[eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility/sarahs email
Morris, Eric R
Sun Dec 2 21:42:54 CST 2007
1. It's hard to follow an admonition to not "lose sleep" when an accident leads to substantial escalation - even if you are not a party to it. That said, I think that J-Stan's baby will probably overwhelm the uniqueness on the sleep loss disad.
2. I think your defense of John's case sounds reasonable. That said, I think we need to develop a culture where situations like this can be discussed productively in public. Right now, it feels like bringing up particular concerns is verboten unless you are ready for open warfare. There should be a forum, whether edebate or otherwise, where coaches can frankly ask questions and express their concerns. Creating such a culture would be a far more effective way to deal with the 5% (or fewer) of JV/Novice placements that are controversial than would a whole litany of rule changes.
3. While people many disagree about the merits of having particular tournaments continually attract bid applicants, it seems at least useful to have terminology that enables us to speak about them collectively. Many people distinguish between tournaments that have a 'national' or 'regional' draw - ours tends to the latter. If not 'national', what term would you propose?
Dr. Eric Morris
Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics
Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication
Missouri State University
Springfield, MO 65897
AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna
From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Darren Elliott
Sent: Sun 12/2/07 8:37 PM
To: jstan1979 at gmail.com; sjsnider at ksu.edu; edebate at www.ndtceda.com
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility/sarahs email
I understand Justin did not mean to post a private email to the public and has apologized. It happens, and you shouldnt lose sleep over it. But since my name was invoked in the private email from Sarah, and posted here, I think I should respond.
On 12/2/07, Sarah Snider <sjsnider at ksu.edu> wrote:
> John Bretthauer JUDGED our JV team during the 2005-2006 season and then
> DEBATED the SAME TEAM in JV the next season. Obviously this is an issue we
> have with the Chief and not with you and pointing out another wrong doesn't
> make it right- but, our actions this weekend are FAR more legitimate than
> the majority of eligibility indiscretions one would normally encounter in
> the average season.
Charges of indiscretions are serious ethical issues in my opinion, and whether made publicly or in private, need to be called out, when its a load of shit. Our coaching staffs dealt with this ad nauseum last year, and I thought we were beyond it. Apparently at least 1 K-State coach is not. So much for taking people at their word. But a few problems with this I think people should know. First, John (the year he judged K-State) was a student at a College without a debate program. He was looking to make a little cash AND wanting to help out his alma mater who was in need of another body just to get to a tournament. We dont have 8 coaches, lest K-State forget. He went to the TX Swing and was placed to judge "Novice" only. When the Novice division did not make, the staff of the tournament graciously did not make us pay a judging fee since we brought someone in good faith. However the tab room Director, Sarah's dad, told me he needed John one rd in JV. I explained that John may end up debating some day again and had JV eligibility. (John debated in College as a Novice and 1 year in JV) Tuna's response was that this team should not be denied the opportunity to be judged by John. Tuna was not in the wrong. John was not in the wrong. We were not in the wrong. There are no rules preventing it. It is not desirable, which is why I made sure the tab room knew the situation. If you think its an ethical issue, write a rule. The irony of this is two-fold. John the following year debated the team he judged and HE LOST. That KSU team did pretty well in JV their second year--part of the problem Justin is pointing to in his original email. The 2nd irony, is that K-State travelled a team in Open this year, then has used one of those debaters to judge since then. It's not against the rules. They have done nothing wrong. He has given up his eligibility from what I understand. Again, they are not violating rules. But the only argument against this practice seems to be some sort of intimidation factor about judging teams that you compete against. So the PRACTICE they have engaged in is the exact same this year, as they have gasped about John doing 3 years ago. I dont think they are in the wrong and I placed that judge in rounds at my tournament--but its worth noting when practices that are criticized are then carried out.
How was what you did FAR MORE legitimate? If the only answer is the initimidation factor, I can tell you how teams mustve felt when your teams (likely NDT bound debaters) debated them. Was it any less disempowering than your JV team felt after debating and beating John the year after he judged them?
And if this is an issue you "have with the Chief" than what is it? I thought it was resolved last year? If not, what can we do to resolve this? What can John do to not feel constantly under the suspicious eye of you? What can we do to keep you from continuing this? I mean, really, do you have to continue to "spread comments of indiscretion" to give you something to do? Publicly, privately, or in any other form is rather childish.
And because I was pulled in, I couldnt resist but answering 2 other things in the email.
>> our debaters only debate in the fall in Kansas- this means they come in
> with HALF as much experience as debaters from at least 45 other states.
Those of us that recruit from KS dont really get to make this argument. Even though debate is one semester, they get 8 tournaments, plus Regionals and State 2nd semester. If they qualify to CFL or NFL, they get 3 more tournaments 2nd semester. Some debaters you had in JV this past weekend fell into that category. The point is, while 45 other states debate all year long, most of those debaters have less prelims in tournaments and go to the same number or roughly the same, just spread out over a year.
> UNI and KCK are not national tournaments. One of our debaters did clear at
Thanks for continuing the elitism. Gee, I remember when UNI was THE National tournament. Sorry to inform you Cate, not anymore.
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman