[eDebate] ADA and Addendums

Jason Russell jasonlrussell1
Tue Jun 13 20:40:24 CDT 2006


I am opposed to rewriting the list topics and to representing these topics
on the ballot. There are a host of people who would like to see their
interests represented on the topic ballot, and many of those people were
also heard at the meeting. The TC decided to implement a differing agenda,
and until procedural alterations are made in this process, those are the
choices we are saddled with. They are not bad choices; my previous posts
were simply designed to elucidate that I didnt find them to be complete.
Given that, having the committee alter their typical procedures to implement
Tim's changes would either COMPLETELY repoen the process, which is
infeasible, or be COMPLETELY unjust to those others who would like to see
their interests better represented. I personally would throw a fit if this
one-time-only alteration only favored making topics look more like plans as
opposed to offering additional flexible options.

Let me be clear so Ryan doesn't kill me: I vociferously oppose reopening the
topic process, for Tim's proposal or any others. Period.

If the ADA is primarily concerned about novice and JV at ADA-only
tournaments there are a host of options short of having an entirely separate
set of topics.

First, you could agree on a novice/JV-only topic, not an ADA topic that
forces tournament directors to double certify, once for novice and JV, once
for the CEDA topic in varsity. If your concern is for novices, that solves
without adding the problem of hassling tournament administrators and
creating hurdles for NDT participation.

Second, you could, as a group, agree to only use middle of the road affs. A
friendly agreement amongst this tight-knit group should solve. It seems if
there is as much agreement amongst your organization, this implicit deal
should solve.

Third, you could judge these T arguments strictly when you judge novice and
JV. This policy would almost assuredly generate community norms that would
check the abuse of these policies.

I suspect this question about novice and JV is NOT the primary concern of
the ADA and its coaches. I think it may be a red herring. Time will tell, I
suppose.

Don't be confused into thinking that my posts re: the TC are designed to be
an indict of the people for the most part or their decisions for the most
part. I think that the TC needs more direction, and that is OUR fault as a
community. We tend to leave them alone to make the best decisions that they
can and literally only our involvement will guarantee that we get the topics
we want. It seems to me that more of our esteemed alumni in the legal
community participated actively in this process than we did. If we want the
TC to know what we think, we need to tell them. We should ASK the TC to do
certain things if we expect them to do them. And we should do so early and
often and we should be specific about our requests and we should work hard
on our own to provide this group with information to help actualize these
requests.

In some instances, the TC has been too directive in producing topics that
look one way; in EVERY instance we have been too weak in asking for what we
want. We should demand procedural changes in TC functioning that solicits
community input beyond the unhelpful topic area vote and then we should work
hard to provide that information from all sides and corners of the
community. We should demand that our representatives represent us by
providing them with guidance re: what we want. And we should provide this
information in the run up to the meeting, not at, and especially not AFTER
the meeting.

So, if you have any say over this process, oppose ad hoc post hoc changes to
the ballot and support future reforms to the committee's functioning and
within the committee's operation.

And one last thing, overturn, overrule, decision, and holding arent going
to, as Tushnet questions and Tim predicts, affect AT ALL critical affs on
this topic. Seriously. That doesnt even make sense.

Good night and good luck,
J
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060613/588f6ef2/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list