[eDebate] the sidelines of the topic writing process....
Mon Apr 7 13:15:49 CDT 2008
We dont agree on this stuff....I think this is our only big argument...none
of this is intended as personal attacks.
Its not the NDT topic meeting....Gordon is a CEDA officer...CEDA does the
election of topic members.....Everyone elected is elected by CEDA. Yes, I
know, I am a secret agent of the NDT illuminati...its still true, they were
Democratically elected by the CEDA membership. Is your argument that the
leadership of CEDA should secede without a mandate?
In addition, it seems the voting process has proven that the majority of
people who vote on topics, topic committee membership, etc etc etc disagree
with your point of view on topics. Is your argument that you should get to
circumvent the democratic process and write the topic yourself? Should you
be "more than an observer" if you arent elected to the topic committee? If
so, why is that exactly?
I obviously disagree with the rest of what you write on this subject...But I
think anyone could search the archives for the last five years and see why
(since you have initiated exactly the same discussion as all those other
Anyway, if you want a vote on secession....ok, put it to a vote...I believe
you can suggest that at a business meeting.
If you want to run for the topic committee (I believe you have if I remember
correctly) run.....Should observers be able to act as if they are members?
If so, why is that exactly?
Hope your off-season is going well, and congrats on the NDT and CEDA
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Massey, Jackie B. <debate at ou.edu> wrote:
> For more transparency, we turn to??.
> You got it? More bureaucracy!
> I attended the topic committee two years ago and have never been so
> disrespected by this community. I was immediately tagged an antagonists,
> and definitely ignored through most of the process.
> For those of you who do not attend, don't think that not being on the
> sidelines really makes a difference. I wrote emails to edebate and I showed
> up in person, the results was another topic that was ideologically
> irresponsible and not respectful of the ideological differences in the
> debate community. Actually, I think the correct assessment was that I was
> told to write a topic paper with wordings in it if I cared so much.
> "but our task is to manage a process that can
> help govern at least the vast majority of the thousands of debates that
> place each year." (gordon stables, 08)
> The result is to use bureaucracy to help manage the topic and have debates
> in the method and fashion about the content and substance those people who
> are on the committee prefer.
> For us simple people who want a simple topic, we don't have a voice on the
> committee, tried, but the free and fair election process was successful in
> denying that voice. I still don't understand why CEDA hosts the NDT Topic
> Committee meeting?
> I don't see that things have changed, but rather I am starting to believe
> that things have gotten worse.
> Look at the NDT booklet that lists the resolutions. It's still debate,
> but if you look at the lengths of the wordings, you would think the
> information revolution was leading us the other way. This means something.
> One of the core issues I think that needs to be discussed to bridge such
> ideological agreements is switch side debate. So if your getting all huffy
> puffy about my degrading remarks on the topic writing process, I challenge
> you to get involved on the discussion about what is "switch side debate" and
> what obligations the topic writing process has to this ideology.
> I think many of the core disagreements may arise from such diverse
> understandings on the importance and meanings of switch side debate.
> If you want to go on a rampage about this post now, you should save your
> energy for the switch-side debate discussion.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman