[eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure?

Paul Johnson paulj567
Wed Jan 21 23:41:09 CST 2009


Also, on a related note:

can we make it a sort of community norm that you not just change the plan in a cosmetic, immaterial way just so you can say "new plan" before a debate? we have no way to enforce this, of course. but its just a dick move, and pretty much bush league. so how about we not do it? 

Thanks,
Paul Johnson


--- On Wed, 1/21/09, Richard A. Garner <richardgarner at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Richard A. Garner <richardgarner at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure?
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 9:28 PM
> 1. You can only hedge in very narrow situations, i.e., if
> it's the loser's
> choice (we'll go negative if you run your X aff or
> we'll go aff. and run a
> new aff.) ... maybe; subject to #2.
> 
> 2. You have to say new aff or specify old aff (and which,
> plan, advantages,
> etc) before the flip; a team needs to prep new aff
> strategies, generally,
> and a team you're flipping against (i.e., in an
> elimination round) probably
> requires you to prep for their old aff, too, anyway. If you
> call new aff.,
> you have to run one.
> 
> 3a. If someone on your team has run the same commodity, but
> its a
> substantially different aff. (substantially = 90%; here,
> that 10% percent
> might be 'fish prices low'), then "new
> aff" is fine...maybe.
> 3b. If its mostly different, but not totally, tough call. I
> say, "Fish with
> Japanese relations old advantage, the rest is new".
> People specify that
> someone on the team has run an aff because it's new to
> them, but they sort
> of deserve to break it as a "new aff" if it's
> _their_ new version/research.
> 3c. Last year Harvard had a new aff at the NDT which
> consisted of a new plan
> text, and a new advantage. The country was still Iran, with
> one (two?) new
> advantages stemming from the new plan text, and one (two?)
> old advantages
> that the new plan still solved. Disclosure was "new
> aff, still Iran, still
> proliferation, the rest is new," or something like
> that.
> 3d. When the topic writes the plan text, new advantages or
> plan changes are
> essentially new affs. The conception of what a "new
> aff" is seems to have
> been outpaced by events. However, it's still a new aff
> for that team even if
> someone else has run it somewhere else (so, wheat is still
> a new aff. to
> everyone else in the country except UNT and whoever else
> has run it).
> 
> RG
> 
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Kris Willis
> <kristopherwillis at hotmail.com>wrote:
> 
> >  We found ourselves in this situation recently. We
> initially said we had
> > both a new and existing aff we could read, lost the
> toss, and then decided
> > to read the current (Not New One) and disclosed.
> > My preference would be a community that doesn't
> have to disclose the "new
> > aff" but one that would at least commit to
> reading a new or existing one.
> > My one recognition would be that if we were the
> negative, we would prep the
> > old aff anyway so it might not make much difference.
> > But I would prefer that one team not have potentially
> even more leverage in
> > a flip situation or dare I say, even fake a new
> affirmative to try and get
> > the other team to chose to read their own affirmative.
> > Kris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: debate at ou.edu
> > > To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> > > Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:56:15 -0600
> > > Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure?
> > >
> > > I have a question and trying to find a community
> opinion.
> > >
> > > If one team wins the toss, how should these
> scenarios play out.
> > >
> > > Do you have to commit to an affirmative before
> the other team chooses
> > negative?
> > >
> > > Is it okay to say
> > >
> > > We could run a new aff or an old aff.
> > >
> > > or do you have to say the exact affirmative you
> would run?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The key question, do you have to commit to a
> specific affirmative before
> > the other team chooses their side? Does that take away
> the reciprocity the
> > team stuck with aff would have in relation to the coin
> toss?
> > >
> > > peace
> > >
> > > jackie
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > eDebate mailing list
> > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Windows Live? Hotmail(R):?more than just e-mail.
> Check it
> out.<http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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