[eDebate] 4 afa changes

J T jtedebate
Sat Nov 29 09:54:05 CST 2008


Written Ballots:? Silly...very few write anything but prep time on the ballot.? In high school, written ballots were important for a lot of people because they could not receive oral criticism after the noon.

Tournament Profit:? There should be no restriction on the profit a squad makes from hosting a tournament.? Although I've heard mention of this before (vaguely), I would assume this is a response to GA State.? I think community standards will (and do for the most part) prevail.? That's why several directors have expressed that they will not be returning next year.? If you feel business x overcharges, you'll likely go to business y.? But it is unfortunate that some school need to make a profit on their tournament, especially when Hanson offers to help pay for lodging and travel for non-district teams to attend NW CEDA Champs (if you have not attended, you should---Jim takes care of you!)

Research:? What a joke.? Comparing Extemp to policy debate research is a non-starter.? Furthermore, I agree that section 7 should be struck outright.? It will never be enforceable and assumes it is ONLY debaters that receive the educational benefits of research (whatever that research may entail:? books, lexis, ethnography, etc.).? That is one of the primary reasons I do so much research--education...and you can't hold me back!? I will probably cut cards until the day I die.? I can also sign on to just having the first line of Jim's correction.? The second line is a program/director issue--but I agree that people who do not "work" [flexible term] probably don;t deserve to travel.


W. James Taylor ("JT")

Asst. Debate Coach

Emporia State University



***Nothing in this email should be taken to represent Emporia State Debate or Emporia State University.  The contents are the sole opinion of the author.

--- On Sat, 11/29/08, Kuswa, Kevin <kkuswa at richmond.edu> wrote:
From: Kuswa, Kevin <kkuswa at richmond.edu>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] 4 afa changes
To: "Jim Hanson" <hansonjb at whitman.edu>, edebate at ndtceda.com
Date: Saturday, November 29, 2008, 6:04 AM

Jim,
 
Thanks for doing this administrative work---I have not looked closely at all
the proposed changes but have followed the debate about "graduate student
research" for some time now.  This is one of Joel's favorites.  The
other changes seem reasonable, although the written ballot can be a helpful
guideline at times.  Also, why mention "excessive profit" for a
tournament if those numbers are not public?  I'm sure your tournament runs
at a lost and we have not run in the black, but others do (and might need to, as
you say, to operate during the year).  Those are all things open for debate. 
You should also refer to the ADA documents for some helpful language on all of
these issues.
 
In the short-term, though, your "enforcement" correction in the
research section IS A TOTAL NIGHTMARE.  What is research and why would you want
to prevent students from competing on this issue?  What about novices?  What
defines "collaborative"?  I agree that the enforcement for that (Art
7) should be removed.
 
You Propose This:
 
3. Forensics competitors are expected to research on their own or as part of a
collaborative effort with other students and coaches. Students who fail to
contribute by researching on their own or as part of a collaborative effort
should not be permitted to compete.
 
 
What about the first sentence only?
 
Change to:
 
3. Forensics competitors are expected to research on their own or as part of a
collaborative effort with other students and coaches. 
 
 
The collective rush to enforce standards like these in the past year has been
alarming to say the least.  
 
Sincerely,
 
Kevin
 
 
 

________________________________

From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Jim Hanson
Sent: Sat 11/29/2008 3:01 AM
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: [eDebate] 4 afa changes


 
I've sent this to al louden who I believe is the afa president, but figured
I would share it with the larger community.
 
==========CHANGE THE RESEARCH EXPECTATIONS TO BE COLLABORATIVE

CURRENT

ARTICLE II
3. Forensics competitors are expected to do their own research. 

A.	Persons other than the forensic competitor (undergraduate students, graduate
students or instructor/coaches) are not to get charged with the responsibility
for doing a forensics competitor's research. 
B.	This provision shall not be construed to prevent coaches or assistants from
engaging in limited research designed to: 

	i.	teach research techniques 
	ii.	provide limited examples of high quality research 
	iii.	identify areas of research which students should pursue, and 
	iv.	provide the coach with the working knowledge necessary to function as
effective critic with respect to the debate or speech topics being investigated
by his/her students. 

ARTICLE V
7. Forensics squads found guilty of using non-competitors for primary research
purposes will have a note of censure published in the AFA Newsletter, with
written notice of the censure communicated by the AFA President to appropriate
officials at the offending school. The squad will be barred from national
competitions sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA for a period of 12
calendar months from the date when the Educational Development and Practices
Committee ruled the school to be in violation of this part of the Code. 
 
CHANGE TO
 
ARTICLE II
3. Forensics competitors are expected to research on their own or as part of a
collaborative effort with other students and coaches. Students who fail to
contribute by researching on their own or as part of a collaborative effort
should not be permitted to compete.
 
ARTICLE V
7. Forensics squads found guilty of having students compete who did not do
their own research or did not participate in a collaborative effort with other
students and coaches will have a note of censure published in the AFA
Newsletter, with written notice of the censure communicated by the AFA President
to appropriate officials at the offending school. The squad will be barred from
national competitions sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA for a period of
12 calendar months from the date when the Educational Development and Practices
Committee ruled the school to be in violation of this part of the Code. 
 
RATIONALE: In debate and in extemporaneous speaking, these research
expectations are unrealistic, unhealthy, and grossly out of touch with how
debate and extemporaneous speaking is practiced. Collaborative research on
squads with students and coaches is a norm and we all know it. Collaborative
research is beneficial; it makes all involved work together, as a team. Such
research approaches should not be punished by the AFA.
Further, as far as I am concerned, Article V, Section 7 could be removed
entirely. This really should be a coach's prerogative.
 
 
==============DON'T PROSCRIBE JUDGING TEAMS TWICE IN PRELIMS
 
CURRENT
 
ARTICLE III, SUBSECTION E
iii. A judge shall not judge the same debate team or student speaker in one
particular individual event twice during a tournament's preliminary rounds
unless there is no way to avoid this conflict. In such cases: 

CHANGE TO
 
ARTICLE III, SUBSECTION E
iii. A judge shall not judge the same debate team or student speaker in one
particular individual event twice during a tournament's preliminary rounds
unless there is no way to avoid this conflict or if the tournament is seeking to
maximize judge preferencing. In such cases: 
 
RATIONALE: Judging teams twice is a good way to maximize judge preferencing.
The provision to avoid a judge seeing a team on the same side remains in place.
The AFA should not prohibit this. Tournament directors should make the decision
to establish this practice.
 
 
=============CHANGE THE EXPECTATION OF A WRITTEN BALLOT
 
CURRENT
 
ARTICLE III 
 
4. Tournament judges are obliged to provide detailed and constructive criticism
of any and all rounds of competition they evaluate. Judges are expected to
provide written comments on the ballots provided by the tournament. These
written comments should be made available to all the competitors a judge has
heard by the conclusion of the tournament. All provisions of this article shall
apply to high school and college competitors. 
 
ARTICLE V
9. Tournament directors should forward names of all judges who fail to turn in
written ballots for all the preliminary rounds they judge at a tournament to the
chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee. Any school which
leaves a tournament without all of the preliminary round ballots it should have,
and assuming there is no valid explanation for missing ballots, may notify the
Chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee of the judge(s) who
failed to provide ballots. If a judge is guilty of failing to provide written
preliminary round ballots for all rounds judged by the end of the tournament on
two occasions, the judge shall: 

	A. Be subject to censure by notification in the AFA Newsletter, and 
	B. Be declared ineligible to be hired as a judge at any national competition
sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA. 
	C. Be informed when notification of the second failure to turn in ballots is
received. The judge to appeal that the penalty should not be imposed, under the
appeal procedures outlined in Article IV, Section 4 of the Code. 

 
CHANGE TO
 
ARTICLE III 
 
4. Tournament judges are obliged to provide detailed and constructive criticism
of any and all rounds of competition they evaluate.

	A. Judges in debate rounds should provide comments justifying their decision.
Based on the expectations set by the tournament host, such judges should provide
these comments orally to debaters at the conclusion of debates and/or in writing
on ballots provided by the tournament. 
	B. Based on the expectations set by the tournament host, judges in speaking
events should provide comments in writing on ballots provided by the tournament
and/or orally to speakers.
	C. Written comments should be made available to all the competitors a judge
has heard by the conclusion of the tournament. 
	D. All provisions of this article shall apply to high school and college
competitors. 

 
 
ARTICLE V 
9. Tournament directors should forward names of all judges who fail to meet the
expectations of a tournament director to offer oral comments and/or to turn in
written ballots for all the preliminary rounds they judge at a tournament to the
chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee. Any school which
leaves a tournament without oral comments or written ballots for all preliminary
rounds, and assuming there is no valid explanation for the lack of oral comments
or missing ballots, may notify the Chair of the Educational Development and
Practices Committee of the judge(s) who failed to provide oral comments or
ballots. If a judge is guilty of failing to provide oral comments or written
preliminary round ballots as expected by the tournament director for all rounds
judged by the end of the tournament on two occasions, the judge shall: 

	A. Be subject to censure by notification in the AFA Newsletter, and 
	B. Be declared ineligible to be hired as a judge at any national competition
sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA.
	C. Be informed when notification of the second failure to offer oral comments
or to turn in ballots is received. The judge to appeal that the penalty should
not be imposed, under the appeal procedures outlined in Article IV, Section 4 of
the Code. 

RATIONALE: This section is also embarrassingly out of date for college debate.
Virtually no policy debate tournament uses written ballots and many
parliamentary debate tournaments do the same. Oral decisions and feedback are
excellent ways to directly discuss why the judge decided as he/she did, how to
improve, and how to do so before the next round--providing a great way to
improve. Further, oral decisions reduce tab errors because the competitors know
who won and can notify the tab if there has been an error. This should not be
dictated by the AFA; the expectation should be set by the tournament director.
 
 
===========TOURNAMENT SETUP EXPECATIONS
 
CURRENT
5. Tournament directors should ensure that: 

	A. Results are made available to all contestants as soon after competition
ends as is humanly possible. 
	B. Their tournament is not run to benefit financially the best (I ASSUME THIS
MEANS HOST) school. An anticipated profit in excess of 10% of total entry fees
is considered excessive. 
	C. Their tournament runs smoothly and efficiently, with breaks in between
rounds for power-matching minimized whenever possible. 
	D. All results are kept secret if that is specified by the tournament rules. 

CHANGE TO
 
5. Tournament directors should ensure that: 

	A. Results are made available to all contestants as soon after competition
ends as is humanly possible. 
	B. Their tournament should not make profit beyond that generated by paying
minimum wage to those volunteering their services to the program (for example,
team members or coaches judging or assisting with tab for "free"). In
the event, that a tournament makes profit in excess of this amount, it should
make note that such is possible in its tournament invitation.
	C. Tournament schedules should be realistic so that rounds actually occur
close to the times included in the tournament's invitation and they should
not exceed 14 hours a day except for a select few competitors in the last
elimination round.

RATIONALE: This section of the AFA code is updated on two accounts. First, some
programs depend upon their tournaments to fund their programs. Further,
"10%" is arbitrary. The key should be the amount of work a program
puts into a tournament. And, if a tournament is going to make profit beyond
that, they should just let other programs know it. Programs can make their own
determination about whether to attend or not. Second, the power-matching time
minimized and secret rules seem irrelevant/unimportant. What is important that
tournament days not be too lengthy and that they remain on schedule.
 

	jim :)
	hansonjb at whitman.edu
	


jim :)
hansonjb at whitman.edu

_______________________________________________
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/20081129/2ea09beb/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list