[eDebate] Request for Clarification regarding MPJ at Tournaments.

Douglas Roubidoux droubidoux
Tue Nov 11 09:01:40 CST 2008


Tournaments should make sure that it is clear what type of preference is
being used for each division.  If the tournament invite says it will be
using MPJ and thats it, then all the divisions should get it.  Strikes only
for the JV/Novice division should be clear in the invitation.



On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Jeffrey Jarman
<jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu>wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20081111/00b81f38/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list