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

Re: Reply to Hoe & Jarvis

> 
> To the esteemed Deacon Jarvis: Wrap yourself tightly in that big tent
> you so cherish and beat try beating yourself with a comprehension
> stick. I never ranted against diversity.

I believe that your intent was not to belittle every regional critic. You 
have made that quite clear in other posts. However, that is exactly what 
your original post did. I am not the only person who felt that way, check 
out the posts from Dickman, et al

 Your strawman attempt to peg
> that on me is pretty pathetic.
 I ranted against tournaments where the
> judges do the specific things I started off by indicting. I'M ALL FOR
> ADAPTATION, despite your vacuous attempts to portray me as elitist.

Bear you did this yourself. I think you ought to reread your own post. I 
believe that that was not your intent. But you leveled a series of 
specific charges against a group of people referred to only as "regional" 
judges.  I simply pointed out that your post smacked of elitism. I also 
said that I hoped that this was not what you were advocating, though it 
was impossible to not come to that conclusion based on what you 
originally said.

> I've spent more years railing against elitism in this activity than
> you've been debating. If being opposed to the specific judging
> techniques I've "ranted" against makes me an elitist, all I can do is
> wonder about your self-serving definitions of elitism. If you really
> propose that novices can benefit from application of those specific
> techniques, then we obviously have very different notions of what
> educational benefits actually are. I like you, Jason, but your
> response (as I've noticed others from you) is so off the mark as to
> make me wonder what your agenda actually is.

 While I admit that I found your 
remarks inconsistent with my personal experience with you, I don't think 
that my reaction was unreasonable or unwarranted. If you have other 
problems with things I have said perhaps you would like to share them 
with me. I think your comments here are vague and border on pointless 
personal attacks. I wonder what your agenda is by making them.  The point 
of my post was that blanket generalizations only serve to step on peoples 
toes for no reason. I also stated that I am not in favor of judge 
laziness, but diversity (if we assume it to be a goal worth striving after) 
has a price. Some people have better debate 
backgrounds than others, but they are people and deserve respect as such. 
I think your original post (intentional or not) failed to take that into 
account.  

> 
> NDT judges are generally fine (excepting a few of the buffaloes) and
> CEDA judges are generally cool, too. Both have their pockets of
> corruption. Is that simple statement a rebuke a rejection of
> diversity? Only if you're looking to throw a punch. 
> 

In general Bear your reply's (except to me) have been very conciliatory 
and explained your feelings much better than your original post.  Given 
your vast experience in debate (which you feel the need to hold over my 
head) you should be much more attuned to the feelings of small programs, 
and be prepared for what seems like a more than predictable reaction to 
your original comments.

Jason "Deacon" Jarvis
Wake Forest
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page