[eDebate] [CEDA-L] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA

Darren Elliott delliott
Sat May 9 19:21:18 CDT 2009


2 reasons to vote YES.

1.	Directly after the merger ?CEDA?s? numbers dramatically
decreased.  Since then we have remained stagnant and in some years
decreased even farther.  Many of those programs are still around doing
something different.  Some, perhaps many, would like an event where they
did not have to split resources around the country but could attend a
Nationals with many flavors.  This is the first step in that
opportunity.  

2.	Why the EC and Pres instead of membership vote?  When we hold
arguably the most important vote, the topic, we get less than 50% of the
membership voting.  Imagine an amendment to add Parli.  Allowing less
than 50% of the membership to make that decision should make you no more
comfortable than allowing an EC elected to serve you.  The EC should be
made up of Regional Reps that get the feeling of their constituents. And
if you have a strong feeling one way or another you know who to lobby. 
>From election to election you have no idea who is voting or why.  The EC
makes the decision accountable or at least gives us people to hold
accountable.  All of the arguments made assume a voting population CEDA
hasn?t seen since before 1996.  Is the disad between 20% of the
organization deciding (the EC) and 40% deciding really that significant?
 When the EC votes you have 17 identifiable people to lobby and hold
accountable.  And given that so many of us are so busy, having a
targeted audience whose job it is to study these issues and make
decisions should be enough to empower the EC to do the job.  If the risk
is a fool hardy decision made by the EC imagine a colossal mistake in a
popular vote that the responsibility to carry out is dumped on the EC. 
Who would ever want to serve?

As for the rest of this I am getting closer to Justin on his interp of
the ability of the Pres and EC to carry something out, but I think some
of the things he advocates in the CP might be seen by some as exactly
the language the amendment was getting at and trying to avoid problems
others brought up in the past.  Justin says work with another
organization if a split is the issue and find accommodating hosts.  That
is exactly what I argued for answering Andy that CEDA would never seek
to RUN another organization?s Nationals.  They would bring in THEIR
personnel and run THEIR tab room.  This was all already described by me
when mentioning other organizations.  So the CP is something I advocated
but as part of the amendment.  If Justin agrees no amendment is
necessary for us to host alongside another organization I am all for it
and hope he will defend that when others cry ?foul? if the President
ever goes down that road.  At the Business Meeting at CEDA I was
initially opposed to this amendment until it was clear some felt the EC
needed authority to do what Justin describes above.

To Justin?s ?Pre-Empts?:
Again, this has never been about crowning a Novice National Champion.  I
have do idea where that is coming from and like I said before that issue
seems to be the sticking point and ?I don?t get it?.  CEDA should
continue to have Novice Breakout Rounds.  It increased participation,
led to much needed PR for some programs, and did ZERO harm.  My intent
was to never ?steal? the title Novice Natl Champ from the 5 other
tournaments that crown a Novice Natl Champ.

As for other ?events? Gordon spoke about Public Debate events at the
CEDA EC meeting in Pocatello.  Again I was initially against it myself. 
His reasoning was interesting and he convinced me other tournaments may
offer similar events this year.  Enough so that I changed to supporting
the amendment.  

To Justin?s ?Responses?:
I?m with you on the CP and I have always felt like that was within the
President?s authority.  Others might disagree.  We apparently agree on
it and I?m glad.

I?m still unclear where the line is on direct democracy versus
representation however.  Dozens of decisions made yearly without direct
vote doesn?t = tyranny, but the President and 17 other people elected by
us, making 1 decision = tyranny.  Again, I believe we have reached an
impasse on this one.  Would love to have this talk in person to share
views on representation.


To the ?Ad Hom debate?: 

I?ll give you the Dr. comment.  That was good.  
. 
As for the panel, well 6 degrees of debate separation is a game barking
up the wrong (singular branch) family tree on this one.  As for what
Administration led to the most growth maybe mr debatenumbersgame guy can
provide some insight.  Others will fall on different sides of the
philosophical and ideological divide.  All of the programs that left due
to the merger might vote differently than those who have benefited from
the merger, myself among the beneficiaries I think.  Tuna delivered us
the NDT.  Now if the panel was West, Hobbs, and Graham?wait those folks
left CEDA.  Ehhh.

The Budget Issue:
I made the budget comments to draw an analogy between those who practice
one kind of forensic art and those who might practice many and have to
make forced choices.  Big budget/resources and 1 kind makes it
understandable why one would defend that 1 kind.  Smaller
budgets/resources and desire to do more than one kind often trumped by
the small budget itself.  So schools who want to do multiple events
usually forced out by the market.  National events that accommodate more
than 1 kind brings folks back in.  I?ve got the proof from as early as
last month if you want it.  I apologize if my comments hit a nerve or
were ?out of line? but I thought the analogy was pertinent.  Budgets at
State institutions are part of the public record.  I wonder why
information is not reported accurately if my assessment was incorrect. 
Either way, I do feel like its easier to make the arguments advanced
when you have opportunities perhaps not afforded everyone.  No offense
was meant?just making comparisons between program choices.  

chief




More information about the Mailman mailing list