[eDebate] FW: Updated Worker Limit Compromise Proposal

Morris, Eric R EricMorris
Fri Apr 7 09:49:02 CDT 2006


Mancuso gave me permission to post this backchannel about the way the rule would function. While I STRONGLY oppose the rule, I think it is useful to better understand it to discuss it. 
 
I tend to agree with Joe Carver that the loopholes (see #6 and #7 in particular) make the rule largely non-solvent, although the annoyance remains.
 
Dr. Eric Morris
Asst Prof of Communication
Director of Forensics
Craig Hall 363A
Missouri State University
Springfield, MO 65897
(O) 417-836-7636
(H) 417-865-6866
(C) 417-496-7141

Hi Eric,

If this rule were adopted the committee would have to come up with an
official interpretation - what I'm about to give to you is just my opinion.  The
balance on any of these could be struck differently. 

It's very helpful for you to flesh out these tough cases so we can do the
best we can to anticipate and give guideance on the situations that will actually
be confronted.  Thanks.


1.  Before the round, a debater is concerned about the counterplan
text. I'm asked to write it. I believe that would be argument
construction, so I decline.

You can't write it, but you could dictate it.  Oral vs. written.


2.  Before the round, a debater is concerned about the CP text they
have written. They show it to me. I see problems and suggest revisions.
Can I do that?

Orally.

3.  I watch a team and think of a CP against their case. Before
handing it off to one of the legitimate workers, I sketch it out in
broad terms and think of a couple of net benefits. The official NDT
workers they turn my vision into reality. Can I do that?

Yes. As long as the "sketch" doesn't literally end up being read by the
debaters in a round.

4.  Before the round, I have several ideas for arguments. I explain
them to my debaters. I have constructed arguments, but the legitimate
workers do the typing. Legitimate?

Yes.

5.  Based on my knowledge of a judge, I suggest a different way to
word an argument. Legitimate unless I type it up?

Yes.

6.  I read articles cited in a new case. Based on the content of
those articles, I suggest several strategy ideas. I leave it to the NDT
workers to "cut" the actual cards and assemble the strategy. Legitimate?

Yes.

7.  I read articles cited in a new case, but do not communicate any
useful argument information about those articles. Instead, I suggest
that my legitimate workers read one of two of the articles that suggest
useful strategies. After they assemble whatever strategy they assemble,
I participate in the discussion of whether it is a good strategy and
whether we should use it.

Yes.

8.  My legitimate workers assemble an argument, and I read it. I
suggest several revisions, but leave it to them to type those.

Yes.

9.  I explain and suggest revisions to an argument I had assembled
prior to the tournament.

Yes.

10. Instead of thinking about arguments during the NDT, I use the
free time created in my evenings to read communication journals and
advance my academic research. I accidentally stumble across something
potentially useful in the tournament. I don't cut it, but hand the
article to a legitimate researcher and explain my vision of the eventual
argument.

Yes.

11. I use my new free time to download and cut K articles that will
be relevant next year, but do not share my research with my debaters.
I'm serious about this one; one of the things we do after the NDT is
scour people's K cites to see what we've been missing.

Yes.

12. Without using a computer or reading an article, I sit around
with our teams and brainstorm argument ideas in the evenings. Perhaps
this occurs in an organized squad meeting.

Yes.


Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060407/56e96454/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list