[eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure?

JP Lacy lacyjp
Mon Mar 9 23:21:21 CDT 2009


I figure now is a good time to clarify (or alter) my previous comments.

CEDA & the NDT are coming up. Those tournaments have the highest risk of 
disputes over disclosure.

My earlier post on the issue sounded like "disclose what you'd expect, I 
expect people to cheat."

That expectation does not apply to any disclosure by Wake. I don't 
expect us to cheat. I don't expect us to disclose "new advantage" if we 
only change a few cards. I don't expect us to say "new plan" if the 
alterations are purely cosmetic. I don't expect us to alter our plan 
unless we notify the opposition "there may be changes." I don't expect 
us to read a new advantage unless we say "new advantage coming."

More importantly, that "I expect cheating" comment only applies to *me.*

No, *I* won't be upset with you if you "audible" out of an advantage you 
realize we're going to impact turn while you're delivering the 1ac. No, 
*I* don't expect you to read the exact plan you disclose if a similar 
"audible" situation arises. I do expect you to read what you disclose & 
to change that disclosure if you change your mind *before* the round 
starts. To me, genuine *in round* changes should be allowed.

*Others people,* including our debaters & coaching staff, may rightly be 
upset with you if you disclose improperly.

I've blown far too many gaskets over disclosure. Yes, unfair disclosure 
is wrong. Yes, dishonesty is hurtful. Yes, it is incredibly 
disappointing. But, it isn't worth my anger. Not anymore, not yet. I 
still hope that teams disclose what they'd expect themselves.

Obviously, this does not diminish my own expectations for myself or 
teams I coach. We still plan to disclose what we honestly expect on the 
other side.

--JP





Richard A. Garner wrote:
> Gonna have to disagree w/ JP here:
>
>     Honestly, I take all pre-coinflip disclosure with a grain of salt. I
>     don't expect the aff to read the plan text they disclose. I expect
>     them
>     to think a move or two ahead to avoid the latest, best negative
>     strategy.
>
> That's actually sounds like fairly text-book cheating to me. Aff: 
> discloses plan (etc). Neg: preps for an hour. Aff reads: new plan 
> (etc). That = cheating. Yes a debate is always evolving, but you have 
> to specify the grey areas, at least, or SAY EXPLICITLY the plan might 
> change, etc., so the neg. can include in their preround prep the 
> necessity of flexibility.
>
> As to PJ's comment, I think he doesn't so much care about changing the 
> plan text as he cares about people taking to too much advantage of 
> cosmetic changes. Here, again, the grey area specification seems to solve.
>
> RG
>  
>
>     Paul Johnson wrote:
>     > 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
>     <mailto:richardgarner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >> From: Richard A. Garner <richardgarner at gmail.com
>     <mailto:richardgarner at gmail.com>>
>     >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure?
>     >> To: edebate at ndtceda.com <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:debate at ou.edu>
>     >>>> To: edebate at ndtceda.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>
>     >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> eDebate mailing list
>     >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com <mailto:eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>
>     >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>     >>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > eDebate mailing list
>     > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com <mailto:eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>
>     > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     eDebate mailing list
>     eDebate at www.ndtceda.com <mailto: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