Author Topic: ADA Summer Business Meeting  (Read 23817 times)

neil berch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
Re: ADA Summer Business Meeting
« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2011, 09:53:01 AM »
With regard to proposal #6, it should be noted that every ADA tournament that uses the CAT and posts live results online (an excellent thing to do for many reasons) violates that rule as it's currently written.  This is another reason to support Kevin's proposal.
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University

mph

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: ADA Summer Business Meeting
« Reply #31 on: May 17, 2011, 01:02:48 PM »
Adrienne is trying to make lunch plans and would like to get an accurate count of attendees.  If you're planning on attending the ADA summer meeting, please send me an email.  I'd also appreciate an email from any regular attendees who aren't attending this year.

Adri

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: ADA Summer Business Meeting
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2011, 10:41:03 AM »
Hi -

Looking forward to seeing everyone on Friday.

The meeting will be at 9 am, and be held at the Debate House on the UMW campus.

For directions-purposes, the address is:

1201 William St, Fredericksburg, VA 22401

Those of you who have attended the Friday district meetings at the D7 tourney will remember this location.

You should be able to find parking on College Ave or Buckner St, which is the closest side-street.

You should plan on entering the building from the College Ave side - there is a doorway to the left of the driveway that is the building's primary entrance.

We'll be meeting in the basement lounge [the staircase to the basement is located around the corner from the photocopier in the main room].

See you soon!

-Adrienne
UMW Debate



kelly young

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
    • Wayne State Graduate Programs
Re: ADA Summer Business Meeting
« Reply #33 on: May 27, 2011, 01:40:12 PM »
Any chance that minutes or at least the results of the amendment votes will be released for those of us unable to come to the ADA business meeting?

American Forensic Association Vice President,
Associate Professor, Director of Graduate Studies
Department of Communication
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org

nryan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 228
    • Liberty Debate
Re: ADA Summer Business Meeting
« Reply #34 on: May 27, 2011, 05:29:49 PM »
Results of the Amendment votes (from my memory):
1. Decision Time Change Passed
2. Outside Assistance rule Passed. New rule reads "OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE--Once the debate has begun, a team may not receive assistance, suggestions, or coaching from anyone while the round is in progress. This does not prevent debate partners from helping one another, but does prevent outside persons from helping a team during the course of a debate."
3. Proposal to add a open evidence division at ADA tournaments Failed
4.  Delete text from Section I, Rule 3. Rule change as proposed failed. Amended to change rules to say "CONSTRAINTS ON THE AFFIRMATIVE-- The first affirmative constructive speaker is expected to present a complete case which includes a topical plan of action and a rationale justifying that plan. The affirmative team must present and defend through the entirety of the debate only one plan, and once presented, this plan cannot be changed, altered, or amended in any way during the debate. This does not preclude permutations." deleting the line "The affirmative team is not obligated to reveal their case before the debate."
5.  Delete text from Section I, Rule 5. Failed
6.  Delete text from Section II, Rule 4. Passed. Rule now reads "Tournament staff will not disclose round pairings to debaters or coaches or judges prior to the public announcement of those pairings." removing the line "The tournament staff will keep results secret from tournament participants until the end of the preliminary round"


kelly young

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
    • Wayne State Graduate Programs
Re: ADA Summer Business Meeting
« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2011, 09:10:47 AM »
Results of the Amendment votes (from my memory):
1. Decision Time Change Passed
2. Outside Assistance rule Passed. New rule reads "OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE--Once the debate has begun, a team may not receive assistance, suggestions, or coaching from anyone while the round is in progress. This does not prevent debate partners from helping one another, but does prevent outside persons from helping a team during the course of a debate."
3. Proposal to add a open evidence division at ADA tournaments Failed
4.  Delete text from Section I, Rule 3. Rule change as proposed failed. Amended to change rules to say "CONSTRAINTS ON THE AFFIRMATIVE-- The first affirmative constructive speaker is expected to present a complete case which includes a topical plan of action and a rationale justifying that plan. The affirmative team must present and defend through the entirety of the debate only one plan, and once presented, this plan cannot be changed, altered, or amended in any way during the debate. This does not preclude permutations." deleting the line "The affirmative team is not obligated to reveal their case before the debate."
5.  Delete text from Section I, Rule 5. Failed
6.  Delete text from Section II, Rule 4. Passed. Rule now reads "Tournament staff will not disclose round pairings to debaters or coaches or judges prior to the public announcement of those pairings." removing the line "The tournament staff will keep results secret from tournament participants until the end of the preliminary round"



So, am I take it that the best response I am going to get as a member of the ADA to "what happened at our annual business meeting?" is a "from my memory" unofficial reporting of the amendment votes? Did anything else happen? Some sort of report is a very simple expectation as a member of the organization.

Kelly
American Forensic Association Vice President,
Associate Professor, Director of Graduate Studies
Department of Communication
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org

JimClarion

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
Re: ADA Summer Business Meeting
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2011, 10:22:39 AM »
Sorry for the delay in responding...anywho I am on vacation and will provide a more complete version of the minutes when I am back (i.e. fix my short-hand).  Attached are two documents:

1. the minutes
2. working groups established during the meeting

Regarding the rules proposals that were considered (note: info is within the minutes as well):
Brovero Proposal (reduce time from 2:45 to 2:30) - passed
Galloway Proposal (allow electronic research in debates) - passed (via friendly amendment)
Kuswa Proposal #1 [eliminate the requirement that the aff not change the plan (beyond perms)] - rejected
Kuswa Proposal #1a (eliminate the statement in the rules that affs are not expected to disclose the plan) - passed
Kuswa Proposal #2 (critique language) - rejected
Kuswa Proposal #3 (public results during tournament) - passed
Garrett Proposal (evidence-constrained division) - rejected

Jim

twhahn215

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: ADA Summer Business Meeting
« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2011, 02:34:12 PM »
Based on the wording change for outside (digital) research during rounds, am I correct to assume that the intended research would take the form of updates (economy, politics) and definitions (T debates)? Is there a clear distinction between outside coaching and research? I think of the following example:

A coach learns that their team will be hitting a new disad, so the coach finds some cards and makes some analytics and then throws it up on a blog. The debaters 'research' the blog and use that information.

I don't think this scenario is likely, but how do we draw those distinctions? I ask as someone that supports the amendment, but has been unable to formulate these distinctions for myself.

EDIT: I realize this problem is not unique to this amendment and actually stems from the nature of digital technology in debate (obviously still possible in dropbox, for example) but i'm wondering if a vagueness in interpretation could create the appearance of a 'loop-hole'.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 02:45:08 PM by twhahn215 »