[eDebate] Worker Rule

Michael Eber eber
Thu Apr 20 13:38:02 CDT 2006

Do they only serve straw in Oxford? 

Please stop characterizing opponents of your rule as denying the merits of
any limitation whatsoever. The central question, at least for me, is WHERE
and HOW to draw the line, not whether we should have some limits.

Please stop characterizing opponents of your rule as desperately clinging
onto their competitive privileges. I, frankly, think that this rule will
have no impact on Wins and Losses at the NDT. MSU will do just fine, thank
you. Maybe we should even let it kick in for a year so that folks can feel
terribly disappointed when your promise of any movement towards competitive
equity turns out to be a total mirage. Oh wait, that would be a bad idea
because of the other disadvantages that have been mentioned over and over

It is tiresome (and misleading) for a large part of the defense of this rule
to be "better than nothing" when there are serious concerns being voiced
that the rule, as written, penalizes compliances and unnecessarily targets
full time coaches. Not only are there claims that the rule does more harm
than good, but there are also real, constructive, suggestions on the table
for improving the rule or creating a different one.

One question which I feel has never received an adequate answer is why the
magic number of two. Why disregard the sliding scale approach that actually
considers the number of teams being coached at the NDT? Why is it extreme to
have a *third* person on staff to coach two or three teams at the
Championship tournament? 

Despite the tone of this message, I am one of the people who isn't overly
entrenched on this issue and could be persuaded to support the rule. But
that would take some arguments about the specific wording and about the
magic number chosen. 

I'm glad that the Consult the Duck CP worked out for you. How that answers
any argument made in this debate is beyond me. Wink Wink.


More information about the Mailman mailing list