[eDebate] CEDA: Exec Sect Report
Tue Oct 30 06:37:27 CDT 2007
Chief--Thanks for your thoughtful response. While I prefer the interpretation that Towson is using (mostly because that is what most participants at our JV Nats seemed to prefer), what I most prefer is clarification. If you wanted to put your interpretation (and that's the one I used both years we hosted the Eastern version of JV Nats, because I believe that is what is supported by the current language) into the by-law, that would be better than the ambiguity of the current language. If you wanted to put in language that simply ALLOWED those hosting a JV Nationals to make an exception (and let them figure out what that exception might be), that would be cool, too. As long as we're fixing the rest of the rule, we might as well clarify this.
Note that under the current language as interpreted by the EC, your interpretation is fine. Of course, tournaments are always free to use more restrictive interpretations, and the nature of the required "exception" isn't specified. That, as I understand it, was the rationale for allowing Towson to use a more restrictive interpretation of the exception clause in 2004 when it was challenged. So, I guess what I'm saying (this has rambled more than I might like) is that if there isn't consensus on what the exception should be, then changing the language to make it clear that there is some flexibility might be good.
Finally, let me note that if there is no change to that language, if WVU were to host a version of JV Nationals again in the future, we would again use the interpretation that Chief offers above (which is what I think is best supported by the current language even if I may disagree with it at the margins).--Neil
----- Original Message -----
From: Darren Elliott<mailto:delliott at kckcc.edu>
To: berchnorto at msn.com<mailto:berchnorto at msn.com> ; edebate at ndtceda.com<mailto:edebate at ndtceda.com> ; jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu<mailto:jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] CEDA: Exec Sect Report
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!
Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
CEDA 1st VP
AFA Natl. Council Rep. 2-year Colleges
>>> "NEIL BERCH" <berchnorto at msn.com<mailto: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.
West Virginia University
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey Jarman<mailto:jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu<mailto:jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu>>
To: eDebate eDebate<mailto:edebate at ndtceda.com<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<mailto:eDebate at wwwndtceda.com%3Cmailto:eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman