[eDebate] eligibility rule change

NEIL BERCH berchnorto
Sun Apr 9 11:23:47 CDT 2006


The old rules also indicate that your 8 time blocks can occur over a maximum of 5 academic years, so it would seem to me that you're done either way.
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rob Eback<mailto:robeback00 at gmail.com> 
  To: edebate at ndtceda.com<mailto:edebate at ndtceda.com> 
  Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 12:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [eDebate] eligibility rule change


  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<mailto: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<mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com> on behalf of Rob Eback 

    Sent: Sun 4/9/06 10:49 AM

    To: edebate at ndtceda.com<mailto: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 <mailto: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<mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com> on behalf of Rob Eback 

      Sent: Sun 4/9/06 10:24 AM
      To: edebate at ndtceda.com<mailto: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 <mailto: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<mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com> on behalf of Rob Eback
        Sent: Sun 4/9/06 3:38 AM
        To: edebate at ndtceda.com<mailto: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

       

     

  _______________________________________________
  eDebate mailing list
  eDebate at ndtceda.com
  http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060409/723bbbef/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list