Disclosure

["Matthew K. Roskoski" <MROSKOSKI@vax1.umkc.edu>]

It seems to me that everyone agrees that properly executed disclosure
encourages good debates, but that there is potential for abuse. 
Misunderstandings happen because of a lack of consensus guidelines.  The only
way a consensus can form is if someone suggests guidelines and people suggest
changes.  Accordingly, here are my thoughts as to a reasonable social contract
for disclosure.  These are not my attempt to enforce rules, but just a start at
reaching a common understanding so that we can trust one another and gain the
benefits of disclosures.

Disclosure should be complete, or explicit provision should be made that we
will/may include other things not disclosed.

New major positions (cases/disads/cps etc) need not be disclosed until they've
been broken.

Disclosure doesn't have to extend as far as actually showing people briefs in
question - a short summary of the argument is adequate.

You shouldn't change plan wording or case structure to respond to a disclosed
negative strategy.

If part of the negative strategy depends on exact 1AC material or cross ex
questions, two options are available:
	1. Say "we may run additional arguments based on the case," or
	2. Outline the options - cplan X or disad Y depending on CX.

I'm sure I'm omitting many things.  I encourage others to make their
expectations explicit.  If everyone's expectations are clear and explicit, then
misunderstandings can be avoided.  This doesn't remedy people who deliberately
chose to behave dishonorably, but they can be dealt with by individualized
nondisclosure policies.

Matt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Matthew K. Roskoski   |  "Roskoski" isn't Slavic.  It's Irish.               |
| UMKC Debate Forum     |  It used to be "O'Roskoski" before the               |
| Kansas City, MO       |  butchers of Ellis Island got to it.                 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

• Prev by Date: Re: disclosure
• Next by Date: judging/standards of argument
• Prev by thread: RE:WHEATON CASE LIST
• Next by thread: Disclosure
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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