[eDebate] the sidelines of the topic writing process....

NEIL BERCH berchnorto
Mon Apr 7 13:26:31 CDT 2008


One small correction:  the NDT and ADA each get one of the nine seats on the 
Topic Committee, and each has total control over the election of their 
respective seat.--Neil
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University


>From: Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
>To: "Massey, Jackie B." <debate at ou.edu>
>CC: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] the sidelines of the topic writing process....
>Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:15:49 -0400
>
>Hey Jackie,
>
>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
>years again).
>
>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
>nats(genuine),
>
>Josh
>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
> > take
> > 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.
> >
> > Peace
> >
> > Massey
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >


>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate





More information about the Mailman mailing list