College Policy Debate Forums
November 20, 2017, 07:46:39 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Proposed ADA Rule Change  (Read 3644 times)
Ryan Galloway
Full Member
***
Posts: 119


« on: October 20, 2009, 07:58:49 PM »

Cross-listed from another discussion...Gordon also thought I should put it here.

How does one "strike-through" words on this format?

RG

Working on wording, but here's what I've got so far.

Please feel free to comment, especially those who've gotten rule changes before...

Proposed Rule Change

The change would be to AMERICAN DEBATE ASSOCIATION
STANDING RULES OF TOURNAMENT PROCEDURE

VI. RULES GOVERNING SWEEPSTAKES COMPETITION

As currently written:

7. The first elimination round held in any division of debate shall include no more than or less than half of the teams competing in the preliminary rounds of debate in that division. In divisions with an odd number of teams entered, the number of teams clearing will be rounded down to the next whole number. A tournament may depart from the provision under only 3 circumstances: a) building space is unavailable to hold the required number of elim round debates on the final day of the tournament; or b) the announced prelim round tournament schedule would have to be altered to accommodate the required number of elim rounds. Results of all elim round debates will count toward sweepstakes points unless the elim bracket contained more than half of the teams competing in the preliminary rounds.

If an ADA tournament 'breaks' to a partial elim round bracket, the partial bracket should involve the maximum number of teams eligible to break (with the exception of a double-octo-final bracket or beyond). Prior to the start of the first debate, the tournament director must announce the size of the first elim round bracket for each division. Once announced, the elim round bracket decisions are final.

Change to:

7. The first elimination round held in any division of debate shall include no more than or less than half of the teams competing in the preliminary rounds of debate in that division. In divisions with an odd number of teams entered, the number of teams clearing will be rounded down to the next whole number.

Insert:  {If clearing half the teams would require a partial double-octafinals, and there are less than three debates taking place in the double-octafinals, the tournament shall not clear said teams, and will move straight to the Octa-finals of the tournament.  Each team that did not clear who would have cleared into the Doubles, should receive an appropriate double-octafinals award, and receive  CEDA, ADA, and NDT points as if they had won the Doubles debate.  Those now competing in the Octas will receive the equivalent number of points as if they had won a double-octafinals debate.}

A tournament may depart from the provision[s related to teams clearing] under only 3 [two] circumstances: a) building space is unavailable to hold the required number of elim round debates on the final day of the tournament; or b) the announced prelim round tournament schedule would have to be altered to accommodate the required number of elim rounds. Results of all elim round debates will count toward sweepstakes points unless the elim bracket contained more than half of the teams competing in the preliminary rounds.

If an ADA tournament 'breaks' to a partial elim round bracket, the partial bracket should involve the maximum number of teams eligible to break {DELETE THIS (with the exception of a double-octo-final bracket or beyond)}. Prior to the start of the first debate, the tournament director must announce the size of the first elim round bracket for each division. Once announced, the elim round bracket decisions are final.

*Rationales for the change:

Safety:  Elimination round days with 5 debates are creating major concerns for schools to get the debaters home safe.  The concern is that someone who was not planning on staying an extra night may need to rush kids home after late elims for classes, and risk an accident.

School:  The longer elim days are affecting students’ ability to get back to participate in school in an effective and timely manner.

Too rough on the tournament host:  The hosts are required to maintain staff and support well beyond the reasonable number of hours.  There are exhausted, and simply can’t make accommodations well into the AM hours of the next morning.

Time:  5 round elimination debates are simply causing people to go beyond the point of reasonable exhaustion.  There is a reason we have labor laws that mandate no more than 14 hour days under any circumstances.  There are tournaments where the day is going from 8AM to 2AM the next day in the status quo…a full 18 hours for people to work…and a lot of prep goes into the morning that isn’t being counted.

The wording is clunky:  I don’t even understand why one section references three circumstances when there are two, the provision on a double octo final debate is unclear and confusing.  It may even be that the current rule allows for an “escape hatch” out of the doubles entirely—if that is the intent—it should be clarified.  BTW, can someone explain to me what “Once announced, the elim round bracket decisions are final” means?  No breaking brackets I assume?  What about, “we released a pairing with the wrong seed order, it is wrong, here is the new pairing” 40 minutes before the debate.

 

Proposed ADA Rule Change #2:  Judge Time For A Decision

Proposed Modification to:

I. RULES GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF A DEBATE

Current rule wording:

14. RESPONSIBILITIES OF JUDGES--Judges should listen conscientiously and in a manner designed to promote recognition and recall of positions advanced in speeches and question periods. Judges are encouraged to provide verbal and nonverbal feedback to encourage comprehensibility and to discourage violating the rules of debate. Further, judges will attempt to avoid verbal and nonverbal feedback which degrades, humiliates or otherwise belittles the efforts of the debater speaking. Judges should listen to all proofs offered by debaters and render a decision based on the clash in the debate, uninfluenced by the judge's preconceptions about the proposition or the type of proof called for in a given situation. Oral critiques by judges are encouraged for all rounds so long as the critique does not delay teams or the judge from getting to the next scheduled round before the forfeit time. Judges should refrain from long critiques when debaters need to get off campus to eat during meal breaks. Judges must render a decision in which one of the teams participating in the debate is declared the winner.

Proposed modified rule wording:

14. RESPONSIBILITIES OF JUDGES--Judges should listen conscientiously and in a manner designed to promote recognition and recall of positions advanced in speeches and question periods. Judges are encouraged to provide verbal and nonverbal feedback to encourage comprehensibility and to discourage violating the rules of debate. Further, judges will attempt to avoid verbal and nonverbal feedback which degrades, humiliates or otherwise belittles the efforts of the debater speaking. Judges should listen to all proofs offered by debaters and render a decision based on the clash in the debate, uninfluenced by the judge's preconceptions about the proposition or the type of proof called for in a given situation.

Insert:  [Judges are expected to render a decision in an hour or less.  The normative rule should be that a judge sets a timer for one hour at the conclusion of the debate.  Upon the expiration of time, the judge may receive a five minute extension of the decision time.  At that moment in time, if the judge is still unable to decide, the tabroom should randomly decide a winner by coin flip].

Oral critiques by judges are encouraged for all rounds so long as the critique does not delay teams or the judge from getting to the next scheduled round before the forfeit time. Judges should refrain from long critiques when debaters need to get off campus to eat during meal breaks. Judges must render a decision in which one of the teams participating in the debate is declared the winner.

*Rationales for the change:

*No rule now:  Nothing currently exists in the ADA rules to govern judge decision-making time…a rule presenting this may help prevent long decisions

*Longer decisions aren’t better:  Evidence that decisions going over an hour are “better” in an objective sense is questionable at best

*Time & safety rationales apply:  the longer the day goes due to even one judge taking more than an hour, the time for the tournament is held up.

*In the spirit of other rules:  The rule augments and is in the spirit of the already existing wording of: “Judges should refrain from long critiques when debaters need to get off campus to eat during meal breaks.” Arguably, the long “critique” may exist as part of the decision making time in the debate…but confusion logically exists as to whether this is referring to the oral rendering of the decision, or the time to make the decision.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!