[eDebate] The Luphole Amendment

Michael Eber eber
Thu Apr 20 11:11:03 CDT 2006


We should either fix the wording or scrap it.

Even the Committee apparently can't decide on their "intent", and the
wording is confusing at best.

I don't like the idea of a hard cap but would rather see the rule
strengthened than witness the chaos of each school deciding on their unique
interpretation and compliance level.

The middle ground is the worst option. We are all left guessing what the
rule means and whether it will be followed. A clear rule is necessary so
that folks aren't tempted to flat ignore it because of the chance someone
else may do the same. If violations are perceived as inevitable, they become
inevitable. Then the system perversely ends up *punishing* compliance.


As for the issue of third teams:

This debate should be separated from the worker limitation issue. 

First, who even has nine non-undergraduates to be judge/workers? 

Second, if they do have them, these researchers could easily work at the NDT
even if their school only had two teams in the tournament. Judge/workers 7
through 9 could get hired as judges for other schools and still legally work
throughout the NDT for the team they are normally affiliated with. 

Third, an interesting link turn -- assuming the new rule worked (!),
scrapping third teams would actually increase the research advantage of big
programs. I would get to bring two more solid student researchers to the
tournament to help our top two teams. I'd rather have them debate at the
NDT, but if they can't I can promise you that our third team will be cutting
lots of good cards throughout the NDT. 


Mike




-----Original Message-----
From: Kuswa, Kevin [mailto:kkuswa at richmond.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:33 AM
To: Michael Eber; edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: RE: The Luphole Amendment

I belive Eber is right about this.  My interpreation (also derived from
sending this intrepretation to the committee for feedback and not
receiving a reply) is that the rule does not speak to judges in any way.
The people you bring to judge your rounds are free to
coach/research--they just have to judge at least 4 rounds.

This does bring up the larger point about 3rd teams at the NDT--arguably
a bigger cause of disproportionate advantage (that can be corrected)
than extra coaches.  

Kevin 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Eber [mailto:eber at msu.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:41 AM
To: Kuswa, Kevin; edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: The Luphole Amendment



Thanks to Jon Paul for the "Luphole" Amendment. 

I think Kevin is right--the new rule that passed DOES NOT limit workers
to
two. It merely requires that schools make their workers judge or scout
and
that they tell the NDT who their workers are.

Mancuso's proposal *on its own* would have limited workers to two.
However,
the Lupo proposal--which was tacked onto the end as section
d--functionally
nullifies the hard cap provision because it allows "other" individuals
to
coach in whatever way they see fit as long as they are a judge or scout.

This is obviously not outcome that some on the Committee were hoping
for,
but I'm not the first one to accuse this attempt of clumsiness.

If I am wrong, please explain to me why the following scenario is not
entirely legitimate:

Suppose that BIGSCHOOL has 3 teams at the 2007 NDT.
They designate two non-undergraduate NDT workers who judge four rounds
each.
They bring seven other judges who judge four rounds each. 
Nine total judges are there to cover the 36 round commitment.
All nine cut cards, two as "NDT Workers" and seven as "other individuals
who
provide scouting or significant coaching".

Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com]
On
Behalf Of Kuswa, Kevin
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:36 AM
To: Jean-Paul Lacy; Leeper, Karla; edebate at ndtceda.com;
ceda-l at ndtceda.com
Subject: Re: [eDebate] The 2 Worker rule.

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).  
 
Kevin



>RULE IV: GENERAL TOURNAMENT PROCEDURES
>
>SUB F: Miscellaneous Regulations
>
>Add sub 9  NDT Workers
>
>a.       At tournament registration, schools must identify, by name,
the
>individuals who will be designated as their NDT Workers.  An "NDT 
>Worker" is defined as a person who is not a competitor in the 
>tournament and who researches and/or writes any arguments during the 
>tournament, including evenings.
>
>b.      Undergraduates. A school may designate any number of
>undergraduate NDT Workers provided they:
>
>(1)   meet the academic certification requirements for debaters at the
>NDT as outlined in Standing Rule II(A)(1)(g);
>
>(2)   are enrolled at the school for which they will work;
>
>(3)   have participated in 15 rounds of tournament competition for that
>school by March 10 immediately preceding the NDT.
>
>c.       Non-undergraduates. A school may designate up to 2
>non-undergraduates as NDT Workers.  These individuals must come from 
>the tournament's
>
>judge pool. Persons who meet the qualifications for judging, or who 
>meet the qualifications
>
>except the 12 round requirement, must be available to judge a minimum 
>of four preliminary rounds of  debate.  The names of those not meeting 
>the 12 round requirement will appear on a supplemental judge preference

>sheet.  The names of those meeting the minimum round requirement will 
>appear on the regular judge preference sheet.
>
>d.      Other individuals who provide scouting or significant coaching
>to any team participating in the NDT should be required to enter the 
>judging pool on a supplemental strike sheet for at least four debates 
>or, if it is more appropriate, provide a significant equivalent 
>contribution to the tournament as defined by the tournament host.
>
>d. The Chair of the NDT committee will publicize violations of this 
>rule.
>






More information about the Mailman mailing list