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

Josh jbhdb8
Mon Apr 7 15:01:19 CDT 2008


Yes, that is true, however, they are part of the CEDA topic committee...and,
I suspect, they are CEDA paying members as well,

Josh

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:26 PM, NEIL BERCH <berchnorto at msn.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080407/7c550fee/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list