Re: ceda/ntd rumblings

[MWBRYANT@aol.com]

I think you make the somewhat understandable mistake of perceiving that you
were the source of all my complaints about the quality of judging at Lewis &
Clark. Rest assured you are not.

I've been heavily involved college debate for over twenty years and still
didn't recognize a healthy percentage of the names. I'm sorry that you felt
we should have quetioned you more specifically. You are undoubtedly correct.
Most of the really abnormal judges were announcing their unique spins on
their own. We probably would've focused on other questions other than whether
you read evidence.

You see, my complaint isn't the fact that you don't read cards. Hell, I'm
trying to read fewer myself. But the fact of the matter is that you did read
the cards that the judge called for from the other team. To do that and not
call for our (dropped) carded responses seems curious, at best. The fact that
you claim that it would not have mattered in your decision is clearly a
subjective post hoc (and understandably defensive) reaction.  

But, hey, it's your call. I'm sorry if you feel disrespected in this process.
I did not list names. The focus of the response to the decision was not
primarily focused at you.   
Remember, not everything said was directed at you.

Sorry,


Mike Bryant

---

• Prev by Date: NDT Subscription update
• Next by Date: Richmond caselist
• Prev by thread: re: ceda/ntd rumblings
• Next by thread: NDI and Tuna
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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