Jump to content

STADB9

Member
  • Content Count

    846
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

STADB9 last won the day on March 7 2013

STADB9 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

441 Excellent

About STADB9

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 06/16/1972
  1. For the record: I'm the co-coordinator of hired judging for nats. If you want to get hooked up, send an email to me at sduboisATstasaintsDOTnet with days/times available (June 16-20), events willing to judge, and preferred contact info. If you need travel/lodging covered or if you're not somebody whose background I'm familiar with, I'll want to know that as well. Must be 18 months out of HS at minimum. At present I have far more people wanting to judge than seeking to hire judges, but as district tournaments are completed that might change. First people into the queue get placed first.
  2. In fairness, it's not as though the proposals here are being offered as changes to the KSHSAA manual. This thread concerns a single tournament administered by a small subsection of the Kansas coaching community, and with a different prevailing standard that that which tends to hold hegemony elsewhere. I don't think anyone involved in this district has any illusion that oral critiques will make everybody happy. But then again, not everybody's happy now. The question we're facing, in my view, is whether a majority of coaches can be cobbled together to support a limited good-faith experiment, and under what conditions. What modifications would people like to see in the standards suggested above? And would you be supportive of administrative action to enforce the level of decorum required by these standards, or is that just going to create tantrums? If so, we'd be better off not going down this road at all.
  3. I speak only for myself as a coach and not for the organization in question. My own students and others have persuaded me that oral critiques in this context can be on-balance beneficial. I think, however, that this is going to be a very, very hard sell to the body of coaches as a whole given the mechanics of the tournament, and that at least in the early stages, any form of permissable critiques would be less extensive than the advocates would want, and certainly less extensive than the prevailing standard on the national circuit or in college. To that end, and for the purposes of further discussion, please review the following possible standards and let me know what you think ought to be different. 1. Oral critiques exist for the educational benefit of the competing students and for no other purpose. Critiques which do not adhere to this standard are out of place at this tournament; if critiques as a whole are deemed to fail to meet this standard the practice will be discontinued. 2. No judge is obliged to give an oral critique, or to remain present in the room for the oral critiques of other judges. 3. No competitor is obliged to listen to any oral critique or to any portion of an oral critique. The decision of a debater or debaters not to listen to an oral critique is not considered acceptable grounds to punish a team competitively. 4. Critiques must accompany a ballot containing a written RFD, rather than be used as a substitute for a written RFD. 5. Critiques may not be conducted by any judge who has not yet turned in a written ballot. All ballots are final at the time the judge submits them except in the event that the tournament director requires clarification regarding the judge’s intent. 6. Critiques may not be conducted in front of any judge who has not yet completed his/her ballot. 7. Critiques are considered to be a post-round event rather than a part of the round itself; they may therefore be recorded for subsequent review by teams, coaches, tournament officials, and school administrators. 8. The conduct of all critique participants must adhere to the rules of conduct of the KSHSAA and the NCFL. Behavior contrary to these rules is subject to sanction by the tournament director and/or administering organizations. 9. Students and/or coaches may question the judge administering the critique for clarification, but may not use the questioning practice to challenge the judge’s decision. Confrontation of the judge under these conditions may be subject to administrative sanction pursuant to Section 8 of the KSHSAA bylaws. Judges may choose to cut short their critique for this or any other reason, with no penalty applied to a judge who does so; again, the critiques are a courtesy for the participating teams, not a requirement. 10. No individual critique may take longer than ten minutes exclusive of q/a. All critiques must be concluded within 150 minutes of the scheduled start time of the round.
  4. I'm considering this question. I would be primarily interested in hearing from active high school competitors as to whether they consider oral critiques valuable.
  5. As KSHSAA policies related to debate travel are a popular topic on this board, I felt it might be useful for you to be aware of a potential change in the way KSHSAA may be operated in the future. Legislation has been proposed in the Kansas house that would add a number of parental representatives to the KSHSAA structure. The best source I can find that describes the bill in detail is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkAI0P-h7d8&feature=youtu.be Bear in mind that this is a video produced by PROPONENTS of the legislation; when viewing the video, use your critical thinking skills to separate the factual information contained therein from the arguments in favor of the changes. You may wish to give consideration to the potential which this legislation offers in terms of changing KSHSAA's policies regarding out-of-state travel for debate and other activities. Discussion and debate on the issue would be welcome, with the understanding that individuals within our community will make their own decisions regarding support or opposition.
  6. To be completely honest, I don't know that I'd "feel" anything. Nor do I know that any other coaches would. Your best chance of achieving persuasion lies in direct discussion with individual coaches with whom you already have a positive relationship, your own coach in particular. Proposals for reform of DCI that come from outside of the coaching community are likely to run afoul of defensive sentiment. This isn't to say that the coaches don't care what the students think; I don't think I'm saying too much when I indicate that the feelings of the students regarding the size of the tournament were discussed at this year's meeting, and in a respectful manner. Nonetheless, it's important to understand that the coaches value their collective control of the event and its unique nature, and it's best not to create the impression that there's some sort of outside pressure being brought to bear. My advice would be to work incrementally and informally. Individual students should make their feelings known to their own coaches first. Those students and programs who are on the margins of the tournament--who would be excluded if the event were to shrink--have a particular credibility on this issue, and I suspect that their opinions will have exceptional purchase with many of us.
  7. Blue Valley didn't win their first until 1992; they won 11 titles between 2000 and 2011. At least ten were under Riffer. We have no way of knowing for certain based on the available data, but it seems pretty likely that either he or Mark Stucky has won more state championships than any other coach in the history of the state.
  8. The overwhelming barrier to all of the reform proposals you identify is that the majority of coaches either do not feel that the tournament is too big or are afraid of offending marginal qualifiers and their coaches by taking the position that the tournament is too big. I have no objection to these proposals being discussed in public. But if you're genuinely interested in making them happen, these discussions are best directed towards your own schools' coaches. Until the majority of coaches feel that a smaller DCI is desirable, and are willing to take that stance at the meeting, nothing is going to change.
  9. Moundridge with 25. http://www.kshsaa.org/Public/Debate/PDF/CompleteHistory.pdf
  10. Terrible to hear this happened. Glad everyone is OK.
  11. This thread has gotten badly hijacked. Can't we all go back to discussing how horrible Pi is?
  12. I will confess to having compiled lists of this sort for my own amusement, both as a competitor and as a coach. I haven't made them public for fear of hurting feelings. If a public top 25 list is worth having, why not just produce one? There's no reason the coaches would need to sanction or participate in such a project; we really don't have any more access to the relevant data than any given member of the community. There will be haters, of course, but that's going to be true of any such project.
  13. I think all rankings should be based on number of NFL members and degrees accumulated. That aside, when hyping my team to outsiders, I generally refer to our ordinal position on the bidtracker as our "state ranking".
×
×
  • Create New...