archive-org.com » ORG » C » CEDADEBATE.ORG

Total: 418

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • [eDebate] Scouting "Rules"
    certain power dynamics involved in cite gathering Everyone should be aware of those dynamics make sure that scouting for squad only or private purposes is a much lower priority If a scout who won t agree to share is monopolizing pages try to figure out how to share with them or alert a debate judge Most judges will be willing to say that a scout who will share has priority 2 Scouts Honor Don t say you ll share when you won t Scouts have an obligation to get their stuff posted publicly as soon as they can After all its a shared resource If there are several people waiting on the info you are gathering obviously you should post it the moment you gather it Just sign up for the wiki edit it If someone is a bit slow getting your cites posted cut them some slack They probably lost the cites or forgot 3 Debaters Many of you want to share your cites exchange email addresses then forget to This is normal We need to get better at combating it If someone emails you for cites put them on the wiki instead It takes just as much time as email If you don t like posting to the wiki then email your stuff to me I ll take care of posting it when I have time If you get cites from someone put them on the wiki If you make an argument that someone finds cite gathering worthy then try to help them save time by using your own electronic files 4 Other Protocol Issues If a debater says you can have our cites if you put it on the wiki you should do so Its called a deal Maybe a contract I ve heard of some disagreements

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079633.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive


  • [eDebate] Emporia Tournament Update
    not have philosophies on debate results Dustin Rimmey I am kicking his butt as we speak Rachel Stevens UMKC Matt Coleman probably has his up but I got an error message and I m off to make zuchini bread for Registration W James Taylor JT Clinical Instructor Asst Debate Coach Emporia State University Nothing in this email should be taken to represent Emporia State Debate or Emporia State University The

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079634.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] Kentucky data
    be assigning comparable scores to that event In that case inter rater reliability is only achieved if we have some commonly held rubrics for how to reward and punish debate performances in addition to shared interpretations of the scale but I suspect that this is a core issue about which we DON T have a community consensus But we also need to remember that with single judge panels critics NEVER observe the same events even if two critics judge exactly the same subset of teams during the course of a tournament Every debate is formally an n of 1 While we can and should agonize about whether scoring systems are better or worse about creating norms while preserving discrimination and necessary variability there is no such thing as the Holy Grail Avg Std n 75 75 3 30 4 77 88 4 63 16 78 94 4 28 16 79 25 4 09 12 79 38 6 48 16 79 50 5 04 8 79 50 5 15 8 80 13 3 05 16 80 50 2 94 12 80 54 3 78 24 80 58 4 56 12 81 00 3 66 8 81 00 1 83 4 81 50 6 45 16 81 75 6 85 16 81 94 4 46 16 82 50 2 67 8 82 75 2 55 8 83 33 3 52 12 83 50 3 96 8 83 75 6 42 24 83 75 4 69 20 83 75 2 05 16 83 88 3 05 16 83 88 3 76 8 84 13 7 55 8 84 25 2 02 16 84 25 1 16 8 84 29 4 03 24 84 50 2 53 16 84 50 8 72 12 84 63 4 90 8 84 63 2 97 8 84 75 5 17 16 84 75 0 71 8 84 87 4 91 15 85 00 0 00 4 85 08 3 60 12 85 29 6 02 24 85 31 5 65 16 85 32 2 88 28 85 45 4 95 20 85 50 5 80 4 85 50 9 47 4 85 58 2 91 12 85 65 4 55 20 85 65 5 32 20 85 88 3 52 16 85 88 1 55 8 86 13 4 32 16 86 25 4 39 28 86 25 1 49 8 86 33 3 14 12 86 42 6 19 12 86 44 7 79 16 86 45 2 21 20 86 50 2 20 8 86 50 1 73 4 86 56 3 54 16 86 63 7 23 8 86 67 1 83 12 86 69 3 36 16 86 75 4 88 16 86 86 3 33 28 86 95 2 50 20 87 00 4 88 28 87 13 3 58 16 87 14 3 68 28 87 15 4 42 20 87 33 3 31 12 87 38 2 72 8 87 42 3 06 12 87 44 3 14 16 87

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079635.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] 8 prelim model
    who are too lazy and stupid to be efficient it is ridiculous to take away a debate A strict schedule creates incentives for efficiency by rewarding teams who are well organized and work hard How long does a round take 92 minutes Assume at least 10 minutes for screwing around brings us to 102 If each round is given 2 15 that is 135 minutes leaving over 1 2 an hour for making a decision You could even add another 15 minutes on there and that would only lengthen the day by an hour This would mean the schedule would could look like I have added an extra 10 minutes for travel time and extra time for lunch and dinner discussed below Round 1 7 45 Round 2 10 10 Round 3 1 15 Round 4 3 40 Round 5 6 45 This gets everyone out around 9 Day 2 Round 6 8 00 Round 7 10 30 Round 8 2 30 Doubles 6 00 Round 6 and 7 should be paired off round 5 and have one high low and one high high The pairing should be released at 6am Since you get out at roughly 9 you should be able to eat and get to sleep by 10 or 11 giving you 7 8 hours of sleep if you decide to get up at 6 and start prepping If you want to sleep in you can obviously get more sleep but this is a pretty good amount to get considering you would get 2 hours to prep for rounds 6 and 7 Round 8 is obviously important so there is a lot of extra prep built in for this If a strict decision time is enforced all the round 7 ballots should be in by 12 45 Giving people 1 2 hour for lunch that means they will still get about an hour to prep for potential break rounds Finally opp wins should be more important than speaker points in determining who clears The main objection to pairing more rounds ahead of time is we ll get screwed Using opponent wins helps take the bite out of this argument and opposition to high high rounds It also allows time to figure out the 100 point scale while only speaker awards are affected Some of this may seem pretty radical unworkable but a fundamental assumption is that time is wasted because there are no incentives to not waste it A strict schedule forces debaters to chose between focusing on competitive gain or other aspects of debate like socializing etc true but this is already a trade off in many other ways Top ways time is wasted at tournaments now that would be pressured to reform by judges and debaters 1 Cleaning up people don t do it until after the decision throw evidence all over the room during debates so they are later unable to find it etc 2 Moving teams mosey around chit chatting 3 Water bathroom breaks

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079636.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] 8 prelim model
    a team activity Especially with more high high debates which I have already conclusively proven is a moral obligation 5 Judges need to run a tighter ship stop prep stealing and time wasting enforce start times etc Debaters waste time because they are allowed too If the choice is between losing a debate or punishing teams who are too lazy and stupid to be efficient it is ridiculous to take away a debate A strict schedule creates incentives for efficiency by rewarding teams who are well organized and work hard How long does a round take 92 minutes Assume at least 10 minutes for screwing around brings us to 102 If each round is given 2 15 that is 135 minutes leaving over 1 2 an hour for making a decision You could even add another 15 minutes on there and that would only lengthen the day by an hour This would mean the schedule would could look like I have added an extra 10 minutes for travel time and extra time for lunch and dinner discussed below Round 1 7 45 Round 2 10 10 Round 3 1 15 Round 4 3 40 Round 5 6 45 This gets everyone out around 9 Day 2 Round 6 8 00 Round 7 10 30 Round 8 2 30 Doubles 6 00 Round 6 and 7 should be paired off round 5 and have one high low and one high high The pairing should be released at 6am Since you get out at roughly 9 you should be able to eat and get to sleep by 10 or 11 giving you 7 8 hours of sleep if you decide to get up at 6 and start prepping If you want to sleep in you can obviously get more sleep but this is a pretty good amount to get considering you would get 2 hours to prep for rounds 6 and 7 Round 8 is obviously important so there is a lot of extra prep built in for this If a strict decision time is enforced all the round 7 ballots should be in by 12 45 Giving people 1 2 hour for lunch that means they will still get about an hour to prep for potential break rounds Finally opp wins should be more important than speaker points in determining who clears The main objection to pairing more rounds ahead of time is we ll get screwed Using opponent wins helps take the bite out of this argument and opposition to high high rounds It also allows time to figure out the 100 point scale while only speaker awards are affected Some of this may seem pretty radical unworkable but a fundamental assumption is that time is wasted because there are no incentives to not waste it A strict schedule forces debaters to chose between focusing on competitive gain or other aspects of debate like socializing etc true but this is already a trade off in many other ways Top ways

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079669.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] 8 prelim model
    for them Also releasing pairings earlier allows debaters to take advantage of the post round dead time waiting for a decision to prep more for later debates 3 More prelims are better people get more practice who should clear becomes clearer etc 4 Opponent wins should be more important in deciding who clears than speaker points there I said it The speaker point system is broken This is a team activity Especially with more high high debates which I have already conclusively proven is a moral obligation 5 Judges need to run a tighter ship stop prep stealing and time wasting enforce start times etc Debaters waste time because they are allowed too If the choice is between losing a debate or punishing teams who are too lazy and stupid to be efficient it is ridiculous to take away a debate A strict schedule creates incentives for efficiency by rewarding teams who are well organized and work hard How long does a round take 92 minutes Assume at least 10 minutes for screwing around brings us to 102 If each round is given 2 15 that is 135 minutes leaving over 1 2 an hour for making a decision You could even add another 15 minutes on there and that would only lengthen the day by an hour This would mean the schedule would could look like I have added an extra 10 minutes for travel time and extra time for lunch and dinner discussed below Round 1 7 45 Round 2 10 10 Round 3 1 15 Round 4 3 40 Round 5 6 45 This gets everyone out around 9 Day 2 Round 6 8 00 Round 7 10 30 Round 8 2 30 Doubles 6 00 Round 6 and 7 should be paired off round 5 and have one high low and one high high The pairing should be released at 6am Since you get out at roughly 9 you should be able to eat and get to sleep by 10 or 11 giving you 7 8 hours of sleep if you decide to get up at 6 and start prepping If you want to sleep in you can obviously get more sleep but this is a pretty good amount to get considering you would get 2 hours to prep for rounds 6 and 7 Round 8 is obviously important so there is a lot of extra prep built in for this If a strict decision time is enforced all the round 7 ballots should be in by 12 45 Giving people 1 2 hour for lunch that means they will still get about an hour to prep for potential break rounds Finally opp wins should be more important than speaker points in determining who clears The main objection to pairing more rounds ahead of time is we ll get screwed Using opponent wins helps take the bite out of this argument and opposition to high high rounds It also allows time to figure out the 100

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079704.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] Cal Swing Logistics Request
    Introducing the new CEDA Forums Messages sorted by date thread subject author Greetings I know these tournaments are two and a half months away but if you could backchannel me and let me know a roughly how many people will be in your entourage and b if you would like to utilize our transportation system to and from campus it would help me greatly in logistical planning Thanks Greg Previous

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079639.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • [eDebate] Introducing the new CEDA Forums
    and a lot more The forums are now active and open for anyone to sign up at http cedadebate org forum Registering is free and simple This is an organizationally sponsored opportunity for us to communicate as a community For too long we have been willing to freeride on the labors and technology of others especially Phil Kerpin Our free riding has left us unable to organize the discussions or exercise concern when lines are crossed The forum rules outside the emphasis on free speech and open conversation with the ability to moderate discussions I want to thank Phil for his years of hard work and service His forum will continue to be an entirely unmoderated site Our platform today offers a way to exchange the information that we need Jeff and community volunteers will help keep the site functioning the best way possible To that end if you have suggestions in how to organize forums to better serve your needs please let us know For years the community resisted moving to a different platform because of the perceived difficulties of getting everyone to move with them This prisoner s dilemma should end now Thanks to the labors of Jon Bruschke debateresults now sends direct emails with pairings and tournament information Much of what we would miss without a public listserv is now sent directly to coaches and students The challenge is to build a place for the rest of the news and discussions We think the CEDA forums are that place I am asking coaches students alumni and administrators to move your traffic about our community to the forums I will be the first to take the plunge and announce that CEDA will begin using the forums for our organizational traffic in addition to using its website emails and

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2009-October/079641.html (2016-02-15)
    Open archived version from archive