[eDebate] 4 afa changes

Jim Hanson hansonjb
Sat Nov 29 14:46:41 CST 2008


I consider this a friendly amendment. I don't think the afa should be 
involved in the enforcement of who works and who doesn't. that should be up 
to the school involved.

jim :)
hansonjb at whitman.edu


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Kuswa, Kevin" <kkuswa at richmond.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 6:04 AM
To: "Jim Hanson" <hansonjb at whitman.edu>; <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Subject: RE: [eDebate] 4 afa changes

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 




More information about the Mailman mailing list