WANTED THE TAB ROOM TO RECORD THE WIN FOR GONZAGA.


> 
> 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.

The standard which was applied by the KU tab room was that decisions are 
valid once the next round was paired.  Anything that would have altered 
future pairings is not a valid change.  In this case, most every other 
debate was not yet over.  Since the ballot was turned in under such wierd 
circumstances, the tab room investigated.  As for the ballot signed 
incorrectly, it happened in round 5.  The mistake was not discovered 
until before the double octo debate.  To make this change after the fact 
would have altered 4 debates.  It seems obvious that these are not 
analogous situations.  As for what the tab room can do, it seems to me 
that anything that THE JUDGE REQUESTS before the next debate, should be 
changed.  This is analogous to asking judges to clarify low point wins.  
Its valid because you do it before the next round is paired.
 > 
> 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.

This seems to me to be the reason why i called it fraud in the first 
place.  If you had gotten away with it, you would have sucessfully 
cheated.  I don't think there was any malice involved.  You just failed 
to realize how a tournament must be run.  JUDGES must make decisions.  
regardless of the arguments made in debates, the judge must decide who 
gets a win and who gets a loss.  DEBATERS are not allowed to make these 
decisions.  If no ballot was turned in, we would have searched out the 
JUDGE to "clarify", not the debaters.  This does not mean that the tab 
room has some large amount of power.  It only suggests that there is a 
standard assumption that judges must give their consent to decisions.  we 
only enforced this rule.


> 
> 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.

INCORRECT.  Trond said the better debating was done by gonzaga because 
that is the language on the ballot.  I support this argument knowing that 
trond wanted the win to go to Gonzaga.  He came down to the tab room to 
double check the result.  If you think that he wanted something different 
to happen, check with him.  Second, a low point win was not possible 
because he wanted everyone in the round to get 30s.  This only further 
validates the point that Gonzaga should have won.  His exact words, which 
he repeated over and over were "Everyone gets 30s, gonzaga did the better 
debating."  This does not illustrate a low point win.  It represents a 
decision against emporia.
> 
> 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
> 
glad to know this isn't a big deal.  we certainly don't care.  I also 
agree that people need to decide how it should be handled since I also 
think that it is likely to happen again.

good luck to everyone at nationals.

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