[eDebate] Scouting

Jean-Paul Lacy lacyjp
Wed Apr 19 23:43:35 CDT 2006


I also have severe misgivings about requiring scouts for participation, I 
was thinking that there would be some way to work around the teams that 
couldn't afford it.

I like all of a through d, plus "Director accountability." I think more 
interface between the scouting directors and the tab room is necessary. 
Like, when a tab representative starts a debate, they ask "Do we have 4 
debaters, 3 judges, and a scout (be it a judge or a semi-willing 
volunteer." Not just "Do we have 2 teams and 3 judges?"

the reason I think that scouts stop working for the system is their 
directors, or whoever is in charge of their scouting, loses confidence in 
the scouting system (not surprising, given that the scouting directors have 
to get a bunch of HS kids to really scout big time college debates.)

The more enforcement the better.

Badges help: They give the scout the authority to be all over the cards the 
judges are actually deciding the round over--I mean, optimally judges 
should be working in foursome with the scout.

--JP


At 12:25 AM 4/20/2006, SSbauschard2 at aol.com wrote:

>The ultimate downside of the ???accountable scout/password??? system is 
>that it re-creates one of the problems that it was meant to solve ? smalll 
>programs that can???t afford to bring a scout can???t access the info. It 
>is also somewhat unfair to programs that normally contribute scouts, but 
>may not be able to in a given year.
>
>
>
>Ultimately, I think two things need to happen:
>
>
>    * Scouts accountable to PROGRAM DIRECTORS.  Some scouts simply 
> disappear after round 1 or 2.  In some instances, I???m pretty sure that 
> they aren???t disappearing to cut cards ? they just stop working for the 
> scouting system.  Program directors really need to keep them on task.
>
>
>    * Collective support for the scouting system:
>
>
>
>These are just ideas
.
>
>
>
>a)      District scouting.  Each district would have to contribute X 
>number of scouts based on the number of teams qualified.  We could round 
>down in every single instance and still have more scouts than we have 
>now.  District teams could figure out how to share the costs or barter 
>with other, closer districts.  ???Larger,??? ???affluent??? programs could 
>contribute more ? the same way they have to do now anyhow ? ?? of the 
>district???s burden.
>
>b)      Enforce the Lupo rule for undergraduate card cutters ? and specify 
>a scouting contribution.  This may solve the problem in the entirety.
>
>c)      I like the ???scout badge??? idea.  Some of the scouts are 
>relatively inexperienced and could use some help from willing judges.  I 
>believe that Steve Mancuso made these for the Catholic NDT scouts.
>
>d)     Sharing the costs of the scouting system ? essentially charrge a 
>???scouting fee??? that shares at least the meals burden among 
>everyone.  Of course, if the Lupo rule is enforced and some school???s 300 
>researchers also scout, everyone probably shouldn???t have to share in the 
>costs of that, but some equal sharing of costs may help.
>
>
>
>Some will object to any imposed scouting requirement as some form of 
>fasco-tyrannical-biololitical-information crack addict bullshit, but I 
>will offer one simple fact:
>
>
>
>In 2004 EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL competing at the NDT USED the scouting 
>information AT LEAST ONCE before and/or during the tournament ? I looked 
>at the user logss.
>
>
>
>I didn???t bother looking at the logs for 2005 and 2006, but I suspect 
>I???d find something similar.  Given that everyone uses it, everyone 
>should make at least some contribution.
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060420/1ed85e01/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list