Re: Disclosure

["STAR A. MUIR" <smuir@mason1.gmu.edu>]

Hi Mike:  I agree that it is difficult/impossible to check on pre-round 
behavior, but that still doesn't answer the frustration of being given 
inaccurate information.  At UNI, we asked Louisville what their agent was 
and were told the court.  We double checked and asked again.  45 minutes 
later, after a half hour of prep and the reading of the 1AC, they 
casually looked over and said they had "decided to change" the agent to 
Congress.  We, of course, should be willing and able to adapt to 
arguments in the round.  But while the "lesson learned" in that situation 
was certainly a sharp one, I would put the educational value of that 
strategy session at a very low level.  Should we a) forget about it and 
chalk it up to experience, b) let other people know about that 
possibility, c) try to get some leeway from the judge on a substantive 
issue, d) other?  Interested in your input.

_________________________________________________________________________
"Nothing is so fatiguing as the eternal              Tired in Virginia,
hanging of an uncompleted task" -James                  Star ;}# Muir
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

References:

• Re: Disclosure
• From: Michael Bryant <MBRYANT@central.weber.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: JCCC Results
• Next by Date: Judge Assignment at Nationals
• Prev by thread: Re: Disclosure
• Next by thread: judging/standards of argument
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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