Jump to content
nsanluis

UIL State 2008

Recommended Posts

congrats to the winners

good job

still i dont understand why i never got a medal for winning my octos round.

apparently if you get d/q you dont even get medal for appearing in octos like the other competitors did

its not like actually winning the round is worth anything

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
congrats to the winners

good job

still i dont understand why i never got a medal for winning my octos round.

apparently if you get d/q you dont even get medal for appearing in octos like the other competitors did

its not like actually winning the round is worth anything

 

 

UIL Nazis.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats to the winners.

 

UIL Nazis.

 

I have no problem with people using this website to exercise their opinions. There is a line, however, and you just crossed it. The people that run UIL care a phenomenal amount about the debate community and the people in it. Specifically, the use of the term Nazi labels two people, Jana Riggins (the director of UIL Speech & Debate) and Dr. Rich Edwards (the 5A Contest Director & Tab Room Director).

 

Despite what you and your friends think about her, Jana Riggins devotes hundreds of hours trying to do the best job she can to put on an incredible tournament. Though her efforts may fall short in your eyes, she sacrifices a great deal of her personal life (months on end) to get the job done. On top of that, she's had an incredibly tough year personally as her husband has battled medical issues.

 

For those of you that don't know Dr. Edwards, he wrote the Tab Room program (formally called TRPC) that is used to run Greenhill, St. Mark's, UIL State, TFA State, the TOC, the NDT, most major collegiate tournaments, and most major high school tournaments. Oh, also, he doesn't charge for it. He also is the driving process behind the topic selection process and devotes hundreds of hours of his personal time to make this community a better place. If he has an enemy, I know not who it would be.

 

Exercise your right to free speech all you want. When you choose to conflate two people that do everything they can to make your life better without you realizing it, with people that literally were responsible for one of the worst brutalities in human history, for enforcing a rule that (1) has been a UIL rule for at least 40 years, (2) all the participants knew about going into the tournament and (3) that every other team was able to follow, then you're being ignorant.

 

And I guarantee you that Mr. Klein absolutely wouldn't approve of you insulting those two individuals. Not that you apparently care.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get some Smurray! Just find that ironic, a giant D&G hack wins UIL.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congrats to the winners.

 

 

 

I have no problem with people using this website to exercise their opinions. There is a line, however, and you just crossed it. The people that run UIL care a phenomenal amount about the debate community and the people in it. Specifically, the use of the term Nazi labels two people, Jana Riggins (the director of UIL Speech & Debate) and Dr. Rich Edwards (the 5A Contest Director & Tab Room Director).

 

Despite what you and your friends think about her, Jana Riggins devotes hundreds of hours trying to do the best job she can to put on an incredible tournament. Though her efforts may fall short in your eyes, she sacrifices a great deal of her personal life (months on end) to get the job done. On top of that, she's had an incredibly tough year personally as her husband has battled medical issues.

 

For those of you that don't know Dr. Edwards, he wrote the Tab Room program (formally called TRPC) that is used to run Greenhill, St. Mark's, UIL State, TFA State, the TOC, the NDT, most major collegiate tournaments, and most major high school tournaments. Oh, also, he doesn't charge for it. He also is the driving process behind the topic selection process and devotes hundreds of hours of his personal time to make this community a better place. If he has an enemy, I know not who it would be.

 

Exercise your right to free speech all you want. When you choose to conflate two people that do everything they can to make your life better without you realizing it, with people that literally were responsible for one of the worst brutalities in human history, for enforcing a rule that (1) has been a UIL rule for at least 40 years, (2) all the participants knew about going into the tournament and (3) that every other team was able to follow, then you're being ignorant.

 

And I guarantee you that Mr. Klein absolutely wouldn't approve of you insulting those two individuals. Not that you apparently care.

 

I'm sorry that you misconstrued my comment. My comment was NOT directed toward the tournament directors in any way, but at the UIL rules of "no prompting." The statement "UIL Nazis" underlines the over-regulative system of rules that are in the UIL constitution which are enforced at the expense of the activity and those who participate in it.

 

I am adamant that I believe (though others may not) many of the UIL rules are counter-intuitive, and there are many other debaters and coaches who agree with me. There is no reason the prompting rule cannot be similar to the spreading rule. There is nothing wrong with docking speaker points, but disqualification for saying a single word is simply ridiculous.

 

The opinion which I am expressing is that it is unjust for a team to be stripped of their medals which they worked toward simply because a debater said "no" during their partner's speech. Not only that, but the losing team did not receive an automatic win, meaning that the round became a double loss. If UIL believes that prompting causes an unfair advantage, then shouldn't the win be considered illegitimate?

 

It does not seem that the Deer Park team was aware of the rules, and it was at best a slip of the tongue.

 

I commend Mrs. Riggins and Mr. Edwards for their enforcement of the rules. It would be a violation of their duties to not enforce the rules. I am fully aware of the duties which running a tournament entails, and understand that organizing the tournament was by no means a small task.

 

If you still feel that the intent of my comment was to insult Mrs. Riggins or Mr. Edwards, feel free to private message myself or Mr. Klein. My comment was not an insult in any way, and I'm prepared to defend my original statement.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steven Murray and Jeffrey Xu are now your 2008 UIL 5A state champions.

 

 

what's this? steven murray attending, much less winning, UIL state?

congrats man.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Get some Smurray! Just find that ironic, a giant D&G hack wins UIL.

 

Finals was won on Cap bad. It wasn't even in disguise - it was just straight up cap bad dropped on case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry that you misconstrued my comment. My comment was NOT directed toward the tournament directors in any way, but at the UIL rules of "no prompting." The statement "UIL Nazis" underlines the over-regulative system of rules that are in the UIL constitution which are enforced at the expense of the activity and those who participate in it.

 

I am adamant that I believe (though others may not) many of the UIL rules are counter-intuitive, and there are many other debaters and coaches who agree with me. There is no reason the prompting rule cannot be similar to the spreading rule. There is nothing wrong with docking speaker points, but disqualification for saying a single word is simply ridiculous.

 

The opinion which I am expressing is that it is unjust for a team to be stripped of their medals which they worked toward simply because a debater said "no" during their partner's speech. Not only that, but the losing team did not receive an automatic win, meaning that the round became a double loss. If UIL believes that prompting causes an unfair advantage, then shouldn't the win be considered illegitimate?

 

It does not seem that the Deer Park team was aware of the rules, and it was at best a slip of the tongue.

 

I commend Mrs. Riggins and Mr. Edwards for their enforcement of the rules. It would be a violation of their duties to not enforce the rules. I am fully aware of the duties which running a tournament entails, and understand that organizing the tournament was by no means a small task.

 

If you still feel that the intent of my comment was to insult Mrs. Riggins or Mr. Edwards, feel free to private message myself or Mr. Klein. My comment was not an insult in any way, and I'm prepared to defend my original statement.

 

In the heat of the moment everyone was mad, but it was just the tournament directors enforcing the rules. We can complain about the rules all we want, but the reason why we have such phenomenal tournament directors is because they know and enforce the rules so well. While it was heartbreaking to a team that I heard did their best and just made a mistake, at the end of the day they were just doing their jobs.

 

 

EDIT: also mad ups to Westwood MX. You guys knew yall's stuff and definitley deserved it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the heat of the moment everyone was mad, but it was just the tournament directors enforcing the rules. We can complain about the rules all we want, but the reason why we have such phenomenal tournament directors is because they know and enforce the rules so well. While it was heartbreaking to a team that I heard did their best and just made a mistake, at the end of the day they were just doing their jobs.

 

Yeah, I realize they were doing their job. I wasn't insulting them in any way or form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah this was my first time at uil state and it was a pretty interesting tournament and provided me with some useful stuff:

 

a) better adaption skills

B) experience with UIL style rounds/debaters

c) experience debating certain args

 

i finally got to debate a consult cp...yes i know its my third year but im the 2a and my partners have never wanted to read it and no ones ever read it against me before now...so it was kinda interesting you know?

 

i also finally got to debate the Speek Kritik...it was pretty interesting i gotta say

 

all around a very unique and fun tournament

 

EDIT: both of those args ^ were read against us by the same team in round 4, thanks guys

 

EDIT: who gave me pos rep with this?: "I love this post. Spoken like a true student of debate. BTW, the round I judged you in, you were PHENOMENAL!" i understand that you were a judge of mine (obviously) just curious as to which round maybe so i can understand what exactly was particularily appealing and put it into context for some future use? im sure u understand. if you do not wish to announce publicly just PM me or something, just curious thats all

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the heat of the moment everyone was mad, but it was just the tournament directors enforcing the rules. We can complain about the rules all we want, but the reason why we have such phenomenal tournament directors is because they know and enforce the rules so well. While it was heartbreaking to a team that I heard did their best and just made a mistake, at the end of the day they were just doing their jobs.

 

 

EDIT: also mad ups to Westwood MX. You guys knew yall's stuff and definitley deserved it.

 

Yeah, I realize they were doing their job. I wasn't insulting them in any way or form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finals was won on Cap bad. It wasn't even in disguise - it was just straight up cap bad dropped on case.

 

Wow, i love it long time Steven. Also, funny story on cap. bad, i was up till 2 the night before our state writing a badass "creative capital" K, and then never got to run it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats to Westwood on winning

 

It would've been fun to hit you guys again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, none of the judges in the round reported the prompting issue in the round. As it was told to me, the violation was reported by the negative team's coach. All of the judges were questioned, two of the three confirmed the story (the other missed it presumably because it was during a transition time to another flow), and then the affirmative team admitted to the error. As for the other "incident" in the round, two of the judges were friends and one of them had brought her students in. AFTER signing her ballot, she let her kids see what she wrote to help them learn and then spoke with the other judge (who had also already decided his decision) audibly about a non-round issue. The interactions after the round become irrelevant by the fact that both of the judges in question voted DIFFERENTLY.

 

True, the "prompting" did not change the outcome of the round or affect it in any way. One of the judges noted it on her ballot, but only to congratulate the Deer Park 1A for catching herself. It's unfortunate that Deer Park had to be disqualified and I'll say that maybe it wasn't necessary. What is necessary, however, is that the tournament directors of this tournament present a united enforcement effort which is steady throughout the years. They were faced with a tough decision and had to deal with it. It certainly is not their fault.

 

Everything that Murrell said is very much true as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand enforcing the rules of not allowing us to advance due to prompting.

but not allowing us to have even octafinals medals?

the team that lost the round recieved them, why couldn't i get one as well?

i am not particularly well versed on the UIL Constitution, but does it state in there somewhere that after a disqualification, the team is no longer given their medals?

 

as for a pre-emptive measure I am in no way at all condeming the UIL officials at all. I am just curious as to why some things occur. The one thing I dont particuarly understand is to why, if we were disqualified for prompting, was the negative team not allowed to advance due to defualt. I know that if I were the negative team and the same scenario would have occured, I would want some justification as to why I am not able to Debate even though the team we lost to was d/qed

 

again congrats on westwood to winning

from what i hear you guys really deserve it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna admit, I have talked some mad shit about UIL debate for a long time.

 

I really enjoyed this year though. The diversity of the judge pool gave me the oppurtunity to debate in ways i never thought i would be able to. I got to give a line by line of the 1ac in the 2NC, which was really fun. I got to debate and lose to Steven Murray on Xtra T again. I got to debate in rounds where each judge had a different method of evaluating the debate, which forced me and my partner to come up with new ways to engage their arguments while appealing to all three judges.

 

And, everything Murrell said is both true and important for everyone who plans on debating at this tournament to realize. There are no oral kritiks after the rounds and there's no open CX, but I can't think of a tournament that runs on time better than this one. I understand the Nazis kept the trains running on time too, and however much Lawrence and others hate punctual trains, the tournament directors deserve all of our gratitude. Given the size of this tournament and the various attitudes and preferences of all the coaches, students and regions represented in the pool, the tournament officials do a superb job of making this tournament run smoothly for everyone.

 

 

Special congrats to Mr. Murray and Jeffery Xu for winning the 5A tournament and to Bellaire for valiantly defending the invasion of Darfur and winning second place, to Bay city for winning 4A finals and crosby for winning second.

 

And Deer Park. If there was a emoticon or interwebzors acronym for a standing ovation, i would type it here.

 

dan

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what the UIL constitution says about medals to disqualifications. I hope that something is resolved and you can be recognized. As my ballot indicated, I thought Deer Park won the round. It was a really good debate round, too, in my opinion. I don't know which debater you are, but you have my apologies for how the situation turned out (and I wish I had gotten a chance to talk to you after the round and awards ceremony, but I had to get to a round).

 

Answering why the negative team didn't advance on default, it's because the negative team lost the round. The prompting didn't cause Deer Park to win and Jersey Village to lose, so they shouldn't advance. It's unfortunate that no one advanced and somebody got a pass to the semifinals, but that's just the procedure (right or wrong). This actually happened in 1A in 2006 (ironically, I as on that panel as well) in semifinals and it was a little different but only because a final round had to occur.

 

I do hope that there is some sort of resolution to the medals question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This actually happened in 1A in 2006 (ironically, I as on that panel as well) in semifinals and it was a little different but only because a final round had to occur.

 

Yup, you know, there is still some controversy about if that was really prompting or not, and funny thing is that even recently people still try to call our school's win BS, hell we don't make the rules, UIL does, you just have to follow them, even if they suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven and Jeffrey, straight ups. Awesome job, both of you, and all the Austin debaters who continue to wreck shop on a state and national level

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to also say congratulations to the all of the state medalists (including Deer Park and Highland Park) and especially to Bay City GP and Crosby JM. That was a phenomenal state final round. All four debaters made me proud to be a judge and I was humbled to judge that round. It will be a GREAT teaching tool for programs all across the state. The clash, delivery, and argumentation in general was great!

 

CONGRATULATIONS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations to everyone who competed this year in the UIL Tournament. A special congratulations should go out to Steven and Jeffrey of WW for winning 5A and to Bellaire for doing a great job as well. A special congratulations should also go out to Celeste and Amy of Bay City. I'm going to miss you girls next year and it was fun getting to know you. Great job at winning state yet again.

 

Does anyone have any details on the finals round for the 4A (Bay City GP and Crosby)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bebop: bcgp never won state, they were 2nd last year to a diff crosby team. bc's been in 4a finals the last three years though and they are all class. way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a slight correction. bay city has been in the final round at UIL state for the past 4 yours.

 

issacson/johnson got 2nd 3 years ago [2005]

issacson/johnson won state 2 years ago [2006]

grebe/powell got 2nd last year [2007]

grebe/powell won state this year [2008]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...