[eDebate] Worker rule .. and the issue of community input

Morris, Eric R EricMorris
Wed Apr 26 09:50:23 CDT 2006

Winner of the Awesome typo of the month award is Lupo, who I agree with wholeheartedly..
"The Mancuso proposal was discussed, as were some other options for creating parody at the NDT."
And, of course, the proposal risks making the NDT a parody of the tournaments leading up to it.
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 on behalf of Jon P. Lupo
Sent: Wed 4/26/06 9:37 AM
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: [eDebate] Worker rule .. and the issue of community input

I want to preface this by saying I have a lot of respect for Gordon, and everyone on the NDT committee.  Their job is largely thankless, and as evidenced by this discussion they tend to take more then their fair share of crap from all of us.

That being said Gordon's plea for input and the way he describes the process, as best I can tell is just flat out incorrect.  The original Mancuso proposal was introduced sometime before the spring semester of this year, I am not sure when, because quite frankly I was not really involved until January.  In January I attended a D6 meeting at west Ga.  The Mancuso proposal was discussed, as were some other options for creating parody at the NDT.  The general sentiment of our district seemed to be, opposition to limiting student access.  We prposed an alternative, which required all atendees to provide some service to the tournament, whether it be judging, scouting or serving tacos.  In my interaction with the community the rest of the smester (admittedly not very scientific) I found a fair amount of support for this type of rule.  I know Joel Rollins proposed something similar at a district meeting that had support, and as i understand from conversations other people supported this approach as well.  Regardless of the level of support there was extensive discussion about a rule, both Mancuso's orgiginal rule and proposed alternatives that mandated service rather then limiting access.  

I want to be very clear here, the only rule, either in theory or specificity, that the committee did not receieve extensive input on was the actual rules that passed.  So please when we discuss the worker rule change DO NOT use lack of input as the excuse.  the committee had many options that were extensively discussed, and chose to enact a change that they very little input on very their constituents, we should not be surprised that the result is outrage.  As Gordon correctly points out, he knows for a fact that 3 out of 4 people who voted against the new rule favor some sort of change.  maybe this gorup of 3 took a more reasonable approach than the majority and decided not to support change that was not discussed prior to the meeting, simply for the sake of change.

Jon Paul 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060426/eec0f15e/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list