College Policy Debate Forums
October 23, 2017, 02:06:14 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] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: topic wording proposal  (Read 3049 times)
dstrauss13
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


« on: June 14, 2017, 02:07:00 PM »

I submitted a wording proposal to the topic committee.  I am posting it here to allow for questions, open discussion, etc. 

* topic wording proposal 2017.docx (26.45 KB - downloaded 454 times.)
Logged
dstrauss13
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2017, 07:20:12 PM »

Responding to some concerns that have been raised so far.  Doc attached.

* Wording Proposal - 2017 - 2AC.docx (19.08 KB - downloaded 185 times.)
Logged
V I Keenan
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 78


« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2017, 04:14:10 PM »

Meeting Live Stream Link?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2017, 04:29:05 PM by V I Keenan » Logged
BManuel
Newbie
*
Posts: 24


« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2017, 05:10:32 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb67p2aR2hk
Logged
dstrauss13
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2017, 01:31:50 PM »

it seems like there are three possibilities:
1) rejecting traditional resolutional action is really bad bc it leaves certain populations without HC, and so it is ethical and desirable to endorse traditional resolutional action
2) rejecting traditional resolutional action will not leave certain populations without HC bc there is some alt that will solve outside the state
3) rejecting traditional resolutional action leaves certain populations without HC, but that is outweighed by the downside/s of endorsing traditional resolutional action (state bad etc)

it seems like anyone with an opinion about HC has to accept one of those three statements.  I can't imagine how clarifying those choices and then letting people to choose which of those positions they would like to defend (they can defend any of them) could possibly be bad from any stance that is concerned with principles, ethics, or education.

i have received some more concerns that sound a lot like "but traditional resolutional action is toooo good, no one could credibly defend that it's bad!"......I hope you can see why i fend that statement so frustrating.
Logged
dstrauss13
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2017, 04:24:50 PM »

So, to be clear....we are going to have a resolution where the aff is expected and required to defend action by the USFG because.....that is what the radical left resistance insisted upon??? 
Logged
BManuel
Newbie
*
Posts: 24


« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2017, 09:40:00 PM »

The TC's reaction to your proposal was it that it was a way to highlight and protect traditional teams (terms such as mutual exclusivity/radical politics, etc) and didn't benefit and possibly would cause harm to non traditional teams who didn't want to propose instrumental USFG action but also didn't want to be a complete break from/anti institutional.  I think the TC felt the sequencing DA + Perm were still things that the non traditional teams should be able to leverage in a round.  I personally believe your thesis was correct and I think more time could have been given to your proposal.  However, it seemed to be deemed to late breaking to be dealt with and pretty much disregarded as a result.  There was a pretty lengthy online debate which had way more involvement than the topic process/resolution wordings themselves had.

Logged
jstidham
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2017, 09:04:43 AM »

I'm going to slightly disagree with B Manuel's characterization of what happened at the TC meeting regarding the Strauss proposal. These are my views and don't necessarily reflect everyone's opinion on the TC. First and foremost, the timing was just bad. That's something we all agreed on. If Strauss would have made his proposal available a month ago, we would have had time to devote attention to it. It is not something we can just throw onto the ballot and see what happens. Any proposal requires a substantial amount of vetting. There were MANY phrases in that proposal that made us pause. "Radical politics" of "categorically reject", are some examples. It took us three days to settle on a slate of traditional resolutions. We would need an entirely separate meeting just to discuss the Strauss proposal. Secondly, the proposal didn't seem to make anyone happy other than a few folks who posted on Facebook. Yes, I understand the point isn't to make everyone happy. But many K teams who read non-plan affs spoke out and had manyyy issues with the proposal, which seems to disprove the Strauss thesis that the double resolution is an obvious solution to the polarization of debate. This is where I slightly disagree with B Manuel. We didn't just conclude that the Strauss proposal only protected traditional teams. We didn't devote much time to it, and I won't speak for everyone, but the general consensus was that it was a mess for all teams and there was no time for the TC to do the work to figure out a way to make it viable. Even the folks who tried to campaign on Facebook for the proposal to be included ended up conceding that there were a lotttttt of problems that we need to work out to try again next year, which the TC would probably be open to hearing. If there was another proposal submitted next year shortly after the NDT, I bet there would be enough time and energy available to make it an option.

Jasmine Stidham
UCO Debate
Logged
Brandon Kelley
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2017, 09:28:27 PM »

Jasmine (and any other TC-affiliated folks willing to give their take on the decision),

I don't think anyone would disagree that it was late-breaking, or that, as you note, people have pointed out a number of issues they have with the proposal. That said, it isn't obvious to me why either of those things means it it's bad to include it as an option -- would you mind commenting on that a bit more?

Specifically: I had been envisioning this not as a replacement for the regular list of wordings, but an additional yes/no option to alter whichever one is chosen. Functionally a kind of ballot referendum. Presumably, if it's true that it "didn't make anyone happy" it wouldn't pass (and that may well have been the case given how many people objected to one aspect or another, though we'll never know). But I don't intuitively see why giving people the choice is bad -- whether it doesn't pass (whatever reasons people might have for rejecting it, be they issues with the wording/etc. that can be fixed next year or fundamental disagreement with the premise), or does pass because people decide that it is a net-improvement vs the squo and vote for it, what is your take on why it wasn't the role of the community to make that choice?

To reiterate: I 100% agree it's desirable that this be hashed out much earlier, so that there's time for intensive vetting by the TC and others. I also am not trying to disagree with or cast aspersions on the decision that was made, but rather to understand it. Because in putting it on the ballot, the TC wouldn't have been deciding "yes" or "no" on the proposal, but rather to that choice being available -- and so unless it's that the TC concluded it's not a good idea as-worded for various reasons & was worried it might pass anyway, or something similar, the reasoning isn't clear to me. Particularly coming as it did on the heels of the decision to put every controversy area submitted on the ballot rather than acting as an initial narrowing mechanism, splintering votes -- a defensible choice, but also what seemed to me a deliberate move toward less TC "gatekeeping".

Anyway -- thanks a ton to you and Brian for being willing to talk about this & explain the thought process, it's much appreciated; thanks also to both Strauss and the TC members for all their hard work.

Best,
Brandon
« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 09:30:19 PM by Brandon Kelley » Logged
dstrauss13
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2017, 07:57:09 AM »

You would think insufficient discussion time would be a reason to PUT it on the ballot and allow the community to vet.  But I guess not.  In any case, my wording paper submitted on June 13th was too late breaking to be considered.  Good Point.

From: Michael Hester <mhester@westga.edu>
Date: Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: wording paper deadline?
To: David Strauss <dstrauss13@gmail.com>


hmm, hadn't really considered a deadline. If you can't submit it by 6/14, let me know. Ultimately, anything prior to 6/16 should be something we can work with. It's ALL very much appreciated.

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, David Strauss <dstrauss13@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Hester, quick question - what's the deadline for submitting wording paper proposals?

Thanks,
Dave
Logged
Hester
Full Member
***
Posts: 153


« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2017, 09:11:00 AM »

Ultimately, there was more opposition from members of the TC to putting Straussian Amendment options on the ballot than there was support for doing so - much more. In terms of argument approaches to the activity, the TC is fairly diverse, i.e., nearly all the different ways that the NDT/CEDA members conceive of debate are represented by at least one member of the TC. So when no one vigorously advocated in support of doing this while several individuals who don't often agree with each other on questions of debate indicated they did not support adding them, i (as the chair) felt comfortable that we had a consensus on the question.

There are three other aspects i want to speak to:

1) Decisions that don't have universal acceptance. Part of the difficulty of TC work is trying to thread the needle so that our work includes as many perspectives as possible and reflects the wishes of as many CEDA/NDT members as possible. It's not necessary to explain why that task is nearly impossible. This is not a "woe is us" excuse and sympathy is not being requested. It's just an acknowledgment of the reality of what we're trying to do. TC membership is voted upon by dues-paying schools, and the how the TC makes decisions will always be greatly influenced by the folks who make up its membership. Again, this is not a "you don't like it? why don't YOU do it then" kind of retort. Instead, i'm simply encouraging everyone who wants to have an effect on this process to get involved. That won't fix the problem of how hard it is to satisfy everyone with the results of our work.

2) Recognizing and respecting the work done by everyone. i was very excited when Strauss contacted me - to have a former NDT champion and current coach want to contribute to the process with ideas is ALWAYS a great thing. The tough part is making sure everyone feels their contributions are properly incorporated into TC decision-making, even when their work may not show up in the final results (e.g., the ballots). In a similar vein, several others made significant contributions during Phase I (the topic area papers) and Phase II (our TC meetings) and inevitably a lot of that work doesn't make it into the final results. As the chair, i do my best to frequently state how grateful we all are for every contribution - seriously, it's AWESOME that so many people take time out of their schedules to do work that helps the process move forward. The fact that Straussian versions didn't make the final ballot does not mean that his work isn't appreciated - i definitely appreciated it (see #3 below).

3) This is an issue worth all of us continuing to think about/work on. While i wasn't a fan of the actual wordings being suggested by Strauss, i did accept his idea as a genuine attempt to address the concern expressed by lots of folks that not enough of our debates are engaging in substantive and developed argumentation over agreed-upon subjects (my facebook post about phrasing resolution wordings as a question was an attempt to approach the same issue from a slightly different angle). Rather than dismiss such attempts at trying to 'rig the game' in a particular direction, i'd rather focus energy on how (or if it is possible) to address the issues via topic/resolution wording process. I do think that it would benefit all of us to continue the conversation over this next academic year. Perhaps around this time next year, the TC will be in a position to implement the kinds of changes to the way we have traditionally conceived of topics/resolution wordings.

Jasmine (and any other TC-affiliated folks willing to give their take on the decision),

I don't think anyone would disagree that it was late-breaking, or that, as you note, people have pointed out a number of issues they have with the proposal. That said, it isn't obvious to me why either of those things means it it's bad to include it as an option -- would you mind commenting on that a bit more?

Specifically: I had been envisioning this not as a replacement for the regular list of wordings, but an additional yes/no option to alter whichever one is chosen. Functionally a kind of ballot referendum. Presumably, if it's true that it "didn't make anyone happy" it wouldn't pass (and that may well have been the case given how many people objected to one aspect or another, though we'll never know). But I don't intuitively see why giving people the choice is bad -- whether it doesn't pass (whatever reasons people might have for rejecting it, be they issues with the wording/etc. that can be fixed next year or fundamental disagreement with the premise), or does pass because people decide that it is a net-improvement vs the squo and vote for it, what is your take on why it wasn't the role of the community to make that choice?

To reiterate: I 100% agree it's desirable that this be hashed out much earlier, so that there's time for intensive vetting by the TC and others. I also am not trying to disagree with or cast aspersions on the decision that was made, but rather to understand it. Because in putting it on the ballot, the TC wouldn't have been deciding "yes" or "no" on the proposal, but rather to that choice being available -- and so unless it's that the TC concluded it's not a good idea as-worded for various reasons & was worried it might pass anyway, or something similar, the reasoning isn't clear to me. Particularly coming as it did on the heels of the decision to put every controversy area submitted on the ballot rather than acting as an initial narrowing mechanism, splintering votes -- a defensible choice, but also what seemed to me a deliberate move toward less TC "gatekeeping".

Anyway -- thanks a ton to you and Brian for being willing to talk about this & explain the thought process, it's much appreciated; thanks also to both Strauss and the TC members for all their hard work.

Best,
Brandon
Logged
Hester
Full Member
***
Posts: 153


« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2017, 09:14:04 AM »

The TC will continue to accept work folks have done, whenever they can get it to us. Whether individual TC members feel they haven't had enough time to consider whatever is being proposed will continue to be their prerogative, but as chair, i'm not gonna turn away someone who wants to send us ideas because 'it's too late'. See my response to Brandon for my more extended thoughts on this.

You would think insufficient discussion time would be a reason to PUT it on the ballot and allow the community to vet.  But I guess not.  In any case, my wording paper submitted on June 13th was too late breaking to be considered.  Good Point.

From: Michael Hester <mhester@westga.edu>
Date: Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: wording paper deadline?
To: David Strauss <dstrauss13@gmail.com>


hmm, hadn't really considered a deadline. If you can't submit it by 6/14, let me know. Ultimately, anything prior to 6/16 should be something we can work with. It's ALL very much appreciated.

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:11 PM, David Strauss <dstrauss13@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Hester, quick question - what's the deadline for submitting wording paper proposals?

Thanks,
Dave
Logged
ScottyP
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2017, 11:34:16 AM »

Hester- if someone wanted to propose a change int he topic process do you know what the process for that would be- like who it would be submitted to/dates?


Basically I agree that the TC job is very difficult/borderline impossible in a 3 day meeting. Herndon and I were talking about potential solutions and we came up with an idea to move the deadline to sometime in June, but require the papers to do all the word vetting/rez framing over that extra month and a half.

So is that a proposal that would have to be voted on by just a CEDA/NDT committee or would there be some kind of public vote?
Logged
Hester
Full Member
***
Posts: 153


« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2017, 06:25:38 PM »

All the rules governing the topic process are part of CEDA bylaws. Bylaw #4 (IV) contains all the parts about the topic process and Article VIII details the process by which the CEDA constitution and by-laws  can be amended. i think the following is the relevant part:

Section 2. Amendment to the Bylaws
A. An amendment to the Bylaws may be initiated by any member school;
B. Amendments to the Bylaws must be submitted to the Executive Secretary no later than
30 days prior to a business meeting to be considered at that meeting. The Executive Secretary
will communicate proposed amendments to the membership no later than 15 days prior to the
business meeting;
C. Bylaw amendments require a majority vote by school representatives and proxies
voting at the business meeting.
D. Within 30 days following the business meeting, the Executive Secretary will distribute
a formal ballot containing all proposed Bylaw amendments;
E. Bylaw amendments require a majority vote by school representatives voting by formal
ballot.
Section 3. Alternative Amendment Procedures for the Constitution and Bylaws
A. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of the Executive Council or by a
petition of 5% of the current CEDA membership to the CEDA Executive Secretary and the
CEDA President.
B. The proposed amendment shall be distributed to the membership. Members will have
30 days to send comments on the proposed amendment to the Executive Secretary.
C. Within 45 days of the publication of the proposed amendment, the Executive Secretary
will distribute a formal ballot to the membership containing a copy of the proposed amendment.
D. A three-fourths vote of all members voting will be required to enact an amendment
initiated under this section.

Hester- if someone wanted to propose a change int he topic process do you know what the process for that would be- like who it would be submitted to/dates?


Basically I agree that the TC job is very difficult/borderline impossible in a 3 day meeting. Herndon and I were talking about potential solutions and we came up with an idea to move the deadline to sometime in June, but require the papers to do all the word vetting/rez framing over that extra month and a half.

So is that a proposal that would have to be voted on by just a CEDA/NDT committee or would there be some kind of public vote?
Logged
Brandon Kelley
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2017, 10:00:16 PM »

Hester,

Thanks for the reply. So there were people on the TC avidly against it being made an option for the community to vet/discuss for a month and vote upon, as opposed to just being opposed to the proposal?
I think that distinction matters, a lot -- and I can see reasons that might have been the case (there are things I would feel that way about myself), but if either you/someone else who was there during that process or better yet the people themselves could speak to what the warrants were for choice bad, I would appreciate it.
1. it confuses me, bc for many of the reasons Strauss has explained it's tough for me to fathom how the squo can be net-better, and so i'd like to understand; 2. more importantly, getting that reasoning out there seems like the only real way to find a proposal agreeable enough to the key players that we avoid a repeat of this next year.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 10:05:57 PM by Brandon Kelley » Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  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!