[eDebate] Request for Clarification regarding MPJ at Tournaments.

Jeffrey Jarman jeffrey.jarman
Tue Nov 11 08:50:37 CST 2008


The rule states that each division must employ some type of  
preference.  The author of the amendment has stated that "strikes  
only" in jv/novice conforms with the intent of the rule.

To be clear:  if you employ some type of preference in Open (strikes,  
mpj, etc), then you must employ some type of preference (strikes, mpj,  
etc) in all divisions.

Below is the text of Darren's post on the issue from Nov 25, 2007 when  
he wrote to eDebate to encourage a yes vote on the amendment:

"Amendment #7 Tournament Sanctioning
This amendment will make sure that tournaments that use a preference  
system in any division will use some sort of preference in all  
divisions offered to receive CEDA sanctioning. It makes a  
philosophical statement that if we value MPJ than it should extend to  
all divisions, and that as an organization we do not value placement  
over division. What it does NOT do is require the same  preference in  
each division. One division might get 6 categories and strikes,  
another may get ABC, another may just get strikes. The options are  
endless. But it does preserve the ability to allow some protection for  
Novice and JV teams, who normally get the judges struck out of the  
Open pool. I think as an organization we need to make a statement that  
all levels of debate are valuable and receive our acknowledgement."

Jeff


On Nov 10, 2008, at 9:19 PM, scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote:

> We have been to three tournaments post-amendment regarding  
> equalization of MPJ
> for all divisions. My impression is that at each tournament, varsity  
> teams have
> recieved all of the preferences/MPJ, with junior varsity and novice  
> getting
> little or nothing. There are a lot of reasons that I can list as to  
> why I think
> this is a bullshit deal for novice and JV teams, but I will save  
> that rant for
> another day. Rather, I just want to know whether the amendment to  
> CEDA 1) has
> any meaning at all and 2) if it does, what the hell does it mean?  
> Because if
> the goal was to make the opportunity to have my teams have a chance  
> to be heard
> by the top judges, I think the amendment has become an epic failure.  
> Can someone
> from the CEDA Executive Committee, or the CEDA Executive Secretary,  
> establish a
> clear explanation to tournament directors what they are required to  
> provide for
> a CEDA sanctioned tournamnet?
>
> Scott Elliott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20081111/a061bbbf/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list