[eDebate] ceda forum forum

Mike Davis davismk13
Wed Oct 22 21:51:20 CDT 2008


I'm not really pushing for the idea - it was just a talking point, but
it would be one less round (I would say no to a partial quad - so
maybe triples is more accurate) than the current structure of GSU.
That means we could still have the doubles on Sunday night.

I also support what Wake is doing. I think the fact that six round
national tournaments are so rare is a problem for those of us looking
for a humane schedule. It is easy to say suck it up early in your
debate careers, but if we want people to stick around we need to have
options that are not as taxing.

I also think banquets are very important. There is a point where
coming together as a community is important. If you think all that
matters is competition and we should not celebrate those who make the
community special then that is an unhealthy balance.

Mike

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Ross Smith <smithr at wfu.edu> wrote:
> Proving my point about the push for more elims . . .
>
> Yea, sure. Just get back to me when you have a three day schedule that
> accomodates partial quad octas, a banquet, and enough sleep for the coaches
> who drive so that there can be no lawsuits when they crash after falling
> asleep at the wheel.
>
> Also, is it really "big time" elim experience when half the field clears?
>
> For all those talking about the money spent: you want a four day tournament?
>
> On 10/22/2008 10:24 PM, Mike Davis wrote:
>>
>> I floated this idea to Joe Bellon a few years ago when CEDA said any
>> tournament could clear half the field. What about 6 rounds and clear
>> half the field? Less rounds for half the teams at the tournament, but
>> more of a chance for teams that are normally on the outside to get
>> some big time elim experience.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If the point is that the tournament staff wants less total time at the
>>> tournament/tournament hotel I certainly understand that having a less
>>> massive tournament with a smaller break would be great.
>>>
>>> This, however, is the Dixie, the biggest first semester tournament...the
>>> ONLY tournament that is common for virtually every program regardless of
>>> district, style of debate, etc.  If the Dixie no longer wants to be that
>>> tournament that makes sense.  If 100 teams attend the Dixie 68 of those
>>> teams will pay a LARGE amount of money to get two less rounds of debate
>>> then
>>> they usually get.  32 of those teams will have the same outround start
>>> times
>>> the next morning.  For 8 of those teams getting one less round on
>>> outround
>>> day will make a huge difference.....I guess, all I am saying is that
>>> maybe
>>> the value of 8 prelims for the 68 teams is more important then the late
>>> outround comfort of the 4/8 teams in at the end....especially given the
>>> massive costs of travel for most everyone to the tournament.
>>>
>>> Now, Ross has the right to run his tournament anyway he wants to....In
>>> particular, the innovations to debate, the caselist, and every other
>>> great
>>> thing he has done for the community gives him carte blanche...I am only
>>> saying that maybe this one time, the idea wasnt so good,
>>>
>>> Josh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Brad Hall <hallbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everyone should also keep in mind the humane treatment of the people
>>>> running the tournament. For the squads who do actually host tournaments,
>>>> they spend even longer at the tournament than participants do. They
>>>> arrive
>>>> much earlier to make sure rooms are unlocked, cleaned, ballots out, etc
>>>> and
>>>> leave much later. Of 6 Dixies (so far), I only made it to the banquet
>>>> once
>>>> and often room cleaning, updating the scouting and other tasks keep
>>>> debaters
>>>> and coaches up even later. At the very least, we should keep all of this
>>>> in
>>>> mind when trashing rooms, irresponsibly starting debates late and
>>>> interacting with those who host tournaments.
>>>> Also note that the JV breakout will actually result in more debates for
>>>> some younger teams (and with more judges).
>>>>
>>>> Brad Hall
>>>> On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ross et al,
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that the people who want more elims are not the same
>>>> people
>>>> who want more prelims.  As you probably have noticed, some coaches get
>>>> more
>>>> than a little frustrated when tournaments are put together on the basis
>>>> ONLY
>>>> of serving the best and brightest because a great deal of people who
>>>> debate
>>>> never get the benefits of said treatment.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, schools with young debaters who are trying to get them to
>>>> "bid" level generally try to get them as many rounds as possible against
>>>> the
>>>> GOOD teams - two less rounds in prelims for a team that likely will not
>>>> clear is two less rounds they can debate good teams.
>>>>
>>>> Now, that said, usually I agree with most of your "innovations and
>>>> experiments" and like that you are always trying new ways to make the
>>>> tournament experience and/or debate experience better.
>>>>
>>>> Josh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Ross Smith <smithr at wfu.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Repko created a thread there. No commenters. People just use edebate
>>>>> (even though it was down for a long time).
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, I can't create an account at the CEDA forum because it wants
>>>>> some damn code I do not have and there is not even a "contact us" or
>>>>> FAQ
>>>>> at that website.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary Larson is right about prefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> People do not want 13 4 hour (including pre-round prep, decisions,
>>>>> post-round, bathrooms, smoking, lunch . .  .) debates in 3 days time.
>>>>> Everyone says they want more prelims except when they want more elims.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ross K. Smith
>>>>> Director of Debate
>>>>> Wake Forest University
>>>>>
>>>>> 336-251-2076 (c)
>>>>> 336-758-5268 (o)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/
>>>>> http://www.DebateScoop.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> eDebate mailing list
>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ross K. Smith
> Director of Debate
> Wake Forest University
>
> 336-251-2076 (c)
> 336-758-5268 (o)
>
> http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/
> http://www.DebateScoop.org
>
>
>



-- 
Dr. Michael Davis
Director of Debate/Assistant Professor
James Madison University



More information about the Mailman mailing list