College Policy Debate Forums
November 23, 2017, 09:16:42 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: ADA Ballot  (Read 3633 times)
JimClarion
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 87


« on: July 01, 2010, 08:28:12 AM »

The ballot for the 2010 ADA Rule Changes is being mailed today.  If you do not receive your ballot, please contact me so I can get one sent out.  I've also attached the ballot here.  The ballot should be returned (postmarked) by July 31, 2010.

There are two rule changes up for vote.  The first puts a 2:45 time limit on a debate/decision.  The second clarifies the novice eligibility rule in the event a debater seeks to compete in novice during a second year of debate.

Elections for all officer positions were also held at the spring meeting and yielded the following:

President: Mike Hall
Vice President: Adrienne Brovero
Treasurer: Samantha Goodbey
Secretary: Jim Lyle
Topic Representative: Kevin Kuswa

Finally, I'd like to extend a thanks to Brent Brossman for serving as the President the past two years.

Jim Lyle


* 2010 ADA Ballot.docx (14.17 KB - downloaded 344 times.)
Logged
neil berch
Full Member
***
Posts: 153


« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2010, 09:40:44 AM »

Question about the novice eligibility rule:  is it the intention of the proposers that someone who debated a full year in Novice and went 0-60 not be eligible for Novice the following year?  That appears to be the way I would read the new language.  Currently, under both ADA and CEDA rules, as I understand them, that person would be Novice-eligible until they cleared twice during that second year.

Second question:  is it the intention of the proposers that someone who competed in two tournaments the first year (clearing to double octas both times), not be eligible for Novice for a second year.  Again, that appears to be the way I'd read the language.  Currently, as I understand it, such a person would be Novice-eligible for all of that "second" year, as they had fewer than 24 rounds the first year.

Could someone please clarify for me?
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University
Logged
kelly young
Full Member
***
Posts: 237



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2010, 11:35:23 AM »

Question about the novice eligibility rule:  is it the intention of the proposers that someone who debated a full year in Novice and went 0-60 not be eligible for Novice the following year?  That appears to be the way I would read the new language.  Currently, under both ADA and CEDA rules, as I understand them, that person would be Novice-eligible until they cleared twice during that second year.

Second question:  is it the intention of the proposers that someone who competed in two tournaments the first year (clearing to double octas both times), not be eligible for Novice for a second year.  Again, that appears to be the way I'd read the language.  Currently, as I understand it, such a person would be Novice-eligible for all of that "second" year, as they had fewer than 24 rounds the first year.

This is just my interpretation, but "no" to the first question, "yes" to the second. But, I didn't create this wording and I wasn't at the ADA meeting, so someone else should probably clarify.

On the first, the rule reads you are novice unless you have 24 policy rounds the year before and haven't cleared twice. If they debated in 60 debates, even if losing, they are no longer novice eligible for year two because that student is past the 24 round cap.

On the second, yes, if you clear twice in the first year, you are no longer eligible. My question for the ADA committee (or people who were at the meeting), shouldn't there be a size requirement on the elims counting? For example, I take my novices to a small regional tournament with 6 teams. There's only a finals and the field of competition is rather weak. Does that count against the novice team's eligibility? I can understand if my novices clear at ADA nats and Liberty, for instance, that they are no longer eligible.

Kelly
Logged

Director of Forensics/Associate Professor
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org
neil berch
Full Member
***
Posts: 153


« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2010, 12:51:43 PM »

Given that my interpretation is very similar to Kelly's, given that I've gotten no reply from the actual proposers of these rules changes, and given the lack of coordination with CEDA, WVU will be voting no on this proposal.  I should note that CEDA has an ad hoc committee (OK, I chair it) that is working on changes to CEDA's JV and Novice eligibility rules, including changes that consider the regional equity issues that Kelly raised.  We received some feedback at the CEDA summer meeting, and I'm working on a draft proposal to the committee (after some statistical analysis).  The timetable is for a formal proposal at NCA, with any changes to go into effect for the 2011-12 season.  I'll also be posting here about some of our ideas.  One advantage of the timetable is that any proposal CEDA passed could then be adopted by ADA at its spring 2011 meeting, so the two organizations could be in synch.
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University
Logged
JimClarion
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 87


« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2010, 08:31:43 PM »

Both changes were approved.  The "decision time" change was passed 12-0.  The "novice eligibility" change went thru at 10-2.

Jim
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!