[eDebate] The 2 Worker rule.
Thu Apr 20 01:35:40 CDT 2006
JP--I think there is as much enforcement as there is for any of the "rules." Part of the idea is to encourage teams to "declare" the people they have back at the hotel cutting cards and get those folks in the judge pool.
It is not a loophole, but it is the case that the judges you bring are free to coach/judge in any capacity. If each of your three judges covers the minimum number of rounds (4), and your two declared workers each judge the minimum (4), one team at NDT can still bring five "coach-types" (as I understand it). You would be providing extra rounds in that case (and you could still bring an official scout and some eligible undergrads to help), but that is a good thing.
Thus, there is no need for your kritiky language loop-hole argument (especially without an alternative).
From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Jean-Paul Lacy
Sent: Thu 4/20/2006 2:18 AM
To: Leeper, Karla; edebate at ndtceda.com; ceda-l at ndtceda.com
Subject: [eDebate] The 2 Worker rule.
Since most of y'all replies have been about the uncontroversial scouting
section of my post,
Here's the 2nd half:
At 11:45 PM 4/19/2006, Jean-Paul Lacy wrote:
>"NDT WORKERS:" There is no enforcement for this rule. If y'all want it
>enforced, it should be amended. [Personally, I'm just concerned with how we
>will comply with the spirit of the rule, but there is a loophole.]
>The rule stats "The Chair of the NDT committee will publicize violations..."
>But, there is *no* provision that states "anyone who 'researches and/or
>writes any arguments during the tournament' who is *not* designated as an
>"NDT Worker" is in violation of the rule."
>Hence, any school using un-designated "NDT Workers" is *not* in violation
>of the rule.
>No malice, no violation, no punishment, no publication...
>lacyjp at wfu.edu
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
More information about the Mailman