Reply to meany's suggestions

[JKM1993@aol.com]

Received the following...my replies included:

>> = meany
> = nordwick
   = meany

>From:   IN%"nordwick@uclink2.berkeley.edu"
>Subj:   meany's suggestions...

> On Mon, 16 Oct 1995 JKM1993@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I recommend the following for discussion, individual action, and/or
> > constitutional amendment:
> >
> > 1. The elimination of all individual speaker awards.
> >
>>

>no.  i think that individual recognition is as important as team
>recognition.  tell us why would you want to eliminate them and then let's
>decide.

Is that a "no" to discussion or individual action? 

The arbitrary application of speaker points makes individual merit
recognition meaningless. I am convinced that no system of fractional points
(or 'other' total point scale) would 'correct' this problem. A fractional
point system does not address the fundamental problems of the speaker point
system: (1) students dissatisfaction with assignation of low points relative
to other competitors, and (2) judge use of speaker points as a palliative for
the losing team.

The elimination of individual awards is fair and supports efforts to
establish a less arbitrary system for elimination brackets.

> > 2. Alteration of allocated speaker times to increase rebuttal time:
(e.g.,
> > 7.5-3-5.5, 8-2-6).
> >

>increase rebuttal times are generally a good idea, but i dont think that
>we need to cut constructive times (and god forbid cx... 3 minutes is slim
>enough).  i would favor moving to ndt times or just a 9-3-6 format; big
>deal the round goes an additional 10 minutes longer.

I offered examples that either did not cut constructive time or did so by
only 30 seconds. In addition, both of my examples offer increased rebuttal
time relative to constructive time, compared to the ndt model...

I have not seen anyone use more than two minutes of cross-examination time as
cross-examination time (instead of preparation time) in a decade. I am also
willing to endorse the model proposed by Bob Branham more than a decade ago
re cross-examination and preparation time. He proposed a total alloted time
of 12-15 minutes for each side of the debate. This time could be employed as
cross-examination or preparation time at the discretion of the participants.
This would meet your need for cross-examination time and meet the preparation
time requirements of the overwhelming majority of participants.

The proposal that I have offered increases rebuttal time relative to
constructive speaking time without changing the current total time limits for
rounds.

> > 3. Limit elimination round participants to 1/3 of division entrants.
> >
>>
>that would create some rough breaks, but i like the idea of not breaking
>half the field.  however, i think that this one should be left up to the
>tournament to decide: there is no reason to take this decision out of
>their hands.

I agree that tournaments should decide rules for participation. That is what
I mean by 'individual action'...I am NOT endorsing uniform national change
for any proposal. 

> > 4. Public, itemized accounting of all tournament fees and expenditures.
> >
>>
>no opinion.

I am concerned about the  allocation of entry fees to tournament
participants...I am concerned about the ethical, tax, and liability questions
that are raised by tournament operations...I believe it is
'business-as-usual' behavior, despite the changes in debate, insurance, and
legal institutions.

> > 5. Changes for the national debate championship: ten preliminary rounds;
> > elimination rounds at octs or dbl-octs; judging scheme for elimination
>>rounds
> > based on five judge panels (seven for semi-finals and finals) with mutual
> > strikes to any odd number of judges, including one.
> >
>>
>yes... kinda.   how about this: 10 preliminary rounds, all to be power
>matched high-high (well, i mean, all except the first two); breaking
>straight to double-octos.

We agree on 10 prelims. I could accept dbl-octs, but prefer octs. I don't
understand the rationalization for exclusive high-high pairings. I prefer the
judging scheme that I listed for elimination rounds, regardless of the choice
of random or mutually-preferred judging models.

> > John Meany
> > The Claremont Colleges
> >
> >

>later,
>jason
>cal ceda

John

John Meany
The Claremont Colleges

---

• Prev by Date: Mardi Gras?
• Next by Date: topics
• Prev by thread: Re: Mardi Gras?
• Next by thread: topics
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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