[eDebate] Request for Clarification regarding MPJ atTournaments.

Morris, Eric R EricMorris
Tue Nov 11 09:13:33 CST 2008


The judging pools often differ by division as well. For a variety of reasons, some judges are listed as jv only or novice only. If one feels inclined to strike or downgrade those judges, then it also creates a relative skew. 

I'm inclined to defer to directors who may those sorts of judgements when entering their judges.

Ermo
--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry


-----Original Message-----
From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com <edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com>
To: scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
CC: edebate at ndtceda.com <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Tue Nov 11 08:50:37 2008
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Request for Clarification regarding MPJ atTournaments.

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/20081111/66595d26/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list