[eDebate] Re: 2:45 Rule

[Charles Olney]

The 2:45 rule is devastating.  We had 3 rounds in a row that were directly
impacted by the rule, with (I believe) 7 of the 9 judges for those
debates forced to make a decision before they were ready.

In the end, I think it probably worked out to our advantage, but that
doesn't change the fact that these were some of the last debates of my
debate career and the idea that judges were not given the same chance to
make a good, fair decision that they are given at *every* other tournament
of the year is hard to stomach.

It does seem like there should be some opportunities for time-shaving in
other places, though.

* Eliminate the reading of pairings.  It's kind of cool, and it's a
tradition, but the NDT also has a tradition of being the best tournament
of the year, and if the two come into conflict, it seems like letting
judges be the best they can be ought to take precedence.

* I don't really know anything about how to run a tournament, so I don't
want to come off like an ignorant jerk here or anything, but it seems like
the time between last-ballot-in (which was our round three times in a row,
I think) and the announcement of the next round is fairly long.  Is this
because of a desire to give free-time or is it necessary for the
pairing?  If that time could get sped up, we could probably save an hour
or more each day.

Regardless, something needs to be done.  Even if it means extending the
day an extra hour, or however long it takes, I would be in favor of it.
These debates are just too important to settle for anything less.

Charles
Whitman

hard to imagine, hard to perceive
to find an expression for what it all means
all panic and struggle, all death and decay
are coming together in relative ways
--and you will know us by the trail of dead