Jump to content
rjk

Nebraska 2010-2011

Recommended Posts

NEBRASKA SOUTH:

(Pretty sure this is right)

 

Up:

Millard South Snelling/Bri 2-0

Millard South Ben/Ginger 2-0

 

Down:

Millard South Casas/Gonzaba 1-1

Millard South Degan/Jake 1-1

Westside Sam/Maddi 1-1

Westside Jake/Tarek 1-1

Westside Mike/Dan 1-1

Lincoln High Aaron/Raymond 1-1

 

 

Out:

Westside Novices

Lincoln High Novices

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updates:

 

Up:

Millard South Snelling/Bri 3-1

Millard South Casas/Gonzaba 3-1

Westside Sam/Maddi 3-1

 

Out:

Westside Novices

Westside Dan/Mike

Millard South Degan/Jake

Lincoln High Aaron/Raymond

Lincoln High Novices

 

 

A round is happening right now:

Millard South Max/Ben (aff) v. Westside Tarek/Jake (Neg)

Who ever loses is out of the tournament.

Edited by mattcasas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats to Kirsten and Yan from Millard West for qualifying (they byed into nats over their novice team).

 

Tim/Grady from Norfolk are currently affirming against Brian/Lana from Millard West in the go-round for the north district.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congrats to Kirsten and Yan from Millard West for qualifying (they byed into nats over their novice team).

 

Tim/Grady from Norfolk are currently affirming against Brian/Lana from Millard West in the go-round for the north district.

 

Brian and I qualed as well (through bye over Max and Ben).

 

Bri/Tyler from Millard South are currently affirming against Sam/Maddi from Westside for the final spot in the south district.

 

To everyone involved, this has been a great tournament

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

North qualifiers-

1. Millard West Kirsten/Yan

2. Norfolk Tim/Grady

 

Of course I'm partial, but double congrats to Grady for being the first freshman ever to qualify to nationals in any event for Norfolk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

South qualifiers

 

Millard South Brian/Matt

Westside Maddie/Sam

 

Congrats to both teams! I think it's interesting/awesome that Nebraska qualified 4 teams from 4 different schools to NFL nats in policy. It speaks to the level of competitiveness and equal skill level among different teams on the circuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Norfolk reads a framework argument like this next time you come to my area (intentionally not specified) I'd be happy. I'd read the framework argument myself, but my coach would probably be upset. It's worth the loss I'd take hitting it in order to improve the quality of local debate.

 

I don't coach policy anywhere with an active wiki so this really doesn't matter to me. I largely support wikis. However, you realize the impact of this framework (which I've had the "pleasure" of reading on an NFA LD Wiki) is that the wiki is best for small schools. Forcing people into the wiki is counterproductive. Sometimes, you have to let evolution occur on its own. Forcing schools to lose because of the wiki that you say is for their benefit on create animosity. Debate existed before wikis, so if you have to debate a round that you aren't totally prepared for, you'll survive. Just relax. You are right, wikis will benefit argumentation and small schools. Be patient and let them realize that on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main problem is that if a team doesn't post on the wiki they should not participate in the information sharing that it stimulates. I know for a fact that teams that do not participate in posting information use it to gain information about other teams. That is the definition of unfair...but it seems that there is no way to police that so teams that post full information just have to rely on the fact that their good will towards others will be paid off with Karmic justice. Until then, my stance is you don't gotta share but if you don't share you should resist the desire to look at the information that others post...simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My main problem is that if a team doesn't post on the wiki they should not participate in the information sharing that it stimulates. I know for a fact that teams that do not participate in posting information use it to gain information about other teams. That is the definition of unfair...but it seems that there is no way to police that so teams that post full information just have to rely on the fact that their good will towards others will be paid off with Karmic justice. Until then, my stance is you don't gotta share but if you don't share you should resist the desire to look at the information that others post...simple.

 

Dana is spot-on here.

 

Ideally, the information would be on a private wiki so you have to have an account (and possibly even post your cites) before you're able to view the evidence. On the other hand, that does decrease the educational and preparatory benefits of the wiki... so maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ideally, the information would be on a private wiki so you have to have an account (and possibly even post your cites) before you're able to view the evidence. On the other hand, that does decrease the educational and preparatory benefits of the wiki... so maybe not.

 

 

that sounds a little bit fascist ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that sounds a little bit fascist ...

 

I'm okay with being a little bit fascist. Like I said, I recognize that this probably isn't an option and does mitigate some of the benefits of having a wiki. Beginning my sentence with "ideally" was probably not a good idea; I was sort of thinking as I was typing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that sounds a little bit fascist ...

 

fascism: a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

Nope, doesn't sound a little bit fascist at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would it be "fascist" to put a password on the wiki, so long as everyone who wants to be a part of the disclosure exchange is allowed to be a part of the exchange?

 

I think a password is the way to go. It seems more coercive and authoritarian (I wouldn't go as far as fascist) to chastise other members of the community for choosing not to participate in the wiki.

 

Dana is right that it isn't cool to use the wiki but not post your own information. Password protection solves the problem.

Edited by Danny Tanner
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only problem with password protection is that it makes the site more difficult to manage and that it is kinda flies in the face of the free exchange of information which is supposed to be the heart and soul of the wiki. I think we can only really rely on the honor system...my teams will continue to post regardless of how many teams make a decision to use the information being shared in a way I consider inappropriate. I can only hope that the value of information sharing becomes manifestly obvious...it seems like snooping and not sharing is an important lesson about how information makes for better debates (for example these teams use that information to make better more case specific strategies and to drive case specific research). The only problem is that this benefit should be reciprocal. But again this is just me asking for compliance not suggesting it should be a requirement. I wouldn't want to be a fascist at heart...which prolly is capable of meaning something about the spirit of a particular system that is non-governmental as well...dictionary fascists might tell you differently...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think password protection really solves anything. once i post AN argument, how do you monitor if i ever run it again, if i post arguments i'm actually reading frequently, if i post args next season, etc. cheater gonna cheat. securitizing is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very glad we all agree that the wiki is good and being a wiki "freerider" is, if nothing else, a dick move. The "A team" or whatever you want to call it from every school in the state now officially has their stuff up on the wiki, which I'm sure we'll all use to our advantage and create some fantastic, thorough and educational debates at state later this month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't think password protection really solves anything. once i post AN argument, how do you monitor if i ever run it again, if i post arguments i'm actually reading frequently, if i post args next season, etc. cheater gonna cheat. securitizing is bad.

You monitor it the same way you monitor it now, by chastising those who are neglecting their obligations. Only this time, you do it only to other people who are voluntarily participating in the exchange.

 

If a partnership thinks that it would be in their strategic interest to opt out of the exchange, they should be able to do so. Obviously, there are people on this circuit that feel this way. That said, these teams also should not be allowed to benefit from the exchange. There are costs and benefits to participating in the wiki. Each partnership should decide for itself whether the costs outweigh the benefits or visa versa. I just don't like the "father knows best attitude" that says "Obviously the benefits of your disclosure outweigh the costs. Therefore, you needn't decide anything. You will participate for your own benefit."

Edited by Danny Tanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its just not that easy. for a lot of schools that have multiple teams that debate several weekends in a row, keeping the wiki up to date for each tournament is tough. admirable and possible, but tough. but as soon as you provide room to accomodate reasonable periods of grace before a team gets "kicked off" (prohibited from viewing the wiki, ie freeriding) you create opportunity for abuse. dummy accounts, partial entries, etc. if teams don't want to participate, they don't have to in whatever world of the wiki that exists. so if cheaters are also inevitable, why make everyone's life harder (primarily the site admins), when the whole point of the project is openness of information?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't coach policy anywhere with an active wiki so this really doesn't matter to me. I largely support wikis. However, you realize the impact of this framework (which I've had the "pleasure" of reading on an NFA LD Wiki) is that the wiki is best for small schools. Forcing people into the wiki is counterproductive. Sometimes, you have to let evolution occur on its own. Forcing schools to lose because of the wiki that you say is for their benefit on create animosity. Debate existed before wikis, so if you have to debate a round that you aren't totally prepared for, you'll survive. Just relax. You are right, wikis will benefit argumentation and small schools. Be patient and let them realize that on their own.

You're argument presumes that the small schools in my area are rational. They aren't. They reject anything that seems to have to do with the circuit, even if it's good, and train their debaters to do the same, which causes the cycle to repeat itself.

 

Also, the coaches in my area are selfish. We steal evidence from other teams and use the wiki to prep against other schools all the time, but we refuse to post on the wiki because it's not in our self interest.

 

I heavily encourage teams from other schools to read framework against schools that don't disclose in order to force them to do so. Even if these schools cheated, it would be one step closer to normalizing disclosure within these areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are a lot of problems with that idea.

 

first, it's not very feasible to construct and execute such a framework. again, the question of how long it become acceptable to an argument to go unposted before a loss is given. but that sort of presupposes that teams should lose for not participating in the wiki, which is highly suspect. if the team isn't freeriding, why should they be punished for choosing not to participate? because you have an ideal vision for the community you wish to enforce by driving out difference? good call. if the crucial issue is cheating, how do you evidence that in a debate round? have you considered what a nightmare judging this position would be? and if most of the coaches in your community feel that way, doesn't it stand to reason that you'll just lose that round anyway (if the judging pool somehow feel differently by and large than the head coaches, i'd say your problem sounds pretty temporary and unique)? don't you risk alienating the coaches that feel that way by tying the argument to the competition (something they clearly hold dear) and pushing them farther away from wiki participation (as in, doesn't it seem like they'd be more likely to listen to conversations outside the round?). and you say you encourage teams from other schools to run the framework, but those debaters would be the least informed on the situation. they'd have no idea how a team from another state has been reading their aff, if they use the wiki, how their coach feels, etc. and then there's the question of "solvency". you think framework arguments generate changes in the debate community? how about the "k bad" frameworks run in like 99% of K rounds? does their popularity indicate the imminent death of the K? doubtful. the NFA LD community is pretty instructive on this question. the argument you wanna run exists, and yet that community still has shit loads of free riders. what makes your community different?

 

we've had our fair share of problems with teams abusing the wiki. run your f/w if you feel it can be done feasibly and provides a productive, added incentive to the conversation you should be having in your community. but make sure you've thought through the potential repercussions from and upon the people who make up the community you value and seek to improve. be careful that that improvement isn't a purge, that you're not using grenades where conversation are appropriate, and that your weapon of choice actually fires.

Edited by TLF
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as someone who debated at a couple of tournaments on your circuit (though not much, and it was a few years ago), I don't see this type of theory argument winning rounds; a few of the younger judges might listen to it, but in general the one school in your state that places its cites on the wiki might have the only judges likely to be persuaded by this argument.

 

In general, the easiest way to create change within the debate community is to pick up ballots. As teams who use the wiki (including posting their cites) continue to be successful on both the local and national levels, I think you'll see more schools in your state understanding the educational and preparatory benefits of the wiki as the school(s?) that use it continue to win.

 

It's generally accepted that picking up ballots translates to change, so I suspect that allowing this to happen at its own pace might be the best way to solve, combined with an open discussion and voluntary participation in cite sharing/the wiki by as many schools as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way I see it, teams should post their shit on the wiki. But if they don't, keeping the the wiki open and allowing those teams to still benefit from it will still result in more educational rounds. Yeah it's probably unfair, but if a team has prior access to your aff, you'll (hopefully) have more clash in-round, even if your team had no prior access to their strategy. Your team may be more likely to drop a ballot, but I'd think they'd get more out of the round as compared to a round where both teams go in with no prior knowledge.

 

tl;dr: both teams disclosing on the wiki > one team disclosing on the wiki > neither team disclosing on the wiki

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're argument presumes that the small schools in my area are rational. They aren't.

 

Darn right we we small schools are not Rational! :) The last thing we need is more of that Enlightenment crap!

 

Actually, per the rest of your analysis on small schools being isolationists and having a small-school rationale for that behavior, I'd suggest that needs rethought and anyone claiming "being small" as a defense for reactionary, structuralist, exclusionary thinking really needs to be challenged. Size isn't the cause; closed-mindedness is (and there is no shortage of elite, large, close-minded hegemons who've isolated their restrictive view of debate within the castle walls of their pedigreed institutions). It's actually rather stupid for a small school to try to act like a close-minded imperialist as they just don't have the other prerequisites to pull it off successfully.

 

I wanted to throw in a bit of an outside-the-box perspective (as Carly would expect). As an active judge and a coach of a small school (quite possibly the smallest on the circuit, with about 120 kids total in the 9-12 high school at Fremont-Mills, 30 per graduating class), we utilize the wiki, disclose our cases and arguments, and strongly advocate its use. Our rationale (including the team's as well as mine) include:

 

1. It improves clash: Don't run a AT: T/Framework argument and scream about reducing clash, education, etc. while not participating in the wiki as some will question your credibility. We want a good debate; someone running a Cap K against our Dogs of War anthropocentrism, for instance, will not only suffer, but it just doesn't lend for a good debate.

 

2. It improves debater education: My team actually researches and develops arguments based on the cases, rather than being left running generics. We introduced an exploratory fragment of some emerging theory via Avital Ronell and Nietzsche against Millard South's Spanos which wouldn't have been possible without having the capacity to examine their case in detail.

 

3. IT IMPROVES JUDGE EDUCATION: Cluestick to those who aren't participating... I read the wiki entries too after debate tournaments. I have a hunch a few other judges do too. I do not have the benefit of grabbing flash drive files during the debate and often walk out after wondering a bit more about what I just heard. Some areas peak my intellectual curiousity - I know a few debaters on our circuit recall me asking for cards/cites just out of intellectual interest. It *REALLY* helps you if your judge is a bit more familiar with what you're running, and I totally feel it's legitimate for a judge to look at a case that the debaters made her/him interested enough through their discourse that they go look after the round. Isn't this even what some teams claim should be happening per their discourse theory?

 

4. It increases your credibility as a debater and team: Again, if you are making use of education, ground, abuse arguments in T/FR, I'm really challenged as a judge when you refuse to make use of opportunities to provide that access. Self-stupidity and ignorance isn't potential or actual round abuse. I deal with enough strategy theory in my day job to understand there's reasons for refusing to disclose at times -- that's fine! But understand you're losing credible access to other tactics which might be useful. Just understand you're creating your own strategic ground loss by doing so, and be open, admitting and consistent. Don't run cookie cutter shells with these complaints or you'll see a judge in the back of the room making strange faces. In fact, write your own shells that advocate the benefits of the strategy of surprise or something resonant. Bring an intelligent debate!

 

5. It is real world: I'm known for occasionally pointing out to "K is not real world" teams that in the actual real world, we work with critical and post-structural theory, a lot! (Much of the scenario planning & analysis world actually stems out of research tracing back to Husserl and phenomenology, for instance). But the real world is also highly collaborative, even when it's competitive. Deleuze talks about stealing ideas (in very imaginative and amusing ways) and we certainly appropriate other thought all the time, particularly within organizations. This is how thought evolves in collaborative dynamics (excluding ruptures which occurs outside, but must be brought back into the collaborative realm in order to find any utilization and resonance).

 

Per the suggestion of locking wiki access, I do not value the private restrictions to information, particularly on projects like the wiki. People will cheat, pirate, etc. anyway and information destined to get out, will. Parasites are common and also a legitimate strategy (as Michel Serres would attest). Just bring good arguments and with me, information theory and strategy debate is always interesting when done well. If you're gonna be an isolationist and try to win on being outside the community, that's ok... just understand the tradeoffs of the strategy and make consistent arguments in the round.

Edited by JamieSaker
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, a question:

 

Why does the utility of complete and total "open information" outweigh the coercion that is required to achieve it? Compulsory participation really is divisive. I've posted on this issue before and people (debaters) have PM'd me saying, essentially, that they feel forced into participating when they think it would be to their advantage to opt out. I think that opinion should be respected.

 

Next, a suggestion:

 

Either a.) keep the wiki available for everyone and don't complain when people look at it but don't post on it themselves, or, b.) put in the extra effort of password protecting it, allow all of those who wish to be part of the exchange to be included, and police yourselves. It is much easier to self-police willing participants. If you decide it isn't worth the extra effort, then maybe the problem itself is exaggerated.

 

Lastly, I don't have time to give Mr. Saker the line-by-line he seems to want so badly, but I'll try to hit the highlights.

 

1. It improves clash: Don't run a AT: T/Framework argument and scream about reducing clash, education, etc. while not participating in the wiki as some will question your credibility. We want a good debate; someone running a Cap K against our Dogs of War anthropocentrism, for instance, will not only suffer, but it just doesn't lend for a good debate.

 

Good clash comes from good debaters, not good wikis. Good clash existed well before everyone was required to post on the wiki. I witnessed it. Are you asserting that now, via compulsory posting to the wiki, clash is at an all-time high?

 

 

3. IT IMPROVES JUDGE EDUCATION: Cluestick to those who aren't participating... I read the wiki entries too after debate tournaments. I have a hunch a few other judges do too. I do not have the benefit of grabbing flash drive files during the debate and often walk out after wondering a bit more about what I just heard. Some areas peak my intellectual curiousity - I know a few debaters on our circuit recall me asking for cards/cites just out of intellectual interest. It *REALLY* helps you if your judge is a bit more familiar with what you're running, and I totally feel it's legitimate for a judge to look at a case that the debaters made her/him interested enough through their discourse that they go look after the round. Isn't this even what some teams claim should be happening per their discourse theory?

 

... or you could just get the cites and read the book/article. I'm not exaggerating when I say that I rarely hop on to the high school policy debate wiki to figure out what I should be reading in my free time. In this case, my use of the word "rarely" may be substituted for "never."

 

5. It is real world: I'm known for occasionally pointing out to "K is not real world" teams that in the actual real world, we work with critical and post-structural theory, a lot! (Much of the scenario planning & analysis world actually stems out of research tracing back to Husserl and phenomenology, for instance). But the real world is also highly collaborative, even when it's competitive. Deleuze talks about stealing ideas (in very imaginative and amusing ways) and we certainly appropriate other thought all the time, particularly within organizations. This is how thought evolves in collaborative dynamics (excluding ruptures which occurs outside, but must be brought back into the collaborative realm in order to find any utilization and resonance).

 

This is how thought evolves? In that case, compulsory participation is definitely the way to go. I wouldn't want to stop the evolution of "thought." Seriously, what is being said here? How do we get from the benefits of the debate wiki to working with post-structural theory in the "real world"?

Edited by Danny Tanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tanner i love you man, but you're way off.

 

First, a question:

 

Why does the utility of complete and total "open information" outweigh the coercion that is required to achieve it? Compulsory participation really is divisive. I've posted on this issue before and people (debaters) have PM'd me saying, essentially, that they feel forced into participating when they think it would be to their advantage to opt out. I think that opinion should be respected.

 

come on man. compulsory? its not a rule, its just encouraged. no one gets punished if they don't participate (name one), and in fact i (and pretty much everyone but that one dude) was just arguing against punishing team with the ballot for not participating. that seems to cut against your characterization of those who favor the wiki as some kind of maoist cultural architects.

 

answer: because its either not coercion, which implies "forcing" someone, or its such light coercion that it is easily outweighed by the potential educational and competitive benefits. you're really suggesting that a couple of comments at NDI and some requests on a website amounts to some kind of masked tyranny? i just don't see it man. certainly the week before district qualifiers everyone's motivations are selfish. but if a team were to say, respond to such posts and comments with a simple "opt out" (while there may be some further encouragement, given that this is a debate community) i'm absolutely positive that that opinion would be respected. would it damage disclosure for that team? perhaps. but that'd be about it. there's good empirical evidence of this. millard north NEVER used to disclose under milo. despite this, everyone still loved milo and got along reasonably well with his team (or if they didn't, it wasn't because of disclosure). furthermore, i have never, ever, seen a team, coach, or debater post here or anywhere or respond to an email request indicating that they wish to opt out. until that happens, i'm going to assume they don't mind the requests or the wiki. its only ever been discussed in the hypothetical.

 

you use the word "outweigh" and "line by line" so i'm gonna try to make this debate-y to perhaps clarify my point. if the impact calc is between the benefit of the wiki and coercion, but that coercion only takes the form of encouragement at NDI and a couple cx posts once a year, there's no impact to speak of to coercion. if there is an impact, i'd contend it'd be resolved by those teams actually opting out instead of this "pseduo, sometimes we use it sometimes we don't, we're not gonna respond to requests at all, mystery position".

 

Next, a suggestion:

 

Either a.) keep the wiki available for everyone and don't complain when people look at it but don't post on it themselves, or, b.) put in the extra effort of password protecting it, allow all of those who wish to be part of the exchange to be included, and police yourselves. It is much easier to self-police willing participants. If you decide it isn't worth the extra effort, then maybe the problem itself is exaggerated
.

 

its even easier than that not to police at all. i mean, gentle reminders and encouragement that everyone stay updated, especially right before quals, seems WAY less labor intensive than everything that would go into password protection. and again, the whole point of the wiki - the warrants used to justify its benefits - is rooted in openness of information, which password protection sort of denies.

 

your point seems to be that some schools don't wanna participate but are "forced" into it. i'm calling shenanigans. nobody got forced into anything anymore than they are "forced" to read arguments that make sense. everyone in the community encourages other to engage in practices they think will be beneficial. if thats bad, then i for one don't care. until someone responds to an info request with "we're choosing not to" and is then threatened somehow, i just don't believe this coercion thing is real. now, the framework argument that was proposed is a little more in line with all that. a little draconian, i agree. but then that's why i don't really think its a good idea. note my suggestions to that person that it may be counterproductive, may incite anger in other coaches. sounds like maybe we're thinking exactly the same thing.

 

 

 

Good clash comes from good debaters, not good wikis. Good clash existed well before everyone was required to post on the wiki. I witnessed it. Are you asserting that now, via compulsory posting to the wiki, clash is at an all-time high?

 

obviously there's no statistical metric. the wiki basically serves one purpose: preparation. it makes every part of prep easier (more below). if you think its possible that prep begets clash, then the position that the wiki increases clash becomes very reasonable.

 

 

... or you could just get the cites and read the book/article. I'm not exaggerating when I say that I rarely hop on to the high school policy debate wiki to figure out what I should be reading in my free time. In this case, my use of the word "rarely" may be substituted for "never."

 

you could "just get the cites" only if 1. you were in a round where they were read or 2. you know someone who was. otherwise, you'd have no idea what the cites are for say, jamie's dogs of war aff. you'd just know it was about dogs. and its obviously not about leisure reading (its not oprah), although that might be an added benefit for those of us that read debate lit at our leisure. you hop on to figure out what to cut against a team's new aff that you didn't get to see because they ran it at a tournament 2,000 miles away.

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...