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

Re: disclosure


I think it's somewhat ironic that when this (and similar) threads began, the 
framing question was ethics-oriented.  Aaron should never have to wonder 
whether he can trust a team with pre-round information.  BTW, if a team 
discloses something beforehand and then changes it, I consider that a lie 
(unethical).  Maybe to check abuse, you should ask "untrustworthy" teams to 
disclose in front of the judge.  This might also help solve the problem of 
judges being "out of the loop" in terms of pre-round deal making etc.  Any 
thoughts?

Becky

p.s.  regardless of what others think, I would not tolerate lying and 
manipulating the pre-round disclosure arrangement, if I knew, first hand, 
what has transpired before the round.  If you ever have to debate in front 
of me, and you ask the "untrustworthies" what they are running and they lie 
(and I hear all of this), I assure you my points awarded won't help them win 
any awards :-)

AARON KLEMZ wrote:

There are many teams that I consider trustworthy and I believe that with
those teams a pre-round exchange of information would only serve to
increase the quality of debate. If I were to encounter a situation like
Tim describes in which a team were to use this information to try and
modify their plan or lied about their strategy you can be sure that I
would not reveal anything to that team again.

It's all a matter of individual debater ethics. I would hope that we
could avoid these lowbrow tactics in our community.

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