I meant a DEEPER view is important as well.
From: "NEIL BERCH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] Encouraging your "yes" vote on CEDA business
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:22:20 -0500
I think Jackie (and Andy before him) raise an important issue. I only
focused on novice winners because that gave the broadest picture given the
time I had. A broader view is important as well. I've got a busy few days
ahead of me (both professionally and personally), but I'm going to try to
look at all the teams that debated in novice in the largest ADA tournament
so far (King's), the largest CEDA Northeast tournament (West Point), and
the largest Midamerica novice division (UNI, with just 11 teams). I'll try
to get this done in the next couple of days, and I'll post my results to
debate and CEDA-L. Note, though, that this is probably about 5 times as
much work as the previous post, and first I have to change our John Carroll
hotel reservations (remember, Brent, anyone can run a tournament when there
are no glitches; it's how you respond to crises that is key, and clearly
you're on top of this!).--Neil
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University
From: "Massey, Jackie B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Darren Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] Encouraging your "yes" vote on CEDA business
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:45:57 -0600
>From my mailbox:
Amendment #9 Novice Definition
This amendment has created the most discussion on the listserve. While I
wrote the original amendment, I would not be against changing my mind in
the face of good reasoning. While some arguments against have been put
forward, both in the Business Meeting (where it received near unanimous
support) and on this list serve, none of those arguments have swayed me.
Both sides of this issue can prove that we might lose novices with or
without the amendment.
----- Why didnt you just stop here? Let people decide now?
Chief Says:
However the arguments I put forward are the only ones that seem to
answer all of the offense generated, solving that offense, and at the same
time provided unanswered disadvantages to staying the course.
---- Is this how you talk to your administrators? Your trying to make
facts out of subjective interpretations. Why cant you accept that it cuts
both ways like above, and not continue with somewhat of a not so true
method.
Chief says:
Some people have provided good anecdotal evidence how debaters they have
with HS LD experience can achieve success even in JV with little to no
coaching (Hanson) and have provided ample hard evidence (Berch) that those
winning Novice divisions have HS LD experience a lot of the time (and in
some cases have ridiculous amounts of
experience) and are walking through Novice. Yet they arent being moved
up.
--- Yes, berchs evidence was overwhelming. However, it really depends on
the debater. Some LD debaters learn to flow, others dont. Neals post
may have changed my mind on the issue. What about the anecdotal
evidence I offer that LD debaters are much more willing to join debate if
they can go novice. One thing about neals post is that it only recognized
the winners, not to mention the many former LD debaters who dont even win
in novice.
Chief Says:
The problem is in the SQ there is no check and no way to prevent the
abuse. When ethics and competition collide there is often a slide on the
ethical (Harris), and this remains unanswered. Pressure has not and is
not working. The only arguments against have been that people forced into
JV will quit. No one has answered that we allow an exemption waiver
process in CEDA that if a debater is really not ready for JV they can go
in Novice with an exemption.
------- Actually, someone did answer the waiver argument, maybe you just
forget those posts that dont agree with you. Just ignore It maybe it
will go away?
Chief says:
This solves the offense and remains unanswered. And I will go one
further--the CEDA EC has already granted such waivers this year, proving
the system works.
--- This is so subjective the EC determine if students should be in
novice or not? There is a time lag, etc. I think this is a bad
alternative.
Chief says:
These were cases where the debater really was a novice even though not
so definitionally. What CEDA cant do however is the reverse. We cant
tell novices they have to move up even if they have 50, 100, or 150 rounds
of HS LD experience. That means the debaters they trounce have no
protection and THEY are the ones who walk away.
--- This is your best way of dealing with the issue that the current rule
is a bridge, and does also allow for a situation where LDers move to
policy. I agree, some Novices get trounced and quit, but THEY are not
the only ones effected by this rule.
Chiefs Says:
I also believe that any coach can make decent arguments why a debater
should go JV at least at first if they have HS experience, thereby
preventing the debater from quitting outright. And, if that debater does
so poorly, they do deserve to move down, the coach can assure them there
is a waiver process that allows that.
---- Do you explain this to the new students as going JV solves all the
offense of you debating HS policy debaters and the waiver process solves
all the disads to the intimidating experience you will engage?
Chief says:
Unfortnately very few coaches will be successful in convincing a true
novice (no experience) that they should stay even in a world where they
are getting hammered by novices with experience. Myself and others have
also spoken to the nature of the policy/critical divide that is blurred
these days and one can no longer assert that LD is so different from
college debate that it shouldnt count.
--- I think that your assumption that LD is critical is laughable. I
have to say no more.
Chief says:
Finally, I think anyone with a concept of a flow, speech order, time
limits, a judge, etc. (especially with over 50 rounds of such experience)
is so far ahead of any true novice, that they really should not be
considered novice without some pretty serious limitation on their part
(which can be accounted for in a waiver process). In order to preserve
the intent of the novice division, in order to protect the novices that
currently do not have protection, and in order to help grow and preserve
the numbers in novice, I encourage you to vote yes on this amendment.
---- You are saying that we should take first year LD debaters and first
year policy debaters, and put them in the same division. I am saying the
HS Policy debater has a huge advantage over the HS LD er. Then does the
LDer quit for getting trounced?
Chief says:
Let me add one other thing about the Novice Amendment. My program could
gain a lot more from the SQ than the world of the amendment. In KS, MO,
OK there is a ton of LD debate. Tonight I looked up how many graduating
Seniors this year in the 3 state area did just LD (and high amounts). In
case you didnt know there is a ton of debate in KS, MO, and OK and a ton
of that is LD. I would have a hard time deciding which of the 10 to offer
full ride scholarships to and recruit and stack the Novice division.
---- Stack the novice division? I am skeptical on why you dont have more
novice teams, but I guess this clears it up. And to say you do it for
ethics is grand of you.
We probably agree on the problem. Neals evidence was overwhelming.
However, is it just LD?
Many of the students have IE experience, Student Congress, Public Forum.
Since they did those activities, should that count also? That was just as
common as LD.
How about a move up rule in novice instead? You win 2 novice tournaments
or final 2, you move up. This sounds much better.
I admit that I benefit from the current rule. I love teaching LD debaters
policy debate. However, very seldom do any of my debaters stay in novice
more than two or three tournaments. As far as benefits for points and
rankings, I am not sure that novice brackets have counted for many of the
CEDA points in our region ever. The average size is about semis.
What will novice look like in a region that is comprised of over ½ their
debaters in novice have LD experience? Will we even have a novice
division?
Take UCO, what if all the teams with LD experience were eliminated. We
would have probably 2-3 teams in novice. IE no novice, those novice have
to go JV, and then what happens? Oh yeah, your scenario happens still in
a worse way. DA to your plan.
There is a huge divide in the skill level of LD debaters. At UCO there
was one novice that was way ahead of everyone else. Even the other
debaters who had LD experience were no match. She made my debaters
better, trying to figure out how to beat her. She also had a partner who
was totally unexperienced. Bottom line, she was good. Rules dont change
that.
Thats it. I will probably vote for the rule that is an attempt to help
novice debate become pure, while I think its going to help it disappear.
That is why I challenge those who were at NCA and voted on the rule to
show up next year with two novice teams and travel them all year. Its not
all about solving all the offense and no disadvantages to the plan,
its more than that. It's about coaches taking the time and energy to
teach students with no "policy" debate experience how to debate.
Peace
Massey
Chief:
I guarantee you there were a lot more than 10 to choose from. Multiply
that by 10 and add some. I havent done this because I honestly believe
the community and the intent of novice sides with the amendment, and until
now it has just slipped through the cracks. Maybe I am wrong and I have
just always seen Novice as something different. The vote will determine
that I guess. But this amendment is in no way self-serving. I honestly
believe Novice should be something other than
what it is at some tournaments right now. If the vote proves me wrong,
I guess I can push harder for Rookie Divisions then start doling out the
"novice" scholarships to area HS LD debaters. ; )
_______________________________________________
CEDA-L mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
_______________________________________________
CEDA-L mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
_______________________________________________
CEDA-L mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
