[eDebate] Disclosure

Jason Russell jasonlrussell1
Tue Mar 10 20:23:49 CDT 2009

I guess I dont see this as a big deal bc the conflict doesn't bother me that
much, and I recognize that this is just me. If you dont want to disclose
something, don't disclose it. If you don't ever want to disclose something,
never disclose. If you hate MSU and don't want to disclose to just them, do
that. I debated (as did most coaches) when disclosure wasn't a norm and when
disclosure norms were created. It is, frankly, possible to do so and really
not that big of a deal. In my experience, disclosure simplifies finding
information on what teams have run previously, and that is helpful, but not
necessary, to debating them. Most people find this system useful and
therefor abide by it, which is fine. But if someone doesn't want to disclose
to you or violates your expectations for disclosure, your options for
dealing with this are largely individual. And, I think that's fine too. I
loathe pre-round CX. When I see my debaters engaging in it, I discourage it,
whether they've initiated it or their opponents have. Overall, I don't like
the idea of coaches talking to other teams' debaters prior to debates at
all. I think it is almost always bullying and exceeds the reasonable
expectations of what people should know prior to a debate. In sum, I think
that disclosure should not be codified because I dont think that it ought to
be an expectation but a courtesy that should be responded to with
reciprocity. That doesn't make it vigilante justice because I dont think it
is unjust to fail to tell someone something that they dont need to know if
the first place. This is something we like to have, not something we have a
right to expect.
As far as JP's questions re: disclosure, I think that reciprocity handles
it. If a team you disclose to pretends that an advantage is new when it
isnt, you should do this in the future when you debate them. Same with
plans. Same with "team affs". On down the line.

The da to rules is that like the national football league's rules on
evidence presentation or citation reading, they are difficult to verify and
contentious to prosecute. You simply pass the buck down the line to judges
who then become the targets of conflict for enforcing less-then-clear-cut
rules. I've been involved in adjudicating two different, high-impact
evidence challenges over the years and having rules on these issues hasn't
made them less contentious and conflict-laden when confronted. It simply
involves more individuals. Teams should handle this one-on-one for that

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090310/4f649e98/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list