Trice and Card-Clipping, pt.2

[John Sullivan]

-----Original Message-----
From:   Michael Bear Bryant [SMTP:MWBRYANT at AOL.COM]
Sent:   Tuesday, October 20, 1998 6:59 PM
To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:        Re: Trice and Card-Clipping, pt.2

The following is from someone in the NDT community who I greatly
respect, but
who sees to most often disagree with me. The individual wished their
name kept
off the repost because they don't have time to get involved right
now. I was
given permission to re-post these arguments anonymously:

<<
 I'm curious -- did Trice check every card in the round? From both
teams?

 My biggest concern with their stance is that is it wholly
 arbitrary. I don't think they check every card -- they only check
those they
feel like reading after the debate, which means teams who choose to
extend
cards get penalized, while the other team may have been just as
guilty. As a
result, the judge intervenes unfairly on behalf of one team.

 Plus, their system doesn't allow for innocent mistakes (they happen,
perhaps
the MSU coaching staff could at least give a warning if they see it
once, then
 hose the team if they discern a pattern that continues when they
judge them).
  >>



I appreciate the above concern and wish that it had been brought out
in the open for discussion before this incident.

It is correct that I don't check every card. Rarely do I read
evidence above and beyond what I would have to read in order to
decide the round in an ordinary fashion. Contrary to what some seem
to think, my purpose as a judge is not solely to bust people for
clipping. It is, however, something I keep a close eye out for as I
go through the normal process of judging a round. I do do a little
bit extra -  I put enough on my flow to be able to check evidence
that I may or may not end up reading. I tape the debate. But I don't
look at every card read by both teams in every debate.

Sometimes things occur during a debate that make me think evidence
has been clipped, and then I will check that evidence after the
round. Examples: Frighteningly short pieces of evidence; evidence
which did not seem to my ear to contain anything resembling the tag,
evidence which stops in the middle of a sentence, etc. These are
things that I sometimes notice while evidence is being read.

Is it possible that I may vote against one team for clipping while
the other one gets away with it? Yes. What should I do about this?
This is a problem with many ethical standard we have. With context
accusations, we don't instantly go to the library and get all of the
articles for the other team's evidence as well. I can give the
assurance that while in application enforcement may not be exactly
equal, in intention it is. Of course some won't believe that.

I've spoken about the innocent mistake issue before.

-john