<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
	<channel>
<title>CEDA News</title><link>http://www.cedadebate.org/index.html</link><description>CEDA News</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><dc:creator>jeffrey.jarman@wichita.edu</dc:creator><dc:rights>Copyright 2007 JEFFREY W JARMAN</dc:rights><dc:date>2008-02-08T05:47:31-06:00</dc:date><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.realmacsoftware.com/" />
<admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:jeffrey.jarman@wichita.edu" /><sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:50:15 -0600</lastBuildDate><item><title>Elims at Pepperdine</title><dc:creator>jeffrey.jarman@wichita.edu</dc:creator><category>Sweepstakes</category><dc:date>2008-02-08T05:47:31-06:00</dc:date><link>http://www.cedadebate.org/page17/files/97213b7cb7580e6478ac84bb502571f7-3.html#unique-entry-id-3</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cedadebate.org/page17/files/97213b7cb7580e6478ac84bb502571f7-3.html#unique-entry-id-3</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[<span style="font:16px Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; ">The 2007 Pepperdine tournament faced a terrible natural disaster that prevented the all elimination rounds from occurring.  The Executive Council voted to (1) count the full points for all of the partial round byes and to (2) split evenly all of the points for the first full elimination rounds that did not occur.  The result provides either 1.5 or 4.5 points per team that reached the elimination rounds at the tournament.<br /><br /></span>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Immediate implementation of amendments</title><dc:creator>jeffrey.jarman@wichita.edu</dc:creator><category>Eligibility</category><dc:date>2008-02-08T05:46:06-06:00</dc:date><link>http://www.cedadebate.org/page17/files/3bcd53bf27632ac553476b3ca8be6c62-2.html#unique-entry-id-2</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cedadebate.org/page17/files/3bcd53bf27632ac553476b3ca8be6c62-2.html#unique-entry-id-2</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[<span style="font:16px Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; ">Recently the membership passed an amendment altering Article VII Section <br />3(A) of the CEDA Bylaws. This amendment did not carry an effective date in <br />its text and this has created some confusion as to the date it became <br />effective. I will admit that I was fuzzy on this one too. After much <br />discussion and consulting an old textbook, I can announce that an amendment <br />without an effective date takes effect the moment it is passed. (While this <br />post relates primarily to the novice eligibility rule change, let me also <br />add that because all amendments without effective dates take effect <br />immediately, teams that qualify as JV under the new, more liberal JV <br />standards set by that amendment are eligible for JV regardless of when they <br />lost their eligibility under the prior, stricter rule). <br /><br />Faced with some community confusion, I presented to the EC the option to <br />exercise our power under the Bylaws to grant waivers from the strictures of <br />the eligibility requirements of Article VII Section 3(A), to grant a waiver <br />to allow students who began the year eligible under the original rule to <br />complete this season and accrue points. This does not "invalidate" or <br />"waive" the amendment itself -- rather this would recognize that the <br />amendment took effect and provide a limited waiver for the affected students <br />for the next two months to finish the year. <br /><br />Many reasons were raised for adopting this waiver. An incomplete summary of <br />some reasons mentioned in the discussion follows: <br /><br />1) Confusion: In addition to my personal confusion, I have been approached <br />by other coaches, including one with decades of service to the activity, who <br />asked me why I thought the amendment took effect immediately rather than the <br />beginning of next season. When people following the activity for some time <br />were confused, I determined that the reasonable solution would be to explore <br />a waiver. <br />2) The posted Constitution: While the amendment passed, anyone looking to <br />our website to determine our rules will note that it is not included in the <br />presently posted Constitution, which is the public notice of our rules. <br />3) Optimal compromise: It seemed to many to be the best compromise between <br />faithfully following our rules and adhering to the general principle 'do no <br />harm' when it comes to governing. The amendment did pass and will be in <br />effect to the letter beginning next season, but for now there will be waiver <br />to allow those excluded by the new rule to finish the season. <br />4) EC responsibility: There were either unspoken assumptions or a lack of <br />communication with regards to the effective start date. As the EC it was <br />our duty to accept the responsibility for the mistakes we made, specifically <br />not having an effective date that was explicit and publicly noticed. We <br />apologize for this misunderstanding. To prevent future such episodes, I am <br />going to propose an amendment requiring all of our amendments to include <br />"effective dates" (like real legislation). <br /><br />As always, individual tournaments can set stricter requirements for novice <br />eligibility than allowed by the constitution. If a tournament expressly <br />wishes to exclude those teams that met the old rule but not the new rule, <br />please inform me and more importantly make this move explicit to all <br />attending. <br /><br />10 FOR: <br />Baker <br />Buescher <br />Davis <br />Dillard <br />Kephart <br />Patrice <br />Peterson <br />Rubino <br />Silber <br />Stables <br /><br />3 OPPOSED: <br />Elliott <br />Green <br />Jarman <br /><br />1 ABSTAIN: <br />McDonald <br /><br />Not Voting (Majority was reached before collecting these votes): <br />Brossman <br />Gerber <br />Partlow-Lefevre <br />Steinberg <br />North Central Rep (presently vacant) <br /><br /></span>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Debating after graduation</title><dc:creator>jeffrey.jarman@wichita.edu</dc:creator><category>Eligibility</category><dc:date>2007-11-15T15:34:42-06:00</dc:date><link>http://www.cedadebate.org/page17/files/30a1d85b987486ab10783b9900e6eb36-0.html#unique-entry-id-0</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cedadebate.org/page17/files/30a1d85b987486ab10783b9900e6eb36-0.html#unique-entry-id-0</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The EC took the following action at the NCA meeting.<br /><br />Accepted a request/appeal from Cornell University to allow a student to be eligible to earn CEDA points and attend CEDA Nationals this spring (2008) even though the student will earn a Bachelor's degree at the end of this semester.  The vote was 11 - 1 (plus one abstention).  The EC will allow this student to compete assuming they can provide documentation that they are enrolled and in good standing at the university during the spring semester.<br /><br />3 reasons were given in support of the decision:  (1) we should not punish students who complete their degree early, (2) the student will still be enrolled in some coursework in the spring, and (3) the EC expects a formal amendment clarifying graduating senior competition to come soon.<br /><br />Voting for the issue were:  Patrice, Elliott, Stables, Steinberg, Sandoz (appointed as PP), Kephart, Davis, Rubino, Dillard, Buescher and Galloway (for Southeast).  Voting against the issue were:  Walters (appointed for Mid America) and Jarman.<br /><br />]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Clarify Calendar</title><dc:creator>jeffrey.jarman@wichita.edu</dc:creator><category>Tournaments</category><dc:date>2007-05-20T15:35:37-05:00</dc:date><link>http://www.cedadebate.org/page17/files/a18d62f19134f62db4b6ffe377153ec3-1.html#unique-entry-id-1</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.cedadebate.org/page17/files/a18d62f19134f62db4b6ffe377153ec3-1.html#unique-entry-id-1</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The EC acted to make the constitution consistent with the tournament calendar.<br /><br />The constitution does not allow tournaments to count for points before the third Friday of September.  This Fall, the "traditional" season opener weekend comes lands on the second Friday of the month.<br /><br />The EC voted unanimously to allow tournaments held on that weekend to count for points.  The rationale was that it did not extend the tournament season, but merely clarified existing travel practice to compete on that weekend.  The 2nd Friday is an artifact of the calendar, not the tournament season.<br />]]></content:encoded></item></channel>
</rss>