[eDebate] NCA Submissions for San Diego, Nov 21-24, 2008

Morris, Eric R EricMorris
Fri Feb 1 01:13:21 CST 2008


...Proposing a panel discussion over a boycott would probably be too snarky.....
 
I agree with Zomp's general concerns about the change in NCA policies. In fact, they were widely unpopular with most people in the program planner's conference. It will not surprise me if this approach were discontinued after its 2 year trial period. My school, as well, does not pay for NCA dues. It is actually a monthly budget category for me, as I save up the entire year for this expense. Of course, NCA had previously viewed conference registration as an ethical expectation for all presenters, so the difference this year is the enforcement mechanism of PRE-registration.
 
That said, a protest against NCA might be counter productive if limited to just certain people or even debate generally. NCA remains an important tool to academic credibility and advancement for many coaches and aspiring coaches, and further marginalizing debate in the discipline that hosts many debate programs might not be a good long term plan. I disagree with the suggestion we do not benefit from the association. Whether the benefit outweighs the cost is another question. It may be harder for some coaches to get funding to attend a CEDA/NDT meeting if it wasn't also part of a major conference. 
 
Still hoping to assemble some panels,
 
Dr. Eric Morris
Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics
Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication
Missouri State University
Springfield, MO 65897
(O) 417-836-7636
(H) 417-865-6866
(C) 417-496-7141
AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna

________________________________

From: Zompetti, Joseph Perry [mailto:jpzompe at ilstu.edu]
Sent: Fri 2/1/08 12:40 AM
To: Morris, Eric R; edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: RE: [eDebate] NCA Submissions for San Diego, Nov 21-24, 2008



I have a lot of respect for Ermo, but I want to voice my objection to his post about NCA, which is not about the content, per se, but the philosophy behind NCA's policies.

In fact, I would encourage a widespread protest against NCA.  NCA's recent policy change about registering only exacerbates their pricing structure, rather than fixing it.  NCA argues that in the past they have lost up to $80,000 from participants who attend the conference, but then don't register.  Their solution:  Kick out people who have been vetted and then approved for top papers, panels, and other conference presentations if they don't pay their registration fee.

In other words, it never occurred to the ultimate wisdom of the NCA elite that their conference registration fees were too high in the first place.

Not every institution pays for their students/scholars' conference fees. 

Although I'm an associate professor (with tenure) at a leading Communication institution, my school doesn't pay for NCA registration fees.  I know I'm not alone.  And it's even worse for graduate students.

So...I say to hell with NCA.  They actually don't do us any favors anyway.  If you're a scholar, you can get the same bang for your buck (actually, more bang) if you go to a regional conference.

If you're involved with debate organizations, I think our CEDA and NDT organizations should start to boycott NCA as well.  In fact, the NDT meeting in Chicago could have just as easily be held via email.  For those who attended NCA just for the NDT meeting wasted their money.

There are much, much cheaper alternatives.  And NCA is acting like a mortgage finance institution...hiking prices with no benefit.

zomp

________________________________

From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Morris, Eric R
Sent: Fri 2/1/2008 12:27 AM
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: [eDebate] NCA Submissions for San Diego, Nov 21-24, 2008


I'm writing to encourage people across our community to submit individual papers or panels to be considered for the CEDA division slots at the National Communication Association in 2008. There are a few important differences in the coming NCA from the past years:
1. The NCA convention is Friday-Monday (not the typical Thursday through Sunday). Thus, some of the normal Wed business meetings will be on Thursday, instead.
2. Early convention registration is now required by NCA. People who haven't joined NCA and paid dues by August 6, 2008 will not be added to the convention book, even if their panels/papers had been accepted.
3. This year's theme is unCONVENTIONal, which means doing things differently as near as I can tell.
4. We also get a free "extra" slot at the Scholar's sessions for our top papers.

The submission deadline is Feb 13 at 5pm EST, which the Wednesday AFTER Texas.

If you are a current debater, or younger coach, or have never presented at NCA, you should think about doing so this year. I would be happy to chat with you about the process to make it as easy as possible!

If you wish to submit an individual paper or organize a panel, please head to the All Academic website to get started. (http://www.natcom.org/disclaimer.asp) Last year, we had several impressive individual papers presented on a top papers panel. Those papers covered both issues of debate practice and argumentation concerns outside our community.

If you have an idea for a panel, but want me to assemble it, I would be happy to do so if we can find a few more people to join it. Just email me and tell me what you'd like to talk about and I will be happy to matchmake.

As with last year, I'll start the ball rolling by suggesting some discussion panel topics. I suspect some of the CEDA EC will also make panel suggestions, and I encourage others to do the same.

Here are some opening ideas - please write back if you'd be interesting in joining a discussion (or paper) panel for some or all of these.
1. CEDA's 40th anniversary - what has CEDA become, and where should be go from here?
2. Open Source evidence - should we do more to encourage open access to evidence?
3. Technology and debate - how is it changing, where is it going?
4. Templates, tech, and tips - perhaps we should even consider a pre-conference training session to help disseminate all the great ideas about evidence formatting that some people have developed.
5. The Conferences Proposal. It didn't pass, but generated much discussion. Are there ways we should restructure CEDA to enhance the ability of programs to define their own goals.
6. Debate economics. How should we deal with resource disparities, and are there better community practices to manage costs?
7. New program recruiting. What can we do to help create and sustain new programs?
8. Coaching careers: the next generation - How can we improve the job security of debate coaches, whether directors, assistants, GTA's, etc.
9. Debate Theory - should the community reconsider its views on particular counterplans, kritiks, topicality, framework arguments, etc.
10. Judge imposed incentives. Are judging penalties/rewards for certain types of arguments an appropriate and effective strategy?
11. MPJ, Judging Practices, and the Judge Market. Should tournaments increase judging requirements to facilitate MPJ? Should tournaments have different rules for hired judges than for indigenous (??) judges?
12. The future of the kritik - are the expectations of judges changing? Is this good or bad? How should judges view the K?
13. Participation & Diversity. How should we go about increasing the number of debaters, the number of rounds, and the diversity of our community?
14. Speaker point experimentation - Lots of tournaments played with ways to disrupt speaker point compression. Where should we go now?

Keep in mind -  a few years ago, CEDA and many others lost some panel slots because we didn't have too many more entries than panel slots. Last year in particular, I feel we had great submission numbers and an acceptance rate near 50%. The more submissions we have, the better our chances to protect our current slots and the better we position ourselves if the number might expand.

Dr. Eric Morris
Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics
Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication
Missouri State University
Springfield, MO 65897
(O) 417-836-7636
(H) 417-865-6866
(C) 417-496-7141
AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080201/7920543d/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list