Jump to content
RoyersMWD

Nebraska 09-10

Recommended Posts

Hey there, just checking in finally hit ptx in wyoming so we can just call it even lol

 

you're a good dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations to the Scrubs and Mutants of Millard West for closing out Kearney finals!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello.

 

The Lincoln East tournament next weekend is short on policy judges. If you have policy experience and would like to judge, email Doug Frank (dfrank at lps dot org).

 

Good luck to everyone going to LSE tomorrow.

Edited by rjk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, sorry I haven't been around ... but I have a good excuse:

 

20751_574126514322_62101870_33385851_7228398_n.jpg

 

Say hello to Annabeth Leigh Royers. She was born on Valentine's Day at 10:20 am. Clocked in at 7 lbs 1 oz and 19 1/2 inches long. I'm taking just a short amount of time off this month, so I'll be back in action for NIT, Districts, and State. Then I get 6 weeks of paternity leave (thanks federal government!).

 

-Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, it's a little early but I thought I'd post some info about the Oklahoma Debate Institute. Great staff and lecture series' by top-flight collegiate coaches and debaters make our institute too legit to quit. Check us out on facebook-

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=201618717088&ref=ts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

congrats royers. now its time to start teaching her speed drills.

 

shane, its not a screenshot its just a picture. baudrillard would probably think that slip is pretty funny though. picture determines reality, the presence of an additional screen assumed, etc.

 

i can vouch for the quality of the people at the oklahoma institute. y'all should check it out. it's chocked full of top notch folks. almost as cool as the ndi...;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shane, its not a screenshot its just a picture. baudrillard would probably think that slip is pretty funny though. picture determines reality, the presence of an additional screen assumed, etc.

 

not a slip. very deliberate. Royers knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok everyone, its time to get serious about this business. we've got NIT, quals, and state coming up. so what i'm asking is that everyone please check your wiki entry and make sure of a couple things.

 

first, that you've made it possible for the rest of us to find your evidence. the point of the wiki is to assist research (which begets education). if you don't include things like urls, page numbers, document titles, etc. it becomes literally impossible to locate your evidence and your wiki entry becomes approximately as useful as a saved flow (which is radically less useful and therefore radically less educationally beneficial). here's the test - using only the information provided on your wiki entry, try to find your card. if it takes you more than 1 minute to find (actually downloading is different because this often involves using university search engines or buying a book or whatever), you haven't included enough information. keep in mind that if its a book, page numbers are essential. while it'd be awesome if we all had time to read every book everyone else uses, we realistically don't.

 

secondly, lets make sure the wiki entry reflects the most recent version of our arguments. i don't think its unreasonable to ask that the wiki entries meet these standards by this weekend (it literally only takes like 20-30 minutes to do from scratch. if you have a digital copy of your aff, it takes about 2 minutes).

 

if your immediate reaction to this is that i'm just trying to give millard south a leg up, well no shit. i coach for them, giving them a leg up is my job and one i'm addicted to. beyond that though, the wiki benefits everyone equally, but only if everyone uses it to the same degree. that is, everyone has the ability to read everyone else's cards and has the opportunity to get that "leg up" only if everyone makes it possible for the community to locate their evidence. so it is to your benefit as well as mine to be sure that the community embraces the wiki to its intended and fullest degree.

 

thanks in advance, happy hunting, and good luck over the next month to everyone.

Edited by TLF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double-checked our entry: everything looks fine. Also, could you try to post your molepeople stuff as soon as possible, so I don't have to write answers to it at the last minute?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dylan's tl;dr post

 

I agree. Echoing Dylan's post here. The smaller schools particularly benefit from the wiki. Another addition is that it would be great if the wiki were updated with the most recent "permanent" partnerships, for those schools who like to shuffle things around.

 

Our CAPTA stuff is up and correct AFAIK, minus maybe some tag changes which I'll catch from Tim hopefully on NIT weekend; we haven't made any changes in the cards. I can't really confirm anything about the books but if you look at those page numbers and they're wrong just shoot me an email.

 

For the convenience of the Nebraska debate community, here are links to all existing Wiki pages. I'll edit this list as more teams are added to the wiki (*hint*). If you're italicized it means you're not there and should be. Or something like that.

 

---

 

Fremont

Fremont MV (Martin/Vuong)

Fremont MM (Martinez/Mercado)

Fremont FB (Ford/Burbach)

 

Fremont-Mills

Fremont-Mills SS (Saker/Schaaf)

 

Lincoln High

Not on the wiki.

 

Millard West

Millard West AM (Scrubs) - CONFIRMED

Millard West BM (Mutants)

Millard West WZ (Wondertwins)

 

Millard South

Millard South SH (Snelling/Haggerty)

Millard South HM (Hargan/Marcum)

 

Norfolk

Norfolk MP (Mastny/Parlato) - CONFIRMED

 

Westside

Westside ER (Ebert/Robinson)

Westside FC (Fuller/Carlson)

Westside AW (Ali/Wichert)

Edited by rjk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have no idea what molepeople means, but i'm sure if tyler does he'll make someone post it when he reads this thread. as to our partnerships, they do and have changed but the arguments on those two wiki entries reflect our arguments thus far to my knowledge. if that is not accurate, it will be rectified shortly.

 

EDIT - does molepeople refer to the homeless people living under las vegas??? thats cold man...

Edited by TLF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really have a problem with the Wiki, but come on, it helps everyone EQUALLY? Dude, you guys are essentially pro debaters who comb through every possible argument and prep it out. I agree open-evidence strengthens depth debate all around but there still are certain schools that are privilaged over others when it is the norm. You act like it nullifies the impact of multiple coaches because everyone has the chance to read it, but that's not really true. You have 2 of the best paid coaches in the state in addition to several very talented debaters. You can't seriously pretend that your mega strategy sessions don't give you a huge "leg up" relative to everyone else.

 

In the past, small schools could knock out large schools by being crafty and hitting them with a new argument that they hadn't been prepped out for. Now you can't do that. I think this is just your way of insuring that there are no irregularities in who does and doesn't qualify to nats/win state/win the NIT. Essentially, this makes sure that everyone who "should" qualify/win does qualify/win. To enforce participation in the wiki, schools that choose not to participate are socially marginalized on the circuit by all the cool kids who are "just trying to improve the level of competition."

 

Just my two-cents. I'm sure it will be massively unpopular. To clarify, I'm not attacking anyone personally. You're a damn good coach and your debaters are damn good as well. I think you'd probably be the ones who qualify/win with or without the wiki. I don't blame you for trying to give your team the leg up, that's your job. I'm just suggesting that the wiki is not a straight shot to justice in which everyone is on equal footing.

Edited by Danny Tanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dylan - Yes, Shane is being insensitive and referring to the homeless in Vegas.

 

@Tanner - Although it certainly increases the ability of large squad schools to prepare, it helps the smaller schools by a far larger level. Because a lot of the "big" schools run pretty out there affirmatives (and I'm referring to national circuit teams, like the slum dwellers aff, etc.) that a small school might not have a strategy for, this gives an edge of preparation for those affs. It also rewards research and preparation during the week for those who may not be as technically skilled in round but do a great job blocking out arguments and coming up with killer strats.

 

The wiki to me is slowly becoming accepted like aff disclosure used to be. It used to be that some teams would fight to even mention what their aff is, and getting a plan text was out of the question. The world of debate now versus when I debated - with camp files freely available online and affs also being available - is far better, far more inclusive, and makes it far easier for schools to get a program going. I know, I had to start Millard West's program from the ground up - with just two debaters. It would have been near impossible to do that without the support of other schools even five or six years ago.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think the wiki is most beneficial to small schools. The Omaha schools have more debaters, more scouting, and more coaching, which means that even in a world absent disclosure, they're going to have more flows than smaller schools. The wiki helps smaller schools out because it makes the playing field less biased - we've used the wiki tons this year and I honestly think it's increased the number of rounds we've won.

 

Larger schools with more coaches will always have the advantage. I think the wiki really does help smaller schools level the playing field a bit. The "element of surprise" isn't really gone either, because in general new positions aren't put on the wiki until well after they've been run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see myself agreeing with Tanner on this. This is the first year in a while that I haven't been around the Nebraska Debate Circuit so I can't speak for the quality of debates as a result of the wiki. Has the quality of in-state debating risen significantly as a result of the debate wiki? Or has the quality of debates risen simply as a result of better debaters, better coaches, and ability to attend out of state tournaments?

 

Dylan could be right in saying that the wiki benefits everyone equally -- in the sense that everyone has the same access to arguments posted on the wiki. But I'm not sure that Dylan's statement applies to an equal benefit when referring to competitive advantage in a debate round.

 

Can someone explain what the expectations are for the wiki's? Is there an expectation that your general 1AC and 1NC strategies will be posted? How do individual schools determine what will be posted to the wiki? If you have never posted a 1NC strategy on the wiki, but run it in the round -- have you committed some kind of serious infraction against the debater moral code? What happens when a school simply chooses to not participate in the wiki?

Edited by BrentK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanner and Brent. I can tell you for a fact that smaller schools benefit from the Wiki. In ANY aspect of debate, having skilled coaching is largely a prerequisite to success, it only makes sense that that would extend in some ways to the wiki. However, when teams from Nebraska compete on the national circuit, the binary flips and we all become the small schools. When compared to the northshore schools and the Westmonster we really are small schools. I can tell you for a fact that knowing what another team will say going into a round is beneficial, even if you don't have a coach. It is not necessary to have a coach to read the wiki and start thinking about arguments and strat. It fosters debates that comprehend the aff or neg positions going in. The biggest thing lacking in high school debate, in my opinion, is the lack of analysis on the interactions between positions.

 

The collegiate level is a little different because basically everyone has paid coaching, but again having a wiki here allows me to be prepped for schools like Emory that send literally 6-8 teams per tournament. They don't all read identical arguments so it's nice to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone explain what the expectations are for the wiki's? Is there an expectation that your general 1AC and 1NC strategies will be posted? How do individual schools determine what will be posted to the wiki? If you have never posted a 1NC strategy on the wiki, but run it in the round -- have you committed some kind of serious infraction against the debater moral code? What happens when a school simply chooses to not participate in the wiki?

 

In general, I think the expectations are that you post your aff cites and neg cites under certain conditions. The neg cites part tends to be flexible because some schools don't have a core negative position that they run every round. So in general, schools that run big one-off Ks post those on the wiki. Teams that usually stick with CP/DA debate seem not to be expected to put that stuff on the wiki, largely because it changes every round.

 

Breaking a new 1NC or even 1AC strategy isn't considered violating any debate ethical code. It's just breaking something new. In general, though, it's expected that these strategies be put on the wiki eventually (after the tournament is usually a good time for this).

 

Schools who choose not to participate in the wiki get the occasional friendly jab from competitors and judges. And in general I think some people have less respect for teams who use the wiki to compile strategies but don't put at the very minimum their 1AC cites on the wiki. Sort of how everyone hates teams who don't disclose their plan text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to answer your question Brent, acceptable disclosure is after you've read an aff once (depending on the intensity of the tournament and time in between rounds) you ought to put it up. This includes the Tag, complete citation including page number, hyperlink, etc. Then, you put the first few words you use from the article then a hyphen and the last few words. If people want your shit they should have to recut shit themselves.

 

There is no hard and fast explanation of when in every instance shit has to be put on the wiki, however when our circuit is preparing for state, all the arguments that have been run ought to be put up. If you're breaking new, it doesn't have to go up until after you've read it. No, you shouldn't be ostracized for not posting, but if you've been reading the same case and/or ks and common politics disads, they, in all fairness, should be on the wiki.

 

Just my two cents. Not tryna start shit or call anyone out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that i have little in the game here, but i still lurk waiting for conversations just as these.

 

my thought is this: wiki disclosure does help people, roughly equally.

Yes: larger debate squads (in this case, South, but Ian's right in that South, like Washington, experiences the small squad effect in different situations) can do more work. This is true without regard to whether or not the wiki is updated, however. For better or worse, this is a structural reality.

I would argue further that another advantage that larger schools have is intelligence gathering. back in the day, that entailed designating a person (often me) to go around to all the important rounds and scouting out new args. that's something much harder for smaller squads to replicate, and the wiki goes a long ways towards equalizing that side of the equation.

 

Tanner suggests that small schools get an advantage out of breaking new args and surprising a bigger school. Yes--please do. No one expects you to, and you should not, post arguments before they get run. At the East Iowa NFL district qualifier, Wash's top teams broke a new aff, 2 new versions of our old aff, and a new kritik in addition to new case specific strats. (if you want to see them/steal cites, guess where they are.) That won us several debates that were very close, and the wiki HELPED us pull that off. Prep your opponents args, and btw, steal args from other teams on the wiki! If you don't have 45 assistant coaches cutting new args for you, go to Bronx's page, or Kinkaid's page, and steal some shit! just sayin.

 

The ultimate argument in favor of posting your stuff is this: don't be a free-rider. I respect people who are not in favor of disclosing their args, but not people who don't disclose (or are intentionally slow in posting) their cites, but still use the wiki to look at other people's cites. I doubt highly that anyone with a web browser on this page hasn't at least browsed another team's cites that they might debate. That makes you a huge flaming hypocrite if you aren't posting your own. That's what i got.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...