[eDebate] [CEDA-L] Encouraging your "yes" vote on CEDA business
Mon Nov 26 12:27:47 CST 2007
I meant a DEEPER view is important as well.
>From: "NEIL BERCH" <berchnorto at msn.com>
>To: debate at ou.edu, delliott at kckcc.edu, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com,
>edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] Encouraging your "yes" vote on CEDA business
>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:22:20 -0500
>I think Jackie (and Andy before him) raise an important issue. I only
>focused on novice winners because that gave the broadest picture given the
>time I had. A broader view is important as well. I've got a busy few days
>ahead of me (both professionally and personally), but I'm going to try to
>look at all the teams that debated in novice in the largest ADA tournament
>so far (King's), the largest CEDA Northeast tournament (West Point), and
>the largest Midamerica novice division (UNI, with just 11 teams). I'll try
>to get this done in the next couple of days, and I'll post my results to
>debate and CEDA-L. Note, though, that this is probably about 5 times as
>much work as the previous post, and first I have to change our John Carroll
>hotel reservations (remember, Brent, anyone can run a tournament when there
>are no glitches; it's how you respond to crises that is key, and clearly
>you're on top of this!).--Neil
>West Virginia University
>>From: "Massey, Jackie B." <debate at ou.edu>
>>To: Darren Elliott <delliott at kckcc.edu>,
>>"CEDA-L at ndtceda.com"<CEDA-L at ndtceda.com>, "edebate at ndtceda.com"
>><edebate at ndtceda.com>
>>Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] Encouraging your "yes" vote on CEDA business
>>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:45:57 -0600
>> >From my mailbox:
>>Amendment #9 Novice Definition
>>This amendment has created the most discussion on the listserve. While I
>>wrote the original amendment, I would not be against changing my mind in
>>the face of good reasoning. While some arguments against have been put
>>forward, both in the Business Meeting (where it received near unanimous
>>support) and on this list serve, none of those arguments have swayed me.
>>Both sides of this issue can prove that we might lose novices with or
>>without the amendment.
>>----- Why didn?t you just stop here? Let people decide now?
>> However the arguments I put forward are the only ones that seem to
>>answer all of the offense generated, solving that offense, and at the same
>>time provided unanswered disadvantages to staying the course.
>>---- Is this how you talk to your administrators? Your trying to make
>>facts out of subjective interpretations. Why cant you accept that it cuts
>>both ways like above, and not continue with somewhat of a not so ?true?
>> Some people have provided good anecdotal evidence how debaters they have
>>with HS LD experience can achieve success even in JV with little to no
>>coaching (Hanson) and have provided ample hard evidence (Berch) that those
>>winning Novice divisions have HS LD experience a lot of the time (and in
>>some cases have ridiculous amounts of
>> experience) and are walking through Novice. Yet they arent being moved
>>--- Yes, berch?s evidence was overwhelming. However, it really depends on
>>the debater. Some LD debaters learn to flow, others don?t. Neal?s post
>>may have changed my mind on the issue. What about the ?anecdotal?
>>evidence I offer that LD debaters are much more willing to join debate if
>>they can go novice. One thing about neals post is that it only recognized
>>the winners, not to mention the many former LD debaters who don?t even win
>>The problem is in the SQ there is no check and no way to prevent the
>>abuse. When ethics and competition collide there is often a slide on the
>>ethical (Harris), and this remains unanswered. Pressure has not and is
>>not working. The only arguments against have been that people forced into
>>JV will quit. No one has answered that we allow an exemption waiver
>>process in CEDA that if a debater is really not ready for JV they can go
>>in Novice with an exemption.
>>------- Actually, someone did answer the waiver argument, maybe you just
>>forget those posts that don?t agree with you. Just ignore It maybe it
>>will go away?
>> This solves the offense and remains unanswered. And I will go one
>>further--the CEDA EC has already granted such waivers this year, proving
>>the system works.
>>--- This is so subjective ? the EC determine if students should be in
>>novice or not? There is a time lag, etc. I think this is a bad
>> These were cases where the debater really was a novice even though not
>>so definitionally. What CEDA cant do however is the reverse. We cant
>>tell novices they have to move up even if they have 50, 100, or 150 rounds
>>of HS LD experience. That means the debaters they trounce have no
>>protection and THEY are the ones who walk away.
>>--- This is your best way of dealing with the issue that the current rule
>>is a bridge, and does also allow for a situation where LDers move to
>>policy. I agree, some Novices get trounced and quit, but ?THEY? are not
>>the only ones effected by this rule.
>> I also believe that any coach can make decent arguments why a debater
>>should go JV at least at first if they have HS experience, thereby
>>preventing the debater from quitting outright. And, if that debater does
>>so poorly, they do deserve to move down, the coach can assure them there
>>is a waiver process that allows that.
>>---- Do you explain this to the new students as going JV solves all the
>>offense of you debating HS policy debaters and the waiver process solves
>>all the disads to the intimidating experience you will engage?
>>Unfortnately very few coaches will be successful in convincing a true
>>novice (no experience) that they should stay even in a world where they
>>are getting hammered by novices with experience. Myself and others have
>>also spoken to the nature of the policy/critical divide that is blurred
>>these days and one can no longer assert that LD is so different from
>>college debate that it shouldnt count.
>>--- I think that your assumption that LD is ?critical? is laughable. I
>>have to say no more.
>>Finally, I think anyone with a concept of a flow, speech order, time
>>limits, a judge, etc. (especially with over 50 rounds of such experience)
>>is so far ahead of any true novice, that they really should not be
>>considered novice without some pretty serious limitation on their part
>>(which can be accounted for in a waiver process). In order to preserve
>>the intent of the novice division, in order to protect the novices that
>>currently do not have protection, and in order to help grow and preserve
>>the numbers in novice, I encourage you to vote yes on this amendment.
>>---- You are saying that we should take first year LD debaters and first
>>year policy debaters, and put them in the same division. I am saying the
>>HS Policy debater has a huge advantage over the HS LD er. Then does the
>>LDer quit for getting trounced?
>>Let me add one other thing about the Novice Amendment. My program could
>>gain a lot more from the SQ than the world of the amendment. In KS, MO,
>>OK there is a ton of LD debate. Tonight I looked up how many graduating
>>Seniors this year in the 3 state area did just LD (and high amounts). In
>>case you didnt know there is a ton of debate in KS, MO, and OK and a ton
>>of that is LD. I would have a hard time deciding which of the 10 to offer
>>full ride scholarships to and recruit and stack the Novice division.
>>---- Stack the novice division? I am skeptical on why you don?t have more
>>novice teams, but I guess this clears it up. And to say you do it for
>>ethics is grand of you.
>>We probably agree on the problem. Neal?s evidence was overwhelming.
>>However, is it just LD?
>>Many of the students have IE experience, Student Congress, Public Forum.
>>Since they did those activities, should that count also? That was just as
>>common as LD.
>>How about a move up rule in novice instead? You win 2 novice tournaments
>>or final 2, you move up. This sounds much better.
>>I admit that I benefit from the current rule. I love teaching LD debaters
>>policy debate. However, very seldom do any of my debaters stay in novice
>>more than two or three tournaments. As far as benefits for points and
>>rankings, I am not sure that novice brackets have counted for many of the
>>CEDA points in our region ever. The average size is about semis.
>>What will novice look like in a region that is comprised of over ? their
>>debaters in novice have LD experience? Will we even have a novice
>>Take UCO, what if all the teams with LD experience were eliminated. We
>>would have probably 2-3 teams in novice. IE ? no novice, those novice have
>>to go JV, and then what happens? Oh yeah, your scenario happens still in
>>a worse way. DA to your ?plan?.
>>There is a huge divide in the skill level of LD debaters. At UCO there
>>was one novice that was way ahead of everyone else. Even the other
>>debaters who had LD experience were no match. She made my debaters
>>better, trying to figure out how to beat her. She also had a partner who
>>was totally unexperienced. Bottom line, she was good. Rules don?t change
>>That?s it. I will probably vote for the rule that is an attempt to help
>>novice debate become pure, while I think its going to help it disappear.
>>That is why I challenge those who were at NCA and voted on the rule to
>>show up next year with two novice teams and travel them all year. Its not
>>all about ?solving all the offense? and ?no disadvantages to the plan?,
>>its more than that. It's about coaches taking the time and energy to
>>teach students with no "policy" debate experience how to debate.
>> I guarantee you there were a lot more than 10 to choose from. Multiply
>>that by 10 and add some. I havent done this because I honestly believe
>>the community and the intent of novice sides with the amendment, and until
>>now it has just slipped through the cracks. Maybe I am wrong and I have
>>just always seen Novice as something different. The vote will determine
>>that I guess. But this amendment is in no way self-serving. I honestly
>>believe Novice should be something other than
>> what it is at some tournaments right now. If the vote proves me wrong,
>>I guess I can push harder for Rookie Divisions then start doling out the
>>"novice" scholarships to area HS LD debaters. ; )
>>CEDA-L mailing list
>>CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>CEDA-L mailing list
>CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
More information about the Mailman