[eDebate] ans Warner
Fri Jul 20 21:05:43 CDT 2007
Perhaps me winning wasnt only a bad omen...but also the cause of the
decline...and possibly a sign of the impending apocalypse?
I am still not sure the Broda-Bahm/Korcok argument is a strong one...As I
mentioned, in response, the trending seems very sketchy - I really doubt
that people saw those topics and said "OH NO, POLICY IS COMING, TIME TO GO"
- You have to believe that topics like:
Resolved: That the increasing trend toward foreign investment in the US has
Resolved: Violence is a justified response to politcal oppression
Were seen by large numbers of coaches as a harbringer of impending policy
doom. Impending enough to desert like rats on a sinking ship....like
clemens after a paycheck....like Sparty at half time of a big ten football
game (ok, sorry, that was uncalled for)....like Bud Selig when an
intelligent decision is called for....anyway,
Is it possible that maybe only a core of people can handle building the core
support necessary to maintain the resources, support, education, etc etc etc
for what we do? Are topics part of that...sure...but major cause? Those
I will accept that it could have just been me winning nationals (almost as
On 7/20/07, Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1) none of that responded to 2 simultaneous topics. the affirmative
> chooses which to affirm.
> none of it, Ede. none of that long cheesy whatever. if you don't have a
> response, cool.
> 2) please stop implying that i am for splitting or separation or
> whatever. it isn't so.
> it wasn't so 11 years ago and it isn't so now. this is from July
> 1996, from a post titled, charmingly enough, "ans Warner":
> "look, i hope it is clear in the previous post that i don't have any
> interest in CEDA vs. NDT: i have scheduled our fall as nearly exclusively
> traditional NDT. that is a large gamble that shared topics will work."
> 3) you assert that CEDA "failed" and that participation declined before
> the move to policy or semester-long topics. your claim is fair as far as
> year-long topics but it is plainly false with respect to policy topics.
> Josh is also confused and confusing about this. here is a rough guide for
> those who weren't around:
> late 1980s: CEDA membership grows rapidly. CEDA Nats regularly breaks 300
> teams, membership around 250 colleges and universities.
> early 1990s: CEDA membership/participation PEAKS. Josh wins CEDA Nats in
> the 1989-1990 season. a bad omen, apparently.
> 1991-1992: "policy implications" is run many many rounds by the negative
> as CEDA takes a hard policy turn. SMS wins CEDA Nats.
> 1992-1993: CEDA membership experiences the beginnings of a noticeable
> decline. CEDA is now policy-light with most teams running plans.
> 1993-1995: membership declines continue and accelerate as CEDA adopts full
> policy resolutions
> 1995-1996: Mexico is the first year-long topic. it wins both the fall
> 1995 and the subsequent spring 1996 election.
> 1996-1997: the first "merger" year. high hopes despite the great
> exodus. Kate and Elizabeth write a kick-ass environment topic.
> Northwestern wins CEDA, Wake wins NDT.
> 1997-2007: the activity drifts sideways... trending down in membership...
> look, you don't have to be a statistician to see the obvious correlation
> between policy and decline. Ken Broda-Bahm pointed to the obvious in 1999:
> the membership/participation declines begin as policy ascends and continue
> post-merger as CEDA goes more and more policy. the archives are pretty
> clear about the timelines and no amount of foggy memory or revisionism makes
> it go away.
> Michael Korcok
> Missed the show? Watch videos of the Live Earth Concert on MSN. See them
> now! <http://liveearth.msn.com/>
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman