[eDebate] [CEDA-L] Reply to Chief
Sun May 10 21:45:24 CDT 2009
It saddens me that your remarks are full of personal attacks and
attempts to deflect the issue. This does not serve you well as a
communication professional, as a role model for students or as a
president of this organization. I will point this out below.
Darren Elliott wrote:
> I will justify my discussion of budgets in my response to Justin. His arguments have merit and I will give them the attention they deserve by writing an appropriate post to him. I dont think it was a pot shot or a low blow.
OK, if you wish.
> As for Idaho State your all-knowing arrogance of what the right decision was regarding CEDA this year wreaks of ignorance about the process and is mean-spirited Tuna. THIS President did not make a unilateral decision about where to host Nationals. 2 bids were brought forward. I solicited the OU bid heavily from Jackie. I loved the OU Nats. Given my penchant for driving to tournaments, I supported the OU bid. But I allowed BOTH to be presented to the Executive Council in Dallas at the summer meeting. Were you there? Did you watch on the web? I cant remember. The Executive Council voted for Idaho State for a number of reasons which I am sure you couldnt care less about--afterall its all about supporting your own right? I mean I love Jackie too and I know hes one of yours but Jesus H, dude, take off the blinders. This was not a personal decision and Im sure it did less to erode confidence in CEDA leadership than many past decisions where programs not
> only didnt go t
> o CEDA but left altogether.
Great, call me names - "all-knowing arrogance" is neither justified by
my argument nor my tone, stating that I "couldn't care less" when I
obviously do (see below), insinuating that I "play favorites" with
Jackie because i think more teams would have gone to Oklahoma, all of
these are unnecessary, unprofessional and besides the point..
Actually, one of my former debaters teaches at ISU and was in recent
years department chair.
Nice of you to "allow" people to be at the summer meeting.
Yes, and it could have been worse. This is an all-purpose argument that
signifies nothing -- it could always have been worse.
Can't you rise above personal attacks? At least you didn't drop the "f
bomb" ten times.
> For those interested in transparency and not just in it for the fight:
> 1. Your Executive Council voted for Idaho State for among other reasons, a ridiculous amount of financial support
> 2. A donor at a program who wanted the program he endowed to host CEDA so he could kick in a load of money and support
> 3. A Region that consistently supports CEDA in attendance but had NEVER had the chance to host the National Tournament. Regional Diversity good judge!
> 4. A presentation by Sarah that should be modeled by any potential host. Her commitment, presentation materials, and abilty to provide amenities most tournaments only dream of was very compelling.
> 5. Other reasons were elucidated as well and the EC was overwhelmingly impressed.
And a lot of teams didn't go. Sarah and ISU did a great job, I said
that, but the location was wrong. If others are right and 30 teams
didn't go that would have gone to Oklahoma, how can you justify to those
60 students that there is no nationals for them besides to repeat the
arguments in favor of it above? I do not think they will be persuaded.
> I dont think anyone should have to justify that decision, but when someone who barely even supports CEDA anymore begins taking shots at a program that worked their asses off to provide one of the best Nationals in memory, it is annoying. The only bad decision was those who chose not to come because it was in Pocatello.
What are you talking about? This year Vermont went to 13 CEDA sanctioned
tournaments. [Bruschke site] Do you call that "barely supporting CEDA?"
You do not seem to even know who is participating in the tournaments or
the organization you lead.
Stop saying that I am criticizing Sarah and ISU when I obviously am not.
Just because Vermont does not sit at your meetings doesn't mean we do
not participate. This is about DEBATE not about business meetings. We
trust our rep to represent. I believe that is your point on the "new
I believe that the president of an academic organization should not
attack active members in good standing with personal insults. You may
not like the questions I am asking or the points I am making, but our
tone should always remain civil.
If you wonder why people may not find this organization welcoming, then
read your post again. Who reading this, perhaps as a new coach starting
out, will feel welcome to raise issues in the future?
>>>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 4:58 PM >>>
> Just a couple of points.
> 1. Taking pot shots at KSU because of their budget is a low blow. Shame.
> I notice Justin did not bring up ****.
> 2. I understand that Sarah and ISU did a great job hosting, they did
> nice work but could not change the location, but it was a bad decision
> to do it there, ignored a strong bid from Oklahoma with lots of
> financial support, and resulted in a very small field. It is these kinds
> of personal decisions that have eroded community trust in CEDA
> presidents. Vermont did not go because of financial considerations and a
> very young team. We would probably have gone to Oklahoma.
> 3. Spare us the humor and stick to the issues.
> Vote no.
Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna
Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics
University of Vermont
Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com
Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu
World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/
World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com
802-656-0097 office telephone
802-656-4275 office fax
More information about the Mailman