[eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure

Josh jbhdb8
Wed Oct 22 23:24:07 CDT 2008


Obviously, I have done something to offend Ross, obviously not my
intention.  I made multiple Ross friendly caveats...and tried very hard to
be measured and careful.  I have no idea why my arguments were dismissed out
of hand and little idea why the reaction included hostility.

I will literally concede this debate rather than continue to piss Ross off,
I have that much respect for him.

BTW, I am also a huge Obama supporter and have been doing lots of things in
Ann Arbor and in other places to debunk Mccain attacks etc.  It was both
written in a soft way and even said in joking tone.....apologies for
whatever I did to piss you off.

Josh

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Ross Smith <smithr at wfu.edu> wrote:

> Big picture.
>
> OVERVIEW: If you cannot figure out, as a coach, how to get a highly
> educational experience for your debaters that is worth the money in three
> days at WFU, ask me for hints. Or do not come. A couple of hints: if they do
> not clear in either division (that's why there are at least  40 teams
> clearing, Hoe), have them watch and record rounds. Go back home and have
> them give speeches as if they were in that round. Have them record their own
> rounds. Have them redo speeches from those rounds. Jeepers. the"POOR AND THE
> MIDDLE CLASS" unwarranted jive analogy needs to be highlighted here at the
> top as one of the most ridiculous all time claims (claims, no warrants were
> provided).
>
> Other rebuttalish stuff:
>
> 1) The SQ is not an alt. 20+ hour days are wrong.
> 2) Being there in person, alert, awake, is qualitatively different and
> better for experiencing elim rounds, banquet speeches, and getting back to
> school.
> 3) Totally exhausted students, who cannot appreciate and participate in the
> to-and-for of an elim round, and totally exhausted coaches/judges who have
> questionable safety when driving and questionable decision making skills
> when coaching or judging are not red herrings. Not to mention the fact that
> the exhaustion does spill over into the next day and the day after when
> students miss classes or undereperform in school and teachers/coaches do the
> same. Question: after a tournament that ends on a Monday, when are folks
> really "recovered" and up and running at full speed? By Wednesday? How often
> are people sick?
> 4) I give 25%/33% FACTS and Josh calls it "cherry picking." Nope. Just the
> raw numbers. Low hanging fruit, perhaps, but that's what I get when the
> facts are on my side. How about it? Quality/quantity.
> 5) NDT will probably model our elim day before long, and end before
> midnight (unless someone has a compelling arg against our Monday schedule).
> Therefore, no reason to have our tournament and others be "good practice"
> (by abusing people and ending at 2 am) for an absurd event like the NDT has
> become.
> 6) The McCain thing is one of the dumbest and most offensive (to me) thing
> I have had directed my way on edebate. Hoe expects me to respond by accusing
> him of advocating debate socialism? WE HAVE THIS THING CALLED A TOURNAMENT
> WITH A WINNER. I AM NOW TAKING A BRIEF TIME OUT FROM MY OTHER JOB OF
> ARRANGING OBAMA RIDES TO POLLS FOR A TERRITORY OF A MILLION PEOPLE TO
> RESPOND TO THROW AWAY B.S.???
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/22/2008 11:10 PM, Josh wrote:
>
>>  I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross has earned
>> the right to do whatever he wants with his tournament and that any
>> tournament director should run whatever tournament they want to run.  But,
>> as I seem to be the "disagreeer"
>>  1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the
>> 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if
>> you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful
>> inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of
>> educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%.
>> Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be.
>> JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they are currently
>> operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry picking. However, its true 6
>> is better than it used to be.....but 8 is still better.
>>  2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes
>> next to no difference to the Copeland?
>> JBH: Is that another proposal?
>>  3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social
>> time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That
>> ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The
>> words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all
>> coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"??
>> JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2 more debates.
>>  All of that could happen on the net/edebate/wherever and I would send just
>> as many congrats letters to whoever won.  As you said above "they have more
>> valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include
>> careful inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision
>> are of educational value."   In addition the "social events are good" thing
>> flew the coop a long time ago.  Most coaches go prep if they have a team in.
>> People like free food. Coaches like being recognized but I suspect most of
>> the non-director coaches move on to work.
>>  The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh 120 more
>> debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever).  As much as I would sometime
>> love to win coach of the year...I would probably understand getting it
>> without Greg Achten making fun of me in front of the 300 people (in the
>> fantasy work in which I won).
>>  4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we
>> were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night
>> elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people
>> participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I
>> envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to
>> debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few
>> people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision
>> relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which
>> have known starting times.
>> JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for monday leave
>> when the tickets come up...the people who leave tuesday watch rounds...one,
>> two, three, or whatever.  I doubt very seriously that finals grows in
>> audience much more with the change.....people start partying and play poker
>> and hang out or watch rounds...The problem is never that a bunch of people
>> would watch substantially more rounds if only there were less prelims.
>>  5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It
>> helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final
>> round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even
>> use elims to determine the winner? S
>> JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim debaters?  When was
>> the final round ever the best round of any tournament.  In addition, and
>> perhaps most important, the NDT is even more of an endurance
>> contest....having a few tournaments that are equally as rigorous on the last
>> day is probably a good thing.
>>  6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament.
>> JBH: ?  did you expand to triples?  I might just have missed something
>> here...All 4-2s?  If so, thats a decent argument....of course, my point is
>> still those rounds would be good for the unlucky/not as talented 30%
>>  7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of
>> 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected
>> overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long
>> ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on
>> those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us.
>> Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and
>> severe unfairness in side assignment.
>> JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans banquet, or the
>> sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options that have been suggested.
>>  8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge
>> decision time and post-round discussion time.
>> JBH: agreed
>>
>> 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the
>> quantity of debates you are in.
>> JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more watching
>> either way.
>>
>> 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a
>> fair demand?
>> JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and coaches and
>> judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class?  This is Mccain v Obama
>> here.
>>  Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the Shirley is
>> whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have always been supportive
>> of debate in ways most people only wish to be......I may disagree this
>> once..but it happens,
>>   Josh
>>
>> --
>> 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 <http://www.debatescoop.org/> <
>> http://www.debatescoop.org/>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CEDA-L mailing list
>> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com <mailto:CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com>
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>>
>>
> --
>  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 <http://www.debatescoop.org/>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/9c329b0c/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list