[eDebate] eligibility rule change

Rob Eback robeback00
Sun Apr 9 11:17:10 CDT 2006


2005 Fall: 3 tournaments -- 2006 Spring: 2 tournaments.
2004 Fall: 2 tournaments -- 2005 Spring: 1 tournament.
2003 Fall: 2 tournaments -- 2004 Spring: 1 tournament.
2002 Fall: 2 tournaments -- 2003 Spring: 1 tournament.
2001 Fall: 3 tournaments -- Spring 2002: 3 tournaments.

So under the old rules I should have 4 semesters left and under the new
rules I'm out.

Rob Eback



On 4/9/06, Morris, Eric R <EricMorris at missouristate.edu> wrote:
>
>  During how many years (by new rules) and semesters (by old rules) did you
> debate?
>
>  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
>
> ------------------------------
>  *From:* edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Rob Eback
> *Sent:* Sun 4/9/06 10:49 AM
>
> *To:* edebate at ndtceda.com
> *Subject:* Re: [eDebate] eligibility rule change
>
>
>  My understanding is that under the old system a debater got 8 semesters
> of eligibility and that eligibility could be used by attending an NDT which
> would count as two semesters or could lose a semester of eligibility by
> debating at more than two tournaments in a single semester. Thus, under the
> old system the three years I only debated at three tournaments (2 in the
> fall and CEDA Nats) counts against my 5 years of eligibility. So under the
> old system I would have eligibility left but under the new one I don't.
>
> Rob Eback
>
>
>
> On 4/9/06, Morris, Eric R <EricMorris at missouristate.edu> wrote:
> >
> >  Given that it extends eligibility from 4 years to 5, provide the
> > scenario where someone loses eligibility.
> >
> >  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
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >  *From:* edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Rob Eback
> > *Sent:* Sun 4/9/06 10:24 AM
> > *To:* edebate at ndtceda.com
> > *Subject: *Re: [eDebate] eligibility rule change
> >
> >
> >  I guess my question is really why make it retroactive? Why take
> > eligibility away from people who were saving it? Sure we don't want to
> > create life-long debaters, but under my understanding of the rules is that
> > there were checks in the system for preventing something like with the four
> > NDTs and four CEDAs rules. Also, it seems odd to me that it would be
> > retroactive given the precedent set by the merger that "grandfathered" in
> > eligibility.
> >
> > Rob Eback
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/9/06, Morris, Eric R <EricMorris at missouristate.edu > wrote:
> > >
> > >  First, at the time that a rule like that comes into dispute, the time
> > > is question is always retroactive.
> > > Second, they are retroactive. They affect people currently debating as
> > > well as future debaters.
> > >
> > >  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
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > *From:* edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Rob Eback
> > > *Sent: *Sun 4/9/06 3:38 AM
> > > *To:* edebate at ndtceda.com
> > > *Subject:* [eDebate] eligibility rule change
> > >
> > >
> > >  Semi-random question: Why are all these eligibility rules changes
> > > being made written to sound like they're retroactive?
> > >
> > > Rob Eback
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060409/e230a048/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list