[eDebate] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback

Zach Round The World zachrtw
Sun Apr 5 22:40:39 CDT 2009


Clearly my words have had an effect and now others will see the need
to push for the publication and recording. I also hope that in time
every single second of every single round at CEDA nat's or the NDT
make it to the Internet in real time, to be preserved for all time.
Everything should be out there, life is messy. I want to see the nasty
judge's oral critiques. I want to see a 1ar melt down and cry because
they were creamed in the block. I want to see the good and the bad,
because that is where the love and the passion and the things that
make CEDA/NDT debate great.  I will respond to you, simply because it
gives me joy to do so, and then I go away and keep my mouth shut.
However you choose to respond, feel free. The last word will be yours,
I am not a troll. I'm not hiding behind any made up name, I have no
political affiliation in CEDA internal politics, nothing to prove, and
no one to impress. I lived debate, and I walked away, but I still love
debate, and I can still flow. That is not something that happens in my
everyday life behind a desk in my 9-5 job. But I follow along, just a
little, watch as how things morph and change. Every few years I make
it to a college tournament, there are a few people still in the
activity who I have contact with ever now and again. Whenever I find a
coworker with a kid in debate I ask when the tournament is, if they
are looking for judges. They love me. I make tab rooms wet their
pants, they are expecting a random community judge, not a high flow
ex-college debtor who knows what the hell is going on. Remember that
time a long time ago when you actually debated in high school and you
got that random college debater as the judge, and you got to run what
ever you wanted and talk as fast as you could, and so did the other
team? Remember how awesome that was? You may have lost, but it was ok
because the decision was fair one. I get to bring that joy into
people's lives. That's how I pay back, and it's not much, I have a
busy life and debate isn't much of a part of it. In short I am just
like a lot of people who debated for a fair while and went out into
the real world. Outside of your mom we are your biggest supporters. I
freely tell people that a big part of who I am is because of debating
in high school and college. If you are turning someone like me away
you are shutting the door on debate's biggest asset. With that out of
the way let me tell you what I think of your reply and be done with
it.

> I think you should really back off the ad-homs. It comes off pretty
> disrespectful for someone concerned with the public image of debate. If you
> think that me pointing out that debate is not like the NCAA is childish, I
> most certainly apologize for the egregious violation of edebate etiquette.

The ad-homs will most likely stay, fell free not to flow them. They
really are just me being pissed off and snarky. The aren't there for
disrespect, the idea is humor. I took exception to your tone, and the
very robotic reply of the company line. I could care less about
edebate etiquette.

> I'm not going to do the edebate line by line. That's soooo 2004. You make a
> few fair points, but I think you miss the broader issue at stake

Clearly I am not ready to leave the model. Is this a framework
argument? Should I do a dance now?

> There are legal consequences when an organization such as CEDA writes an
> official policy addressing student privacy, the distribution of video
> material, etc. These are not issue taken as lightly as you seem to imply
> with your "why nots." We could have a long discussion about why debate is
> not like the NCAA, why debate isn't seen as important as basketball, etc,
> but it doesn't really matter. CEDA must protect itself. As an organization
> with limited resources, a policy like this most certainly achieves that goal
> without incurring many negative drawbacks besides you not being able to see
> the CEDA final round fast enough.

Then I'm saying that the official CEDA policy is wrong, and if the
only reason you are going to get in trouble is because you violate
your own rules then you have proven that just like GWB you shouldn't
be the decider.  This policy is insane, and will do far more harm to
debate then anything I can think of, short of allowing the use
switchblades in cross-ex. But what is this policy, I can't find any
mention of it on the CEDA site. A search of the site comes up with
very little about video. Was this something just for the Nat's
tournament, maybe this is worse then I feared. Did you actually
preemptively censor people from filming debates because you don't want
to hurt people's feelings? Really I want to know, did this happen? Is
there a copy of that document that I can read? Please back channel if
there is, I'm serious I'd love to know. If you are referring to people
opting out of the documentary that is something totally different.
That is a money making venture, and you are within your right to not
be a part of it. The same is not true for individuals and news
organizations making recording for posterity, for history, and an
learning tool for future debaters. The debator has a right to not be
part of a commercal "project", but I still think that they should be
recorded. They just wouldn't be able to use it in anything commercial
manner. Oh, and I'm not bitcihing about how fast the video is put up,
I'm btiching about there is a real chance there won't be a video up.
Take your time, just put it up.

> In my opinion: students should have the ability to not be recorded if they
> prefer not to. Justin's example is really only the tip of the iceberg of the
> negative consequences of your suggestion.

And in this case I think your opinion is wrong. Your don't have a
right to not be filmed, because I have a right to be recorded with
you. If i'm debating you and I want to film the round so I can watch
my CX and get better I should be able to. oh wait you don't want me
to? Too bad, I'm doing it anyways. Life is pain I guess. It's only the
tip of the iceburg is you keep acting like it's something wrong, like
it's somehting you can control. If recording is a everyday thing then
no one can get upset and sue because they were recorded and didn't
know it.

Stalking is seriously a messed up thing, and my deepest sympathy that
such a unfair thing has happened to this person. However for the
betterment of the activity the person in question should understand
that there will be filming, and if the are in danger then CEDA nats is
not a safe place to hide from your stalker. It sucks and it isn't
fair, and sometimes it isn't. What would have happened had this person
won the damn thing. Would the press release credit the winning team of
John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 of State College University?  Being recorded
at a national tournament should be expected. Also how do the other
coaches feel about someone hanging around who is being stalked by a
dangerous thug? What gives them the right to others at risk? Imagine
if the stalker turned up at nationals with an uzi and decides to take
out the ex, and everyone with them. It would be a great time to do it,
they know there won't be any cameras.

Steve, when I run out of things to say I like go back to source
documents, and if you look over the ceda constitution you would see
that there is a very real, and clear assumption that you will be
recorded. This are assumed to be so fundamental that they aren't
spelled out, but called for by the rules.  Humor me and read the CEDA
constitution XII. Section 8 sub A-B {Emphasis  Mine}

A. This award is given to the intercollegiate debate program which,
over the course of the past
academic year, has best advanced the values of debate in the public
sphere through sponsorship
of one or more public debate activities including international public
debates, radio or television
debates, public debates on campus or for community groups, and through
general promotion of
public discourse through diverse for a to promote critical examination
of public issues for
general audiences.

B. Programs seeking this recognition should submit a portfolio
including a narrative description
of their public debate activities. Programs are also asked to submit
supporting materials of their
choosing which might include participant lists, publicity and
promotional materials, attendance
figures, transcripts or recordings (audio, video, CD, etc.),
commendations and letters of
appreciation, and any other materials that they feel are appropriate.

You see, it's an expectation at a very core level that this is a
public activity, and you will be in the public eye.  If you have a
problem with being in the public eye then you fundamentally have a
problem with debate. My problem with track and field is because I am
fat. Not because I can't run, I just don't want it enough. I have
learned to live with that.

> I had a debater who if he was required to be filmed would probably have quit
> the activity. He was very very good ( a 1st rounder). He was not only
> distracted by the camera, but also extremely uncomfortable with it. Why? I
> don't know. It was just his hangup. Should he have been pushed out? No.

I would have handed little Johnny a copy of the CEDA constitution and
told him to read it. And that if he wanted to do it he was going to
have a gut check and decide which was he more afraid of, cameras or
being a quitter. Man up, there is more to coaching then just driving a
van. Debate will change your life, and by coddling this poor kid you
may have kept him from having his big break through. You didn't need
to push him out, he would have left on his own. Instead of being a
first rounder he could of won the damn thing, but now he'll never
know. Something like that happened to me, I loved to debate, and I was
pretty good at it.  I had this major hang up, I hated that they made
me go to class and get passing grades. They also didn't like the fact
that I smoked weed alot. Really made me uncomfortable talking about my
failing grades. I had to quit debate because of it. Now I see how
unfair to me that really was, thank you.

> I also fully invite you to come to explain to my novices why any person
> should be able to walk into their first debate with a camera and post it
> online for all eternity. If you want to kill the activity, allowing that
> behavior is a good way to start.

Again it's called being a coach, you picked the job not me. I'm not a
kid person, but maybe you could try it like this. Record them in
practice rounds, we did that back in my day, and it wasn't near as
easy or fast as today. If they know from day 1 that there is ALWAYS a
possibility they can be recorded then it becomes no big deal. You
really want me to think that if a novice made it to the finals in the
first tournament they ever went to, and a local TV crew was there, and
wanted to record the round for a special interest story. You would
turn them away because Johnny has butterflies? Throwing up before a
round is something everyone should do. I did it more then once. And I
don't think I was the only one in the bathroom before my first round.
TV camera wouldn't have made me any more nervous, live snakes couldn't
have made me more nervous then I already was.

As for explaining this to your novices I would be happy to. Back
channel me and I'll set up a confrence call on a company line, get a
webex thing going. I'll put together a few slides, and we can get done
in 5-10 minutes. Depends on how many questions they have. I'm 100% for
real, and dead serious. Pick a date and time in the fall, I'll set it
up online. I'll send out the 800 number, confrence ID number, and
webex URL, and the students can call in and follow along on the
computer. I will be totally professional, and good natured about it.
You can even record it, just to make sure I don't try and pull a fast
one. I mean it.

Before you even start, there are no ad-homs in any of the above
statements. I would need to know you to be able to attack you. I
personally don't know you, I'm sure you are a great person and coach.
I am not attacking you, just what you say. I thank you for your
thoughts and time. I hope that the majority of people will agree with
me and in the future debates will be for the people, not the elites
who get to be in the round.

As always


Zach

Robert Benchley  - "A dog teaches a boy fidelity, perseverance, and to
turn around three times before lying down."


On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Steven D'Amico <stevendamico at gmail.com> wrote:
> Zach,
>
> I think you should really back off the ad-homs. It comes off pretty
> disrespectful for someone concerned with the public image of debate. If you
> think that me pointing out that debate is not like the NCAA is childish, I
> most certainly apologize for the egregious violation of edebate etiquette.
>
> I'm not going to do the edebate line by line. That's soooo 2004. You make a
> few fair points, but I think you miss the broader issue at stake:
>
> There are legal consequences when an organization such as CEDA writes an
> official policy addressing student privacy, the distribution of video
> material, etc. These are not issue taken as lightly as you seem to imply
> with your "why nots." We could have a long discussion about why debate is
> not like the NCAA, why debate isn't seen as important as basketball, etc,
> but it doesn't really matter. CEDA must protect itself. As an organization
> with limited resources, a policy like this most certainly achieves that goal
> without incurring many negative drawbacks besides you not being able to see
> the CEDA final round fast enough.
>
> In my opinion: students should have the ability to not be recorded if they
> prefer not to. Justin's example is really only the tip of the iceberg of the
> negative consequences of your suggestion.
>
> I had a debater who if he was required to be filmed would probably have quit
> the activity. He was very very good ( a 1st rounder). He was not only
> distracted by the camera, but also extremely uncomfortable with it. Why? I
> don't know. It was just his hangup. Should he have been pushed out? No.
>
> I also fully invite you to come to explain to my novices why any person
> should be able to walk into their first debate with a camera and post it
> online for all eternity. If you want to kill the activity, allowing that
> behavior is a good way to start.
>
> Best,
>
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Zach Round The World
> <zachrtw at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Good spread on CEDA vs. Basketball, but it fails to miss the point,
>> that was an example, not the crux of my argument. Those are all things
>> that are the way they are because of the media attention that
>> basketball gets today. They were not the rules that filming of
>> basketballl games started under. And for almost everything else my
>> answer is "why not?"
>>
>> -Debate teams do not produce revenue for schools.
>> Why not? They produce money for the staff, what about debate camps?
>> You telling me that a debate camp isn't a revune stream?
>>
>> -Debate teams are not followed by entire communities outside of the
>> university.
>> But they are. Go to Youtube and look at how many deabtes are online.
>> Look at me I'm 15 years out of having any connection to any program.
>>
>> -Debate teams are not regularly televised and schools do not get paid
>> for televised debates by networks. Debaters never signed any informed
>> consent agreeing that their image can be distributed on public
>> airwaves and Internets. NCAA players waive these rights with informed
>> legal paperwork. Their interests are protected by entire college
>> athletic (and legal) structures absent from debate.
>> 1) why not? 2) I can promise that you waived those rights to the
>> school when you were admited. Anything you do while representing your
>> school is something they have say over, not you. Just like when you
>> attend a major league game by simpling buying the ticket you give them
>> to right to se your image for any thing they want.
>>
>> -Debate teams are often not supported by school administration.
>> 1_) Why not? Oh maybe because they won't let themselves be taped and
>> get some attention to the program. 2) Often? You mean there are more
>> deabte teams that get NO funding from the school then do? Amazing,
>> where are those stats?
>>
>> -The vast majority of debaters do not get significant scholarships to
>> compete.
>> Claim data warrant, that's how we did it when I debated, has that changed?
>>
>> -Debaters do not have drug tests.
>> 1) Why not? 2) Too many would fail 3) What does this have to do with
>> anything, they test me at my job, does that mean I can be filmed now?
>>
>> -Debaters do no have an extreme code of conduct anything close to what
>> the NCAA does.
>> Why not? They could. I didn't know that common sense was one of those
>> things that could be codified.
>>
>> -Debate stars are not public figures like NCAA stars.
>> 1) Why not, oh that's right they won' tlet themselves be taped so
>> therefore they can't become public figures. That's not my fault, maybe
>> you need a better PR department. Even my lowely self was interviewed
>> by university paper and city papers. No bright line here. Then again
>> what are you trying to hide?
>>
>> -The top debaters do not get drafted by a professional debate league.
>> No but they do try to get drafted into grad school.
>>
>> -Most people do not find what the NCAA does objectionable, many
>> people, believe it or not, hate what we do.
>> So the way to get people to stop hating you is to stop them from
>> watching you? Only by shining the light of day onto CEDA's dark little
>> secrets can you hope to win over people. You are still close minded
>> and not looking at the big picture.
>> -etc etc etc
>>
>> Um let's seem what else, people worried about how they look on TV?
>> Grow up, put on your big boy shorts and debate. At the level of a
>> nation championship if you are not worring about how you look you
>> shouldn't be national champion. If there is anything you might say
>> that could look bad is someone else saw it 1,5,or 10 years from now,
>> don't say it. I said some pretty crazy stuff when i was debating for
>> Carson (Big T Technocracy anyone?) But I will stand by anything I said
>> in any debate round that I was ever end. I said it, I meant it. ?Just
>> because it's switch side debate doesn't mean you can't be true to
>> yourself.
>>
>> We aren't talking about prime time TV, we are talking about posting
>> videos to youtube. I'm willing to bet there is a good chance that
>> every single person in the final round has already been on youtube at
>> some point and time.
>>
>> I don't buy the arguement that debate forces you to defend things that
>> are objectionable. You don't argue that nuke war is good because
>> someone is forcing you to, you do it because it's easier then
>> answering the line by line. Show me the argument that can be made
>> where the ONLY way to win is to say nuke war good. The easiest answer
>> to Towson is to say racism good, and that africans are an inferior
>> race (you know those cards are out there) but most would never say it
>> beacuse you would have to have no soul to stoop that low to win.
>>
>> So I ask this....
>> Say I show up to nationals next year with a camera, sit out of the way
>> of everyone and quitely sit and record the event.
>> Am I going to be kicked out? On what grounds? Is CEDA not a public event?
>> I make a recording and I post it, you going to sue me? Send a cease
>> and desist letter?
>> I said no way in hell.
>>
>> It's much better to be open and up front, and say every second of ever
>> round will be recorded, posted, and kept up for ever and ever. And if
>> you can't live with that, maybe you should be debating.
>>
>> I'm sorry i really had no intention of saying anything after my first
>> post, but your reply was so childish and condisending that it really
>> got my blood boiling.
>>
>>
>>
>> Zach
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Steven D'Amico <stevendamico at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Zach,
>> >
>> > I think you are unaware of some the reasons for the policy. Most
>> > importantly, I believe there was a legal concern over privacy. It's not
>> > just
>> > about what happened last year.
>> >
>> > Let's count the other ways we are not like the NCAA, because I think
>> > they
>> > explain why your rant was not very well informed.
>> >
>> > -Debate teams do not produce revenue for schools.
>> > -Debate teams are not followed by entire communities outside of the
>> > university.
>> > -Debate teams are not regularly televised and schools do not get paid
>> > for
>> > televised debates by networks. Debaters never signed any informed
>> > consent
>> > agreeing that their image can be distributed on public airwaves and
>> > Internets. NCAA players waive these rights with informed legal
>> > paperwork.
>> > Their interests are protected by entire college athletic (and legal)
>> > structures absent from debate.
>> > -Debate teams are often not supported by school administration.
>> > -The vast majority of debaters do not get significant scholarships to
>> > compete.
>> > -Debaters do not have drug tests.
>> > -Debaters do no have an extreme code of conduct anything close to what
>> > the
>> > NCAA does.
>> > -Debate stars are not public figures like NCAA stars.
>> > -The top debaters do not get drafted by a professional debate league.
>> > -Most people do not find what the NCAA does objectionable, many people,
>> > believe it or not, hate what we do.
>> > -etc etc etc
>> >
>> > Simply put, debaters should not have to worry that 10 years down the
>> > line a
>> > video of them defending spark will surface when they are trying to get a
>> > government job, running for public office, or doing anything else that
>> > has a
>> > routine background check.
>> >
>> > They shouldn't be forced to be on television. You don't prepare for a
>> > debate
>> > event like you would being on video. I don't know if you've ever been on
>> > TV,
>> > but trust me, whenever I go on, I spend hours thinking about how I look.
>> > Debaters should not have to deal with that if they don't want to.
>> >
>> > There have also been debaters who requested to be left out of videos
>> > because
>> > of safety concerns. (use your imagination on this one, I'm not going
>> > into
>> > details).
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Steve D'Amico
>> > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Zach Round The World
>> > <zachrtw at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Long time lurker, reading lots of posts, but never posting, but this
>> >> makes me so mad I have to post.
>> >>
>> >> Post the stinking videos! I'm an ex-debater who still likes to follow
>> >> along with what is going on in debate and I'm very confused not to
>> >> mention sad. I read the listserv and was at nationals last year to
>> >> watch, and was there for the big conflict, but this year I wasn't, so
>> >> because I wasn't there personally I don't get to watch the rounds?
>> >> Bullshit! ?The idea that a national championship would not be taped
>> >> and displayed for all to see is stupid. The idea that it could be
>> >> recorded and a someone could say ?I don't want to appear in it? and
>> >> you actually listen to them is absurd and makes me very sad. What
>> >> other collegiate competition would be this way? These were public
>> >> performances in a public place where anyone could attend. I know
>> >> everyone is walking on egg shells after the bill blow up last year,
>> >> but no one should have the ability to keep these videos from being
>> >> posted. This is really egregious considering that many of the
>> >> attendants are from publicly funded institutions. Courts have up he
>> >> idea that video taping in public is protected under the first
>> >> amendment. CEDA you are really being reactionary and short sited. This
>> >> is PUBLIC SPEAKING folks. If you don't want to be taped DON'T compete.
>> >> Your reasonable expectation of privacy went right out the door when
>> >> you joined. Let's me be clear, anyone can be recorded in a public
>> >> place, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. I can follow
>> >> you around all the time and record every second of your life outside
>> >> of your house and post it to Youtube, and you have zero recourse to
>> >> stop me. You don't own your imagine. That one or two people could say
>> >> ?I don't want to be on the net? and let them have the final say is
>> >> stupid. This is 2009 people, everything is being recorded, and there
>> >> is nothing you can do to stop it. Can you imagine a basketball team in
>> >> the NCAA refusing to be televised? Anyways that's my 2 cents. I'll go
>> >> back to lurking in the shadows, and hopefully never see anything else
>> >> that makes me want to post.
>> >>
>> >> Zach Ferris
>> >> Wichita State Debate 1994-1996
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >> > From: Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
>> >> > Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM
>> >> > Subject: Final round video
>> >> > To: "CEDA-L at ndtceda.com" <CEDA-L at ndtceda.com>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > hello ceda....this may be a question specifically for the ec, but it
>> >> > has
>> >> > some aspects that i think are relevant to everybody.
>> >> >
>> >> > We went to ceda with two cameras and had every intention of following
>> >> > the
>> >> > video taping policy, I at least learned an important lesson last
>> >> > year.
>> >> > As we
>> >> > where setting up our cameras to tape the final round(for our own
>> >> > private
>> >> > educational use, large portions of the towson team where not there
>> >> > and
>> >> > hey
>> >> > who doesnt wnt a video of a team they work with in the final round of
>> >> > nationals)ceda ec members approached us and asked if we could shooot
>> >> > the
>> >> > offical tape because the arrnagements as i remember for them to tape
>> >> > it
>> >> > had
>> >> > fallen through. This went to the extent of agreeing that if we could
>> >> > stream
>> >> > it we should as gordon announced before the round
>> >> > started....paraphrasing
>> >> > now i said "uh you sure you wnt adam and i to tape and post a video
>> >> > from
>> >> > ceda, that seems to be exactly what the policy prempts(i was less
>> >> > funny
>> >> > then
>> >> > but still made the point)...yes...was the answer i got...so i toook
>> >> > the
>> >> > tapes and have been working on converting them as an act of community
>> >> > service....that brings us to now...at least two people have asked
>> >> > that
>> >> > they
>> >> > not be included in any video, and have reminded me about the policy
>> >> > that
>> >> > the
>> >> > round opperated under....im sorta stuck ive been willing to do the
>> >> > work
>> >> > that
>> >> > i have done so far in converting and editing the video but i dont
>> >> > want
>> >> > to
>> >> > post it if people are opting out...even with ec sanction...nor do i
>> >> > want
>> >> > to
>> >> > be responsible in that scenario for developing the "private
>> >> > educational
>> >> > purposes" system that will allow the people we want to see it to see
>> >> > it
>> >> > but
>> >> > not everybody else...? how to go fwd? thanks
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > 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
>



More information about the Mailman mailing list