[eDebate] CEDA: Exec Sect Report

Darren Elliott delliott
Tue Oct 30 01:44:52 CDT 2007


I am glad you like the amendment idea.  I wrote it! : )

I want to comment however and say that I would not consider it friendly to amend it to clarify it to exclude people who are only in their second year of debate from competing at JV Nationals if they lost JV elig. their first year.  I believe the language has been and should be interpreted to read that everyone gets 2 years of JV.  If you reach a 3rd final or qualify for the NDT you are not eligible except for JV Nats.  I do not think that should only apply to people in their first year.  If that was the intent I am not sure why we have an exception at all.  I do not know what the difference is competitively if I reach my 3rd final the 3rd weekend in March my frosh. year or my 3rd final the 3rd weekend in Sept. my Soph. year.  I also think reading the constitution in that way does damage to smaller regions where a team may qualify to the NDT their frosh year but in a small district or weak year for their district.

I have been attending the JCCC JV Nats as a debater or coach for 15 years.  It has always allowed frosh and soph debaters no matter what their elig. otherwise was.  I am in favor of that because I think it means better competition, more teams (if JCCC did not allow that, the tournament might be pretty small), and guarantees younger teams get to see some of the best teams in the District.  It also preserves the balance throughout the country in the use of the moniker "JV Nationals".  CEDA has done well to allow a move from 1 (JCCC) to 2 (JCCC and Towson/G'Town/WVU/Towson) to 3 (JCCC, East, and now West Coast) JV Nats tournaments.  Interpreting the language as the CEDA EC always has, makes sense and prevents sanctioning issues or legitimate constitutional complaints.

Just my thoughts!


Darren Elliott
Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
AFA Natl. Council Rep. 2-year Colleges

>>> "NEIL BERCH" <berchnorto at msn.com> 10/29/07 6:22 PM >>>
A couple of amendment-related thoughts:  I'm sure most of the discussion will be on Jeff's conference proposal, but I'd like to talk about something else (and it would also be cool if amendment sponsors were identified).  Amendment #10 (Final Round Provisions) is a fine idea (leveling the playing field between larger and smaller tournaments by only counting JV or open finals against your quota of three for continued JV eligibility if there are at least full quarters in that division).  The reason I'm posting is that I'm hoping someone will offer a friendly amendment to further specify the phrase "An exception will be made for Junior Varsity national tournaments."  As someone who hosted the largest JV Nationals the past two years, I had to interpret that clause.  I received poison pen emails for my interpretation (which was "The number of finals you've been in or whether you've ever qualified for the NDT doesn't matter; if you are otherwise eligible for JV, you're eligible for JV Nationals.").

I think the interpretation that Towson is using this year ("if a debater begins the year with junior varsity eligibility that person is eligible to compete at this tournament.") and that Georgetown used in 2005 is the best one for competitive equity.  It lets you compete in JV Nationals if you were in your third final or qualified for the NDT during the current competitive season (avoiding the "I bought plane tickets but then qualified for the NDT a week before JV Nationals" problem), but it says that if you qualified for the NDT or were in your third final last season (in your first season of JV eligibility), you're not eligible for JV Nationals this season.  I didn't use that interpretation because I didn't see how it was supported by the wording of the by-law.

I'm hoping that folks will discuss this and perhaps amend this otherwise fine proposal to clarify the "exception" issue in whatever way they deem appropriate (but clarify it for sure).  Perhaps the author of Amendment #10 (Maybe Jim Hanson, who has raised this issue before) would consider adopting Towson-like language as a friendly amendment.

--Neil Berch
West Virginia University

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeffrey Jarman<mailto:jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu> 
  To: eDebate eDebate<mailto:edebate at ndtceda.com> 
  Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 5:52 PM
  Subject: [eDebate] CEDA: Exec Sect Report

  Hello Everyone:  Several items to report.

  First, the business meeting is scheduled for Friday, November 16 at  
  9:30am during the NCA annual meeting in Chicago.  A very full slate  
  of amendments has been submitted.  You can find the amendments, a  
  proxy form, and agenda online.  A complete list of all CEDA-sponsored  
  panels is also available under the Business link on the webpage.

  Second, sweepstakes points have been calculated and a third ranking  
  has been produced.  PLEASE check your points and let me know if there  
  is a problem.  Like last year, I will continue to post the updated  
  points by date so you can see how your standing changes throughout  
  the year.  A comprehensive list of points also is available.  Open  
  the file, scroll to your school, and check out how many points you  
  earned at each tournament.

  Third, several offices are open for nominations.  Please consider  
  running for an office in CEDA.  Mike Davis is the chair of the  
  nominations committee.  He must have your name by the close of the  
  business meeting in Chicago.  You do not need to be present to be  
  nominated.  The positions up for election include 2nd VP, Topic  
  Committee, Treasurer, Executive Secretary, and Regional Reps from  
  Northeast, Mid Atlantic, Rocky Mountain, Southern California, North  
  Central and South Central.

  If you have questions, please let me know.


  eDebate mailing list
  eDebate at www.ndtceda.com<mailto:eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>

More information about the Mailman mailing list