9-3-6
MWBRYANT
MWBRYANT
Tue Oct 21 15:10:40 CDT 1997
In a message dated 97-10-21 14:58:22 EDT, Russ write:
<< I guess I am not impressed by the argument that people who have done it
think it is better. That is not universally true, but more importantly
it is a non-argument. There is no reasoning behind it. To approach
the level of an argument we would need some empirical research on it
with some investigation of the reasons behind the preferences. Sounds
like a good convention paper or perhaps even a master's thesis to me for
someone.
>>
I provided three reasons with at least anecdotal support and you choose to
ignore. Thank you for not listening, Russ.
Maybe you should talk to Ross Smith. I think he spearheaded the movement to
9-3-6 in NDT. Talk to someone. Or better yet, try a few tournaments with
9-3-6...
Don't disregard the idea simply because crazy ole Bear supports it,
Watching how well the machine works,
Bear
Tuna: Your system seems to be "eating" my mail, again...
Bear
>From Tue Oct 21 14:29:33 1997
Message-Id: <TUE.21.OCT.1997.142933.MST7MDT.>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:29:33 MST7MDT
Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terry West <WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU>
Organization: Southern Utah University
Subject: Re: 9-3-6
Same as Russ, I'm not yet decided on how I feel about 9-3-6-10. I
like the opportunity it gives for argument; I share the concern about
"quality of life." We can count minutes all we want, but we know
that it always takes longer than the minutes total. Some points:
1) The reasons debate rounds are taking too long is EXCESSIVE delay
in getting rounds started due to EXCESSIVE prep time before the
beginning of the round, and due to EXCESSIVE delay at the end of the
round for the critique, discussion, flamewar, fistfight, or whatever.
My emphasis on "excessive" is intentional, so that nobody falsely
accuses me of being against "coaching" before the round or critique
afterward. I am talking about unreasonable delays. The other
problem is what I call "ghost time" in the round. You know--the five
minutes it seems to take some of us to construct our filebox podium;
the "I'm up! Stop prep time!" followed by five minutes of
conversation with partner/opponents; the eight minute "roadmap"; the
"post-cross-ex" with three more minutes of flow check after cx time
has expired, etc.
2) Sometimes simple problems have simple solutions. First, set a
time for the round to start. Forfeit teams who are more that 15
minutes late. Do it. Doing it once will send a message that will
make further efforts likely unnecessary. Second, send runners to get
white copies. Penalize judges who unreasonably delay the tournament
by removing them from the pool and charging judge fees to their
school. Third, have judges keep a "rolling clock." A few seconds to
construct the podium are ok, and certainly if a debater needs a
bathroom break or becomes ill that should be a special circumstance.
A short roadmap is ok with me. Other than that, though, it's either
prep time or speaking time. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but
if we really want 9-3-6-10, let's make it work.
3) I, too, debated in the era of 10-3-5-10. Every tournament was
eight rounds (well, most were) and broke at least octos. Tournaments
took three days. Most had no IE with them. I've noticed the most
severe problems with 9-3-6 at tournaments where IE's were also in the
schedule and the schedule was just unrealistic. Tournaments who try
to host both might want to cut from six to five prelims for regional
tournaments, 8 to 6 or 7 at larger meets. At the larger meets, go
ahead and break to at least a partial extra out-round if the smaller
number of rounds seems to create an unfair break. At least much of
the tournament can go home earlier anyway. At CEDA nats, we can get
some meal breaks during power match time, so it's not as bad.
I really think 9-3-6 can work if people want it to, but we have to
have some sanity to the situation.
Terry West
Southern Utah
> Date sent: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:52:01 -0500
> Send reply to: rchurch at frank.mtsu.edu
> From: Russell Church <rchurch at FRANK.MTSU.EDU>
> Organization: Middle Tennessee State University
> Subject: 9-3-6
> To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> I wanted to thank Bear for answering my inquiry about 9-3-6. I
> appreciate his insights and they will help me make some decisions. My
> mind is not made up and I still want to hear more. Again feel free to
> direct me to the archives if you wish but I would appreciate knowing
> where to look -- at least the person if you recall. I am thinking that
> there must still be some other reasons out there.
>
> I guess I am not impressed by the argument that people who have done it
> think it is better. That is not universally true, but more importantly
> it is a non-argument. There is no reasoning behind it. To approach
> the level of an argument we would need some empirical research on it
> with some investigation of the reasons behind the preferences. Sounds
> like a good convention paper or perhaps even a master's thesis to me for
> someone.
>
> I asked one other person who said more argumentation meant that 9-3-6-10
> was better. Again, I am not so sure. Could not an equal case be made
> that forcing debaters to make more choices is a better educational
> format? Perhaps this is not much of an argument and I will grant that
> but the idea that more is better is the quantitative fallacy and I
> imagine that many of you are familiar with that concept.
>
> I also am concerned about the costs to an eroding quality of life for
> coaches and debaters. This was recently "trivialized" by a post which
> said it is more important to have good quality debates than to get to
> Red Lobster before it closes. Debaters and coaches should have some
> down time even at tournaments. If this year's Nationals moves towards
> finishing at 10:30 pm or even 11:00 pm I think we will be taking one
> more step toward making tournaments less humane. Furthermore, these
> kinds of steps are driving people out of policy/evidence debate in my
> opinion (yes, I need to do some research on this claim).
>
> However, my mind is not made up and I want to hear more. I used to
> coach when the format was 10-3-5-10 or 8 and I thought nothing about it
> so I think I could re-adjust. Oh, I am sorry -- my assistant could
> re-adjust. Look for me in the cocktail lounge if we are debating at
> 11:00 pm.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Russell Church
> 615-898-5607 (Office)
> 615-898-2640 (Department Secretary)
> 615-898-5826 (Fax)
>
> MTSU Box 43
> Murfreesboro, Tn. 37132
>
> CHECK OUT MTSU DEBATE TEAM HOME PAGE!
> http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
> CHECK OUT RUSS'S HOME PAGE!
> http://ritchi.mtsu.edu/wcb/schools/LA/spee/rchurch/rchurch.html
>
>From Tue Oct 21 15:32:05 1997
Message-Id: <TUE.21.OCT.1997.153205.0600.>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:32:05 -0600
Reply-To: herro at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Steve Herro <herro at VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nats/9-3-6 (was east ceda meeting)
Comments: To: Heather L Walters <hwalters at UMABNET.AB.UMD.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.971021145438.29558B-100000 at umabnet.ab.umd.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
martin-
did i miss when awards are in the propsed schedule?
steve
Steve Herro
Director of Debate
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh
(920) 424-7048
>From Tue Oct 21 15:34:51 1997
Message-Id: <TUE.21.OCT.1997.153451.0500.>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:34:51 -0500
Reply-To: rchurch at frank.mtsu.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Russell Church <rchurch at FRANK.MTSU.EDU>
Organization: Middle Tennessee State University
Subject: Re: 9-3-6
Comments: To: MWBRYANT <MWBRYANT at aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Bear
Sorry, I did not pay attention to all of your arguments. I should have
mentioned that I found some pretty good justifications in what you did
say and you did help keep me on the fence. I should have acknowledged
your good reasons. That was my bad call not to admit your good
responses. I did have some skepticism about your arguments. I did
express my doubts about those. I had thought my tone was fairly
respectful and friendly. I guess I have to try harder.
Thanks for your responses.
Russ
MWBRYANT wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-10-21 14:58:22 EDT, Russ write:
>
> << I guess I am not impressed by the argument that people who have done it
> think it is better. That is not universally true, but more importantly
> it is a non-argument. There is no reasoning behind it. To approach
> the level of an argument we would need some empirical research on it
> with some investigation of the reasons behind the preferences. Sounds
> like a good convention paper or perhaps even a master's thesis to me for
> someone.
> >>
>
> I provided three reasons with at least anecdotal support and you choose to
> ignore. Thank you for not listening, Russ.
>
> Maybe you should talk to Ross Smith. I think he spearheaded the movement to
> 9-3-6 in NDT. Talk to someone. Or better yet, try a few tournaments with
> 9-3-6...
>
> Don't disregard the idea simply because crazy ole Bear supports it,
>
> Watching how well the machine works,
>
> Bear
> Tuna: Your system seems to be "eating" my mail, again...
> Bear
--
Regards,
Russell Church
615-898-5607 (Office)
615-898-2640 (Department Secretary)
615-898-5826 (Fax)
MTSU Box 43
Murfreesboro, Tn. 37132
CHECK OUT MTSU DEBATE TEAM HOME PAGE!
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
CHECK OUT RUSS'S HOME PAGE!
http://ritchi.mtsu.edu/wcb/schools/LA/spee/rchurch/rchurch.html
More information about the Mailman
mailing list