Jump to content

Corporate DB8er

Member
  • Content Count

    313
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Corporate DB8er last won the day on October 5 2010

Corporate DB8er had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

199 Excellent

About Corporate DB8er

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 11/24/1976

Profile Information

  • Name
    Volen
  • School
    Unaffilated
  • Location
    Kansas
  • Occupation
    Analyst at JP Morgan
  1. Sweet googley moogley!!! At this point I don't even care about if it is legitimate for a tournament to decide to ban oral critiques or not. I just want to be quoted accurately. You litterally avoided underlining the negation as a part of my statement and used it as a strawman attack. Seriously. I said "my point isn't..." and you argued as if that was my point. Let me be clear, judges should help coaches coach by writing on the ballot. Writing on the ballot preserves ideas in history, is a tool for the coach who can not be there in person, is more reliable that the interpretation of the student while taking notes, and can be done in a timely manner. The ONLY net benefit that is isolated by oral comments is the ability to clarify, which historically leads to negative emotions for all involved, is not available to the coach to do their job, disappears into nothingness after the soundwaves move on, and historically, absolutely has caused tournaments to run behind. Could oral critiques be beneficial? Absolutely. Have I given oral critiques? Yes. I completely agree that if done properly that oral critiques can be benefical, but a tournament has every reason to protect itself from the harms if it is determined the harms outweigh. Please in the future don't misquote me with abusive underlining.
  2. I don’t relish being the Fox News in the MSNBC world of CrossX. I’m sure there are dear friends of mine that are screaming, “Dear God Phil, just let it drop! No one is being convincedâ€. But I find that posting is therapeutic for me. It is an outlet, especially since I’m not involved at this time. Mr. Nelson, I’ll address your concerns first. I think we fundamentally disagree on what a tournament is. From my perspective, it is an invitational. You are invited by a host to be a part of the experience. You can decline the offer, but if you accept, you do so with the stipulation that you will abide by the rules the host provides. You are a guest. If you go to someone’s home and they say, “Don’t go in our bedroomâ€, you don’t respond, “But there are benefits to going in your bedroom. You haven’t thought this through. I know better than you do.†In this situation, that would be rude. If you don’t like it, you wouldn’t go to their house anymore. I agree that tradition and norms should be challenged. I agree that authority should be challenged. However, in this situation the tradition and norms are net beneficial to the alternative. And the authority has indeed evaluated both sides and made the decision. Just like I don’t believe that students should challenge the judge’s decision after it is made, I don’t believe it is productive discussion to assume that the coaches didn’t think about it before making a decision. I thought your mandatory 10 minute rule example was very interesting. However, I disagreed with your conclusion. There are lots of rules that judges are asked to follow in making their decision. No low point wins is a popular one. Don’t make your decision based on your personal feelings of the topic area. Judges are often dictated what they should and should not do. So to tell them to disclose or not disclose would fit within all of the other instructions. I also think we fundamentally disagree on what debate round is and how a judge’s decision functions. The winner is defined by the team that gets the judge(s) to vote for them. That is the definition. Just like the winner of a basketball game is the team that scores more points in the game. We don’t get to say, “Well some of those points don’t count because they were on fast breaks and the defense wasn’t set.†Debate is persuasion, specifically persuasion to vote for me. However a team persuades the judge to vote for them makes them the winner. The judge’s ballot is always correct in assigning the winner (absent obvious error like circling the wrong side from their intention). The judge’s decision is always correct, even when I don’t like it or don’t agree with it. This weekend I was on a panel with Skogland, and we did not vote the same. Yet we were both correct. He was correct for voting the way he saw it and I voted correctly in the way I saw it. We are different people and see things differently. It wasn’t that one of us were wrong. I think to believe there is an objective truth to the winner of the round is one of the worst fallacies about debate rounds. I was also in a round with two first time judges. I again squirrelled. The team I voted for went on to qualify for nationals. That doesn’t mean the two less experienced judges were wrong. They were absolutely right by the definition of what wins a round. And I very much disagree with the notion that allowing students to question judges leads to better decisions. It is one thing to ask for clarification for education. But to question the authority of the judge’s decision after to round is to try to get a second bite at the apple. It is trying to score another basket after the horn has sounded. The debaters are supposed to persuade the judge during the round, not after. If they didn’t persuade me during the round, even if they have a convincing argument that would change my mind, they didn’t do that during the round. Again, my decision is correct because it is based on how I was persuaded during the round. I supposed a different model of debate may be more educational based on the philosophy of allowing students to converse with the judge to persuade them. If judges were allowed to provide their mindset after each speech so the students could react and do better each speech, that would fit the benefits. Like a cross X of the judge. I mean, why do they have to stay silent during the round, but then can speak after the decision is final? Wouldn’t they make better decisions, and the kids have a more quality debate if they could react when it mattered? I mean, if as a judge I could tell the kids that their answers on T were too weak and they were losing that argument would that save us a lot of unproductive time? And if I told the kids that the link story on the DA was flawed and that the 3rd advantage was outweighing, then the students could react and properly condense to the arguments that mattered in the round. In the name of education, it seems that perhaps judge intervention during the round rather than after the round is better. I’m guessing that model hasn’t been adopted for some reasons that I’m not aware of. Your response to oral critiques slowing down the tournament comes from a different perspective than mine. I’ll share mine. I have been to tournaments that absolutely were slowed down because of oral critiques. It isn’t a matter or would or would not, it is a matter of fact that it has in the past and has the potential if not checked. You say they should be within reason, but sadly I’d approximate 2% of people will fail to stay within reason. Given 50 debates a round, and that means there will be one judge who fails to use reason and the entire tournament pays the price. I’ve been to tournaments in which debating was finishing at midnight because of a single judge. It gets violated and abused, and it takes one person to ruin it for all. So coaches protect themselves by outlawing it. You say they shouldn’t last 45 minutes, but they will if they are allowed. You say, “give us the 30 minutes of power matchingâ€, but that is to misunderstand the situation. It doesn’t take 30 minutes to power match. It takes 30 minutes to get that last ballot so power matching can be done quickly and accurately. And if that last round wants to do oral critiques, the risk again is the tournament will run behind, which the coaches will fight to prevent no matter what. I write my comments on the ballot as the round goes. For the most part, my ballot is completely filled and I’m out the door before the debaters have cleaned up. Other than perhaps my dearest of friends Peggy Patch, filling out the ballot doesn’t slow up a tournament, but oral critiques do as a matter of empirics. And the ballot is the one tool that the coach has to actually understand what their students did and can improve on. When you don’t fill out the ballot you are saying that you don’t care if the students coach can effectively work with their kids. Preferring oral critiques to a filled out ballot is to say, “Coach, don’t worry about it. You don’t have to work to improve your kids, I’ll do it instead.†Yes, that is problematic for many head coaches. Its not that they don’t appreciate you wanting to help, but they want you to give them the tools to make their students better, not to do it in their place. As a first year, you are not making the “wrong decisionâ€. Again, you are always right. The kids were to communicate to you during the round. If that didn’t happen, then they failed, not you. However, if you are changing your decision after discussing things with the kids after the round, well then you are failing. You are giving them additional time to persuade you. You are counting baskets made after the scoreboard lit up. Its not that ignorance is bliss, it is that there is a time limit to communicate and anything that didn’t get communicated doesn’t count. For Mr. or Ms. K’s (sorry, I haven’t picked up on your anonymous gender) You are right, I hadn’t expressly stated my links to the time D.A. I assumed based on my perspective and didn’t take in account that you’d have a different perspective. So let me be more clear. Allowing oral critiques will take more time. This is true for the following reasons: Empirics. I have been to tournaments in which one judge thinks their opinions about the round are so important that they take forever and hold up the entire tournament. I’ve literally had to step into the room and politely as I could stop the judge and inform them that my students need to move on to the next round or I need to take them to dinner so they can eat something before going to bed at a somewhat reasonable hour. I think many coaches have had the same experience. It may be a vast minority, but there have been judges who have ruined it by abusing it. So to protect the tournament, it is easier to outlaw it and create punishments rather than to try to subjectively manage it. As I mentioned above, the illusion that power matching takes 30 minutes is incorrect. The vast amount of the delay is getting that last ballot in. So to put a risk to that last ballot being delayed is more of a harm than the benefit of the marginal increase in education. Slippery slope. The same contemporary mindset that wants oral critiques also wants preround disclosure and the “power huddle†that delays the beginning of the round. If we carve out time for oral critiques, why not carve out time for “power huddles†and anything else that would delay rounds. Again, the schedule represents the maximum amount of time that coaches want to be at the tournament. (BTW, this is a bad argument because it is opening a new can of worms, but it is honestly a reason that oral critiques will cause tournaments to take more time) Your responses to coaches want to coach were interesting, but again come from a different perspective. I think you didn’t take into account logistics. Coaches can’t be there for the oral critiques because they have multiple teams there. I guess we could take turns, but that would definitely cause time to be increased. I just don’t see the coaches, especially in the shape they are in, running from room to room to listen to each of the decisions. Furthermore, at the CFL tournament, the coaches are running the tournament. Is Mrs. Cook supposed to stop tab so she can hear the decision for her kids? I like some of your solutions, like give the oral critique later in front of the coach or video taping it on a phone or something. That is clever. I really like the idea of transcribing the reasons for the decision. Like if it could be on paper, something the coach could reference later, that would be ideal. Perhaps if the judge were to write down their reasons rather than express them verbally we could have an educational tool in which the judge helps the coach to coach their kids. I like that idea best. Let me be clear, most coaches very much appreciate that the judge wants to help make the students better. While it may not be their primary job, it is a great sentiment to have. My point isn’t that judges shouldn’t help. It is that they should not attempt to replace the coach. It is the coach’s job to make the kids better. The judge should not assume the coaching responsibility and shut the coach out of doing their job. The best thing the judge can do is to assist the coach in making them better. When you give oral critiques and shut the coach out, you take the coach’s place and give them no opportunity. That was my point. Thank you for taking interest in making kids better!! I disagree with you on the issue of judge accountability. As I said above, it shouldn’t be an issue that the judge should have more to consider. The judge’s decision should be based on what they hear during the round and what persuades them. Not based on things the students question after the round. My feelings weren’t hurt, but I do think it is insulting to say that a judge doesn’t really put thought into their decision unless students can question/interrogate them after the round. Now, I have been in places where oral critiques are the norm, and I gave mine. I have been grilled by kids who just can’t believe I’d make my decision based on what I did. Those occasions I did get pissed off. They failed to convince me during the round and then challenge me, which is to disrespect me as a judge. Trust me, education is not happening at that point, it is just emotions, and it is unhealthy. You ask why do students not have the right to challenge my decision. Well, that comes down to what a debate round is, as I explained above. Their job is to persuade me. They have a time period to do so. By definition, my decision is correct based on what I was persuaded by. They can ask for clarification to better understand, but they cannot tell me my decision was incorrect. If I didn’t hear an argument or understand something, well then they didn’t communicate it. Flat out, it is not a right of the student to say my decision was wrong. I will not change it that would be cheating. All it does is create hurt feelings. We’ll agree to disagree on the value of coaches. I respect that you have a different perspective than me, even though I don’t know your perspective since I don’t know you, but I believe that assistant coaches, college kids, and community members should attempt to help coaches rather than take their place. You are right, authority should get questioned. And while I don’t believe any genocides are occurring due to the authority placed in the hand of the coaches of Kansas, you are right that it is fair game to ask the question on why the rules are what they are. I think I have issue with not accepting the answer. Yes, I believe the coaches know what is better for the students, the health of the activity, and how to run an efficient tournament than those who are just ignorant to the realities. I believe that the SQ is extremely healthy and change comes with risks. And I believe that the people who are dedicating decades of their lives have more wisdom and vested interest than those who think they know better after a relatively short period of time and can be gone tomorrow. In short, those young wiper snappers need to get off my lawn!! Sadly, I’m an old man. NCFL is a good tournament. What they accomplish is impressive. I’m not sure what your warrants are. And I must question, if it is such a bad tournament, then why bother qualifying to it? Why not go to a different tournament that allows oral critiques? NCFL does say to get your ballot back, and then doesn’t care what you do, you are right. I’m guessing if we could trust judges to get their ballots back on time, then things would be different. I’m really glad I got that out of my system. That felt good. Like therapy. I appreciated this exchange and while I’m sure it didn’t change any minds, I’m glad we both got to express our perspectives. We come from different viewpoints and value things differently, so we disagree, but I hope we still respect each other. I know I respect those who have posted. And thank you for the compliments on my judging. I honestly do take a lot of pride in it and even if you were giving me lip service it was nice. But I’ll believe that you were being genuine and that was appreciated. T-Money, amen brother. I agree with you and have shared those experiences.
  3. I hope your underlining of cards is better than your quoting on message boards. LOL! Clearly you took my comment out of context. If students don't like the rules of the CFL qualifying tournament, then they don't have to attend the CFL qualifying tournament. I don't believe it is a requirement to attend that tournament. Perhaps those who feel so strongly about verbal comments after the round can put together their own tournament that same weekend. I was just saying that if the students find those rules so horrible, then they should attend the tournament that allows them to do exactly to their liking. But lets say I was actually telling students to quit debate if they didn't get oral critiques by the judges they admire after the round. Lets compare statistics. Based on your research, how many students have completely given up debate because they were denied oral comments after a round? I'm guessing it would be a rather large number given the the argument that there is nothing more educational than a judge talking to a student after the debate round. We should compare that to the number of coaches that have quit because debate is the longest season of any extracurricular activity and demands every Friday night and Saturday away from everything else they care about. I honestly don't have that number, but I'm willing to bet more coaches have quit because of the demands of the activity than students have quit because they didn't have their favorite college kid tell them just how much they know about the activity. Its funny. I took this year off of being an assistant coach after 13 years. As much as I missed working with some brilliant minds, I needed to spend time with my wife, my family (most of all my 1 year old granddaughter) and my dogs. But I came back and judged at EKNFL, and I saw all the kids I worked with and they told me how much they missed me and how much I was appreciated now that I was gone. That appreciation made me feel like when there is an opportunity I can come back to coach again. It is hard for a family man to sacrifice so that high school students can achieve more. If the time commitment is too high, there are others like me that just can't do it. So ya, I'm pretty vigilant that having a coach that cares is important and that we need to respect the time they are willing to give and not steal the time they just aren't. For this judge, that outweighs. Sorry if I offended.
  4. Well, I am not a decision maker. I do not know the decision makers reasons. I'm only posting to provide some theories that perhaps would respond to this thread. Let's start with the actual claim for the reason against oral comments. Believe it or not, the timing of the tournament actually matters. I fully understand that there are lots of debaters out there who would gladly make the decision to do debate for 18 hours a day every day. They will claim that if it is their choice, then they should be allowed to do this. I will say that this mentality is destructive to the activity as a whole. Just like my posts against 3 day tournaments, coaches have lives and do not want to be at the tournament any longer than is needed. They are very happy for your success, but it is important to them that the tournament does indeed eventually end. I would argue that the coaches have decided how long they are willing to be at a tournament, and thus the schedule is set accordingly. Note, this is also for the health of the students, but I'm not going to fight the fight that students are willing to sacrifice their physical and mental health to debate longer and longer. When students see teachers at the grocery store or at the movies, they are often surprised because they forget that teachers and coaches are humans too who do other things than just teach/coach. They haven’t come up with a robot replacement yet, and I would argue that having balance to ones life is more important/more valuable than spending more time at debate tournaments. Once the schedule is set, delays to that schedule become a nightmare. The students who are delayed because they are listening to a oral decision are late getting the next round started. The judge, who is still in the pool, is late to getting the ballot in and picking up their next ballot so the next round is delayed. Some judges are available for specific times, so when rounds run late then the judge is no longer available, and replacement judges are needed, which further delays the tournament. It makes for a tournament that runs long which increases stress and takes away from people’s time with their families. If tournaments ran long, or were scheduled to include oral comments, the would take more time. Coaches have already set the maximum amount of time they are willing to set aside for the activity. Thus oral critiques take from coaches what they were not willing to give. Now, lets evaluate some other factors. When the judge gives oral comments, the coach doesn’t get a recording of what was said. Coaches can’t later use those comments to coach their students. Believe it or not, coaches want to actually be involved in making their students better. The judge is not your coach. Their job is to give a decision, not to make you better. They should give justification for their decision, but at the end of the day they should give info to the coach so they can do their job. The argument is that oral critiques are uniquely the most educational part of debate, and that is an insult to every educator, to every coach. That means that the debaters believe the comments that a random judge that has no vested interest in the students is more valuable than the coach who is trained in education and dedicating their time and emotion in the students. Another comment was that oral critiques lead to judge accountability. This is also rather insulting in that the assumption is that the judge takes their decision less seriously if the students aren’t allowed to call them out. For the argument to be true, then a judge would have to not care about their decision, but then realize that the students will grill them, so they would start to care. Sorry, as a judge who does care about my decision, I can’t figure out how this can be anything but an insult. Please don’t misconstrue my intentions with this comment. I know that it isn’t intended to be insulting, it just is. Furthermore, when students believe they can do more than just clarify, that also leads to a situation that many judges are not willing to put up with. It is against the rules for students to make judges feel attacked due to their decision. When students cross the line from trying to understand to debating the judge, it is an unacceptable situation in which no one benefits. So, if you think oral critiques are to check judges decisions, it will likely create situations that also are destructive to the activity. And as a judge, I’m particularly upset when I student believes they have the right to challenge my decision. They don’t. It only takes a few students to ruin this for the rest. I would challenge the notion that oral critiques are a positive pedagogical practice. I would suggest that the head coaches who have dedicated their lives to the education of students both in their time and their investment in degrees to education students have a better grasp on what is the most educational way to run tournaments and what is best for students. I would disagree that students have some kind of positive right to getting more insight into the decision than what is on the ballot. I would also disagree that the organizers of the tournament have any obligation to explain themselves. They are the ones that put forth the effort to organize and allow the students the opportunity to even have debate rounds. If the students don’t like the rules, by all means they don’t have to attend. Finally, I believe the qualifiers should mirror the national tournaments that they qualify for. NCFL also prioritizes the schedule over the perceived benefits of oral critiques. It is not surprising that college students and debaters who prefer college students as judges would prefer oral critiques. The premise is that college students are very wise and can pass that knowledge through to high school students. I’m not even disagreeing with that. I’ve given oral critiques when the time is right. But if the organizers of the tournament have said that it is not the right time to educate students between the rounds at the tournament they are hosting, then I think it is reasonable to respect that and find other times to pass on the wisdom of that particular round. I very much apologize if any of this seems to be in an aggressive tone. So much is lost or miscommunicated in print. I merely wish to present different perspectives to attempt to increase overall understanding.
  5. Corporate DB8er

    Dci Reform

    I've got no dog in this fight. By all means, continue to push for DCI reform to take the form of a Sunday elimination bracket. I did think thefish's reply was very funny in response that I won't be there. I only reply to give the supporters of DCI reform something to concider as they present their most persuasive cases to those who will make the decisions. If you disagree with me, I completely understand, I truly only want to assist in identifying possible hurdles to your efforts. Yes, KCKCC is 3 days. That does seem to support that 3 days is a possibility. However, please concider these two differences that perhaps makes KCKCC not a good model. 1st, many coaches do send their assistants or college kid sponsors to KCKCC rather than attend in person. There are a variety of reasons for this, none of which are slights against KCKCC. That was even given as a way to make DCI 3 days, utilize the assistants. However, there is an issue with that. It assumes that DCI is some kind of debate community event, which it is, but it ignores a key factor. It is the Debate Coaches Invitational. I think there would be some concern if the head debate coaches were not attending their own tournament. Perhaps that doesn't mean anything to the students or loyal members of the community, but I believe it matters to the debate coaches, who are ultimately making all the decisions about the tournament and any possible reform. So, if they include a Sunday format, I'm thinking it would be under the pretense that debate coaches are actually there all three days. Again, I don't think they'd further submit themselves to such self sacrifice. 2nd, is the timing. KCKCC is basically in the middle of the season. DCI is at the end before State. Debate coaches are human (for the most part) and most are exhausted both physically and emotionally by the end of the season. They know they are working at State and it is a big deal to them. To ask them to go without a single day off at that time would be problematic at best. Perhaps for students and recent graduates working 13 straight days is no big deal. You don't have a spouse who misses you or kids who need their parent. Your body can go without rest for long periods of time. But think of your coach. Most have families at home. Most are getting to the point that they are looking forward to the end of the season. To submit them to a 3 day tournament at that point would be much more harsh than when KCKCC is doing their thing. I will say this, if the vote is today, before the season starts, you will have a much better shot. However, the vote for reform is often done at the DCI tournament itself, when the coaches are tired, so asking them at that time to stick around another day and then go back to school on Monday seems unlikely at best. Listen, push for whatever you want. Personnally I've posted multiple times that I think adding an elimination bracket is a huge mistake. I think it would be more productive to focus possible reform to reducing the size of the tournament by increasing the requirements to get into the tournament. I think that presenting multiple reform options decreases the chances that any of them are implimented, but a focussed, detailed concept of reform has a real chance of making actual change. But that is just want I think, so you can take it for what you think it is worth. I wish you all the success in your efforts.
  6. Corporate DB8er

    Dci Reform

    I could be entirely wrong, but I would put a sizeable wager that this would be rejected by 90+% of debate coaches. 1. So at 4:00 on Sunday, we would have a winner. There would be at most 2 other schools there to congratulate them (the opposition and the host school, unless the host school is also the opposition, in which case there would be one). While it is not 100%, there is a sizable, vocal, and influencial portion of the coaches who very much want DCI to be more about a celebration of the best of Kansas with everyone in attendence than just another tournament like the rest claiming to crown a champion. 2. But that isn't what I'd bet on. What would make me willing to borrow money to increase the size of the bet against this concept is that by that point in the season you are asking men and women to work for 13 straight days without a break after they just spent the entire season working 6 days a week missing family and friends for their dedication to the activity. I can't think of anything that would be more brutal or unfair to the very people that would be making the decision for the change. You might as well include 30 minutes between quarter finals and semifinals for unlimited wedgies, swirlies, and kicks to the groin. I believe the likelihood of that would be about the same as asking people who already sacrifice during the longest season of any extra curricular activity in high school, to not only give up the Saturday that they have been doing but also give up the Sunday. That right before state the head coach would not have a single day off for themself and then head into the tournament their administration most likely cares the most about without any downtime. Because I don't believe any coach in the state of Kansas believes that DCI is so currently flawed that it would require that kind of human sacrifice, I would take that wager anytime. However, I might lose that bet, so feel free to push for a Sunday addition. The only thing I can say with absolute certainty is that I wouldn't be there.
  7. This has happened to me more times than I want to admit. It is both a joy and heartbreak when former students proof that they are both more intelligent and better debaters than I ever was. I imagine that the recruiting process can be very frustrating coming from Kansas. I think this is true for a lot of aspects, not just debate. I know that football players from Kansas get less attention than football players from Texas, Ohio, etc. You may be the best right tackle or strong safety in the nation, but if your team goes 2-6 and is from Kansas then not even KU will likely offer you a scholarship. Especially if your coach is unfamilar with the recruitment process and no one is helping to get your name out. Its probably less so in individual activities like track or swimming, but without reliable, on par metrics it is hard to compare student competitors from two different regions. I think the same goes for later in life too. Its no secret that a there are more opportunites for high wages on the East and West coast. And HR recruiters from companies there are going to be more familiar and value degrees from schools there then here. There probably isn't much of an educational difference between going to Penn State or KU (depends on the area of study of course), but it may mean a different for the recruiter. Its even worse for private schools or smaller schools. How would a Wall Street recruiter evaluate a MBA from Baker versus Temple? How does an equal degree from Wichita State stack versus a small state school in Washington or Oregan for a software developer? I think we fix these inequalities through educating the system. I think we need to brag about our successes here so regional bias can be broken down and people see that there is amazing quality and education coming out of the midwest, not just on the coasts. That debaters, football players, and college gratuates are just as good, and sometimes better, than those who come from the more popular areas of the county. I guess I'm saying we don't need to change who we are to match what they expect, we need to change their expectations to acknowledge how good we are. We do that by acknowledging and broadcasting what we are doing right rather than trying to be just like they are. Perhaps that is just my pride in being a Jayhawk through and through, but that's my thought. Mel, the only thing I could really take issue with is your characterization that forensics doesn't count. Okay, so perhaps performing in HI or Poetry won't do a whole lot to increase your chances in college policy debate. I'll grant that. But even if it is diminished, college debate still involves speaking. So developing speech organization skills by doing informative, or working on persuasive speaking through oration is valuable even for college debaters. Nevermind LD being a clear breeding ground for kritik debaters and extemp doing wonders for developing skills in keeping up on the most current events. Because I don't want to risk the humiliation of being crushed by my former student, I'll leave it at that. I will say though it is a source of pride to see my former students be so successful and I'm glad they are able to show me up from time to time.
  8. 1. State Line Difference Your argument was that Missouri could travel more than Kansas (thus why you’d be jealous of MO). My point is that is flawed for two reasons: 1). They have travel restrictions equal or tighter than Kansas. 2) Even if they could travel more, they choose to travel less. You present as if there are a bunch of schools in Missouri travelling and going to the TOC tournament. That is just false. Perhaps 3 do. Also, I disagree with your comment that the TOC tournament is the “most competitive†national tournament in high school debate and that it is also the “most representative†of college debate. Given that I don’t believe that you have ever attended the TOC tournament, I’m not sure what you are using to compare TOC to NFL, CFL, or college debate. If you are using the testimony of kids who prefer TOC to NFL or CFL, I think if you take a step back you can see that is a flawed method. And perhaps Scott Harris or Chief is saying that TOC is more indicative of college debate than NFL, CFL, or even debate in the state of Kansas, but short of that I’m not sure how you can make any reliable correlation of TOC and college debate. 2. Financial Restrictions A) Oh no, I don’t assume that no school can travel frequently. I absolutely know that there are elitist programs that choose to budget their resources to travel and get more resources than the public schools in Kansas. It is the fault of the debate community to allow this to occur. I very much believe that schools choosing to dedicate resources for travel is destructive to the activity and the education of the students. There is definitely a correlation between areas where travel is the norm and decreased participation in the activity. This isn’t an argument that programs and coaches shouldn’t have the choice, but that they ought limit the choice based on an utilitarian framework. They can have a squad of 12 that travels a lot or a squad of 50 that travels a little. There are very few programs that are both large and do a lot of travelling, and those squads get much more money for debate than any public school in Kansas. If budgets were unlimited, that would be different, but given what the real budgets in Kansas must be, there would absolutely be a tradeoff between extensive travel and the number of kids that you can work with. Again, that doesn’t mean zero travel. That means being selective and wise about your choices. B ) Okay, lets do some math. $75.00 a night for a reasonable hotel room. At minimum you need two hotel rooms, one for a single same gender team and one for the coach/sponsor. So that is $150 a night. TOC qualifying tournaments tend to be 3 days, so that is two nights, so $300. Vans that get 20 miles a gallon going 400 miles use 20 gallons of gas, so that is 40 gallons there and back. Plus driving around at the tournament site you can throw in another 10 gallons, making a total of 50 gallons. At $3.25 a gallon you are looking at $162.50 in gas. 3 lunches at $6 a piece and 3 dinners at $15 a piece and you are looking at $63 in food. Throw in the higher entry fee of $100 per team rather than Kansas’s $5. So that is $688.50 you and your partner have to come up with each time you go to a qualifier. And I’m being really conservative (I think there are head coaches who would say it costs more). I’m also assuming you aren’t talking about travelling to somewhere more than 400 miles away that would cost more in hotels (have to drive for more days) or would cost in airline tickets. This also assumes the school provides a van for free rather than needing to rent a vehicle. Making minimum wage, you and your partner would have to work 55.86 hours each (after taking out only 15% for taxes) to cover that. Since you are going to school and debating extra curricular (and doing whatever other things you do with your time) I doubt you are working 40+ hours a week, so it would take at least 2 to 3 weeks of working and dedicating 100% of you money just to travel and pay for it yourself. And that assumes you have a paid coach/sponsor who wants to travel with you. Travelling is fun for the kids, it is work for the adults. I think the majority of coaches would say that your time and efforts are better spent competing locally for a fraction of the cost. I would say it is irresponsible for a coach to allow you to work extensively so that you could pay your own way to travel when there is a tournament that allows participation (albeit not the style you would choose) that is nearly free in the local community that would foster a stronger local community. Oh, and since the debate season is about 16 weeks long, and you wouldn’t be working the weekends that you were debating, I’m thinking you can perhaps afford 4 tournaments, not the 8 that are allowed. 3. Traditional styles: Missouri vs Kansas Debaters do not get to choose to travel just because the school may or may not have the ability. Coaches make that choice. And the coaches in MO are more philosophically traditional thus they would be less likely to support their kids travelling. Like many coaches in Kansas they don’t see the cost/benefit analysis coming in favor of something they don’t agree with in the first place. The fact that MO is traditional means even if they can travel they will choose not to. Having the right and choosing to use the right are two different things. Having the right and having the means are also two different things. 4. Tournament cap 1). Actually, if you don’t go to or qualify out of the NFL/CFL qualifiers, you still get 8 policy invitationals and 8 forensic invitationals for a total of 16. Also given that “qualifying†to policy state is only a .500 record at 4 cherry picked tournaments, pretty much anyone qualifies. And there is no qualifying to LD state. 2). Its your choice, or really your coach’s choice, on what in state tournaments you go to. Don’t want to go to NFL or CFL qualifiers because they are too slow for you, then that is your choice. You don’t have to go to DCI. My point is you can do the TOC style all you want, but there will be tradeoffs. There have been teams that have attempted to forgo everything in Kansas to maximize their TOC style opportunities. 3). Even if you believe that you can’t possibly maximize the number of national tournaments you go to, I’m not sure why attending 3 national tournaments, DCI, State, NFL Qualifier, CFL Qualifier, WaRu, and SME would be a bad season. Are you arguing that every single round must be in front of the kind of judge you like? Are you saying you should never have to debate any style but the one you prefer? Even if you are saying yes to both of these questions, you could still make the sacrifices and go to 8 TOC style tournaments. Going to the CFL qualifier may reduce you down to 7 for the gamble of picking up 2 or 3 more, but that is a choice. And you say the judges were “only so objectiveâ€. Perhaps, just perhaps, arguments that require the utmost objectivity are bad arguments. Perhaps if the arguments require someone with zero personality they are unreasonable arguments that we ought not artificially create an environment for just so high school students can test the limits of what people will listen to. I’m just saying that if you are struggling that hard to find anyone who will listen to the argument that you have conceived, maybe the issue isn’t with all of these “unobjective†people and more with the approach to attempt to be persuasive with arguments that such an extremely small number of people would ever find persuasive. 4). Why don’t forensics tournaments count? You even said the LD and PFD were valuable events. Why would we only count policy tournaments uniquely? Heck, to debate the philosophical stuff that you are so eager to argue in TOC style tournaments, LD is uniquely better equipped. And TOC has a LD tournament. 5). You keep blurring the lines between equating “fast†teams and “good†teams. Yes, qualifying at NFL and CFL is very tough. As a “reward†you get more opportunities. I’m not attempting to count “fast tournamentsâ€. I pointing out the number of opportunities kids can have. You are arguing that there are few opportunities for a specific style. My argument is that if you make some choices and have some success at the right place you have more opportunities. I think you’ll acknowledge that success at one tournament does not equate to success at another. Otherwise we’d just have one tournament. You deserve congratulations on the successes you had. If you had more success at CFL you would have had more opportunities. Your successes did not come at that tournament, but that isn’t an indict of that tournament or and indict of your season. There is another thread with a poll of where you’d most like to be successful. If your goal is to maximize the number of TOC style tournaments you get to attend, then I’d guess the NFL and/or CFL qualifier is where you’d like the most success. And if that doesn’t happen, well you may not get to reach the maximum number of TOC style tournaments, but you can still have a season to be proud of which you have demonstrated. 6). Both KSHSAA and your school administration would disagree. As much as debate is highly educational, for a student to be over-dedicated to the activity risks taking away from school and other activities. That is why there is a season rather than doing it all year. That is why there are any limits on participation in any activity. Debate currently has the longest season of any activity in high school. The educators have come to the conclusion that 8 invitationals allows for a good about of participation without any lose to school work. Could you personally have attended 14+ tournaments and still had a 4.0 GPA? Sure. But they don’t set policy based on individuals, they have to set it on what they think is best for the entire population. 5. Kansas Debaters can do well in college As I said before, I don’t know where you are coming up with warrants for this. Kids at debate camp are not the best sources to shape your opinion about the TOC tournament. There have been plenty of kids who have been both recruited and successful in college who did not attend the TOC tournament, so it isn’t unique to college success. And there is a risk of being less successful by being exclusive to a single style. I’ll argue that kids who adapt to multiple styles rather than only debating one style will be more successful in college. I’ve had former debate students who found success in college tell me that providing a balanced education best prepared them for college debate. Thus going to a few TOC style tournaments is valuable, but going to the TOC tournament is not a unique experience and going to only TOC style tournaments would actually turn the advantage and make you less prepared for success in college. 6. The reason i made my post A very good argument on your part. The voice of change needs to be expressed. You may not believe it, but I’m glad you speak up. I think you miss my underlying point. If you want to change debate, if you want to change the restrictions, you need to have the perspective of the hegemon and be persuasive in making the change. You need to see and understand what the goals are and how the different competing priorities shape the debate. To say that you want to travel more without understanding why that is not prioritized means your argumentation can never be persuasive. You can’t influence change by being critical of the choices of others without understanding their choices. When you argue only from your own perspective, and not the perspective of administrators, teachers, coaches, parents, and taxpayers you only get the perspective of one of the several stakeholders. Since each stakeholder has a different priority, you can not hope to be successful without listening to the other sides. If you were king, you wouldn’t need to care about other perspectives. And there isn’t anywhere, MO or elsewhere, that only bases their debate program’s choices based on the wishes of high school debate students. It is frustrating that super intelligent kids continue to make the same arguments for more travel and more TOC style without taking into account any of the perspective and other priorities that go into what actually leads to the compromise that is our current reality. Its frustrating that in the face of everything that students still believe that all the other stakeholders are wrong and the choices they make are wrong if for no other reason than they are different than what the student would like to do. I hope when you look back you see that those 4 years you invested in debate were worth it even if you had to debate a style that you didn’t prefer. I’ve invested about 16 years in debate. I too was disappointed in my first 4 because I too wanted to debate only in front of judges who didn’t judge me before I walked in the room. I too wanted a specific style and wanted only to play the intellectual game. I accidently developed skills and understanding that has done more for me in life than any intellectual game I ever played. And so for the remaining 12 years in debate I have attempted to pay it back with varying degrees of success. I’ve made the same sacrifices that so many other coaches have made to be away from my wife, dogs, friends and family to attempt to give hundreds of kids the experiences that will make them better people. To accomplish that I’ve travelled to TOC style tournaments, volunteered to go to nationals, and used up 50% of my vacation time to sponsor kids at local tournaments. I’ve coached kids to run kritiks and significance/harms. I see value in each style of debate and try to give students a little bit of it all. Please forgive me if I get a bit emotional when I hear students tell me they are doing it better somewhere else. Perhaps it is my competitive nature. Perhaps it is my pride in both Kansas and the local debate community. Perhaps it is my reflection of the sacrifices that me and others make to provide all the opportunities that we think are best for the students. I had some jerk-like qualities in my response. Hopefully you can see it comes from a perspective that I don’t think you’ve included in your calculations and thus why we’re having this little debate in the first place.
  9. Wow! You are making some really flawed assumptions about what debate is like across state line! First of all, Missouri has a travel restriction just like Kansas does. There are very few schools in Missouri who travel outside of Missouri and only a handful that ever go to a single TOC bid tournament. The vast majority go to each other's invitationals just like in Kansas. You couldn't be more wrong about Missouri travelling more. Also you are under a horribly flawed assumption that the greatest hurdle to travel is some kind of rule. The BIGGEST restriction is financial. Perhaps you've read something about how education is underfunded. If schools are having trouble paying for having classes for the fine arts, they sure in heck aren't going to be paying so 4 debate kids can travel to the East Coast to possibly earn a bid for a tournament that isn't even condoned. And don't turn this into TOC bashing, it isn't. The simple fact is travelling for debate is a luxury that most schools can't really afford. You think there is less traditional debate in Missouri???????? WOW!!! i'm going to try to be nice and respectful and tell you that you can not possibly be more wrong. I don't know what experience you have debating in Missouri, but as someone who has coached debaters debating in Missouri and who's step daughter debated for Blue Springs South, let me assure you that the VAST MAJORITY of debaters in Missouri debate a much more traditional style than even in Kansas. And I have no idea why you are bashing the tournament number restriction set in Kansas. This too is based on ignorance. Kansas has a 8 invitational restriction. That does not include regionals or state. Thus if you do regionals and state, you can do 10 policy debate tournaments. Then there are acceptions made for two national tournaments. If you qualify to one of them, you are allowed 2 prep tournaments in the Spring. That puts you to 13 policy tournaments. If you qualify for both, you can go to 14 policy tournaments. Oh, and Kansas splits the debate and forensics seasons. So you are allowed 8 forensics tournaments in which you can do LD/congress and PFD. Plus forensics state. So, if you are able to acheive every opportunity, you are looking at 23 tournaments to debate at. FURTHERMORE, other states also have a restriction, but that is for all events since they don't split the seasons. So they still net less tournaments than Kansas. I challenge anyone to find a state that allows for more participation in debate than the state of Kansas. So just on the math you could go to 6 TOC tournaments in the Fall, NFL and CFL qualifiers, regionals and State. If you were good enough to qualify you could do 2 more TOC tournaments in the Spring plus do NFL and CFL. Plus you could do up to 8 forensics tournaments in the Spring. The fact that no coach in Kansas would put up with that is not an indict of the system, it is that perhaps coaches in Kansas don't share your zeal for national circuit tournaments and the TOC. You could debate at Iowa, Glenbrooks, Greenhill, KCKCC, Westside, etc. The fact is there are plenty of opportunities for you to get "your style of debate". The truth is your schools budget is a much more limiting factor as it is for all other schools. Oh, and some of the most successful debaters in college didn't exclusively travel the national circuit, so don't fool yourself to believe that you were disadvantaged. Ask the successful college debaters that came out of Kansas if tournaments like Waru, SME, Topeka, DCI, State, BVN, BV, and a whole host of other schools who run quality invitationals was beneficial to their ability to debate in college. Heck, read the threads on CX in which they praise debate in Kansas for preparing them. I got news for you. Until you find yourself appointed as king of the world, you will have other people's choices limiting your own. Welcome to this experiment we call society. You don't get to do whatever would please you the most. There are financial and social restrictions on all of us. And the grass isn't greener in Missouri. They don't have unlimited budgets. The don't have coaches who will put up with the egos on kids who think they should be travelling to the East and West coast when there are quality tournaments within 30 minutes. You feel frustrated that you didn't spend your debate career extensively traveling to seek out tournaments that molded to you? Imagine how frustrating it is to hear year after year that there is better debate going on just beyond the horizon and if you could just escape Kansas everything would be better. Especially when it is clear that students have zero perspective on what is going on over there.
  10. I agree with the settiment that DCI has grown too big. Among the people who can change it, I believe the prevailing argument was that change inheriently has risk and thus there has to be major issues to vote for change. It isn't surprising that an old fashion judging paradigm of stock issues was used to deterine the vote. Significance (that the harms were too small to overcome the inherient risk of change) was the voting issue. Keeping DCI as inclusive is a very powerful argument. Basically the idea is the more the merrier. Yes, there were sophomores that weren't as competitive at DCI, but those sophomores learned from the experience and will be better debaters as juniors and seniors because they were included rather than excluded. Personnally, I disagree. I believe the invitationals and the DCI bid tournaments should be inclusive. I believe that is where kids get better. I believe that at some point the true value of seniors educationg sophomores by crushing them in loopsided debates is less important than having more equally balanced rounds of the best versus the best. I think that when the field increases substancially past 32, which how many break to double octos, it starts creating statistical issues in which five directly power matched rounds can't solve. There are minor repairs that would maintain the concepts of the status quo that I believe would get us closer to a balance between inclusion and competitiveness. Requiring 4 wins regardless of tournament size at a bid tournament I believe is a step in the right direction toward reducing the total number of bids awarded. I'd also suggest that the extra bid for finals be removed because I think you should have to do well at two bid tournaments to enter DCI. I don't think these changes will be made. so it is merely academic. I will say I disagree with some of the analysis in this thread. To rate getting a bid at KCKCC or the NFL qualifiers higher than getting a bid at Waru or Topeka is a fallacy. I truly believe that it doesn't matter where or when you got your bid. Some teams go to only two bid tournaments, get their two bids, and then show up for DCI. Some go to every bid tournament to rack up the bids. Some pick and choose based on the style of debate dictated by the judging pool. None of these strategies is wrong, so it becomes irrelevant who got their bids where and at what point in the season. I also disagree with the idea that TOC bids translate to identifying "better" teams in Kansas. This is not an attack on TOC bids. The simple fact is that some squads don't seek out TOC bids so its not an equal metric in the state. To say you did better than me at a tournament that I didn't attend is a fallacy. Among schools who exclusively seek out TOC bids and travel the national circuit, that probably is a fair metric, but it doesn't work here. I won't even go into the issue that TOC bid tournaments have a specific style that doesn't translate to overall "best". I'm split on the MPJ thing. There is a part of me that says show up and debate in front of who ever is willing to take time out of their life to bother listening to you. I think shaping the round to meet you rather than you adapting to the round that you are thrust into is a cop out. I want say, "hey, cowboy up and figure out how to persuade your audience because in life you don't get to pick who you need to persuade." On the flip side as a judge and a coach I get tired of watching or hearing about rounds that weren't competitive because one team fit better with the judge than the other. I think MPJ does help make rounds more competitive and probably more fair. I guess I can take it or leave it. There have now been a couple of posts that have broached the idea of returning to a world of coach's voting. I can not stress this enough that those ideas only work in a world in which there is some agreement among the community on the criteria to vote on. That is ABSOLUTELY not the case in Kansas. There is no concensus on what makes a good debater, and thus the voting is erratic and produces unjust results. Not that I would have a vote, but if I did it makes sense that I would vote for teams that debate similar to the way I coach my teams to debate. To reintroduced subjectivity back into a system that was designed to remove coach's preferences would definately be a large mistake.
  11. Yes, nationals could have their tabing software publish results online in real time. The specifically choose not to. They truly want the excitement of everyone finding out at once. The love the excitement. And if students can handle being in the dark at nationals, why can't they deal with it at DCI? Yes, I'd be fine with State being closed. I'm not allowed in there anyway as a member of the judging pool. Also, state does not pull off having the same atmosphere as DCI. At the end of State, the only people there to congratulate you on winning State are the State runners up. Everyone else left. There is no sense of the entire debate community being there to acknowledge the acheivement. The goal is completely different. Thus, for repeating for the fourth time, why DCI should be different than State or other tournaments. So perhaps State needs to have a open tab room while DCI needs to have a closed tab room. At this point I feel like I can not possibily convince you that DCI is different. Perhaps the value of celebrating as a debate community doesn't have any value to you. Perhaps you are just absolutely dead set that all tournaments have to be identical both in purpose and in function. Perhaps you feel your need for instant gratification of knowledge of results is so overpowering that nothing else can possibly have priority over that all consuming need and the delay in knowledge is a painful sacrifice that cannot be shouldered under any circumstance. Whatever the reason, I've failed in explaining it in a persuasive manner. I must accept that at this point. Thank you for the polite discussion and I'll see you this weekend at State.
  12. At first I couldn't understand what tournament size mattered, but I think I get it now. You are saying that the tournament is large enough now that only teams with 2 or less losses will place. That is true. I don't think that changes having tab open though. Less rounds may be relivant now, but that is even more reason to keep tab closed. That means by keeping everyone in the dark, there are more rounds that are being debated as if they were relivant even though they are not. I just don't get the reason why we'd want teams that already have 3 or more losses to know that? I really think you are creating a false argument that you perceive that 1/3rd of the tournament will be benefitted at the sacrifice of a better experience for 2/3rds of the tournament. Why do you so badly want teams that have 4 losses going into round 7 to know they have no shot? Closing it for round 7 does not solve. if you lose the first 3 rounds, especially with the tournament size, you will not place. Why do we want those kids to try any less hard in rounds 4, 5, and 6? If a team is 3-0 going into round 4, are they going to do something different than if they are 2-1???? That is a fallacy! Not knowing results does not hurt them and I have repeatedly shown there is benefit to not knowing. We get it. You like to know. It makes you feel warm and fuzzy to know records as the tournament goes. And for every other invitational you get to have that warm fuzzy feeling. But there are additional goals of DCI that are not the same goals of the other invitationals. I get that it is a sacrifice to not have that feeling of additional information, but that sacrifice is not in vain. It has a purpose. And the feeling of celebration of the best of Kansas is bigger and better than the feeling of knowing how things are going. We get that you are not being disrespectful to those who volunteer their time though they have no one competing in the tournament to run the tab room. Thank you for not doing that. I don't think you answered my analogy though. As much as I think DCI is a prestigious tournament, I think NFL and CFL are more so, and both of them close their tab rooms too. They are highly prestigious tournaments and from working in their tab rooms I can tell you they take the risk of error EXTREMELY seriously. The only thing the take more seriously than having an error free tab is having a tab without the mere perceiption of allowing results to get out unfairly. They are vigilent about keeping tab completely closed and at the same time 100% accurate. They have proceedures of peer review, shadow tab, and audits to prevent tab error while remaining close. I agree that DCI is prestigious and the tab process must be accurate, but it does not require that tab room to be open for the risk of tab error to be minimized. And so I'm not accused of hijacking the thread, yes, anyone who says mean things about DCI is a big meanie and deserves to get the stink eye from one of the short coaches in the Topeka area.
  13. So we are supposed to risk the inherent DA of changing what isn't broken because 2 high school kids made a bad choice in a round they should have thought was a break round? The fact they DIDN'T know should have caused them to at least error on the side of causion. Sorry, kids treating a round as irrelevant does not give me reason to confirm which rounds are relevant and which aren't. And do you know for a fact they made bad choices because they didn't believe the round was relevant, or that they just made a bad choice? All debaters should approach round 7 of DCI as if it is a break round and make any decisions accordingly. The choice to break/not break a new aff in round 7 of DCI versus State seems exceptionally trivial to me and doesn't come close to outweighing the positive impacts from everyone believing they had a shot during the awards ceremony. Actually I thought it was a pretty logical argument. At the national qualifiers teams are eliminated after 2 loses, but there are 3 rounds on Friday. So there are kids who after two loses are debating a meaningless round (they can not qualify to nationals). Coaches often have to convince kids that those rounds need to be taken seriously. When kids know they can't be successful, they don't try as hard. That is human nature. When they don't know if they can be successful they try harder. Creating the illusion of relevance has value. As a coach of a squad who rarely tells the kids how they are doing during the tournament, I can tell you that if anyone knows, the kids will find out. If the coach of the other team chooses to tell their kids, then my kids will know even if I don't want them to. This isn't an issue of respect or lack of, it is an issue of once something is said it can't be unsaid. When no one knows, we are all in the same situation. To say ANY tournament can be closed in that way is to once again try to make DCI the same as any other tournament. Why? Bottom line the overwelming majority of coaches agree that DCI should be different. That is kind of our point. Let DCI be different. We want it to be a celebration of the best of Kansas. Making it like other invitationals deters or destroys that. The celebration is more important than some kid knowing how he/she did before round 7. The kids have other opportunities to be dumb/have fun. They can go to KCKCC where the judging is more open to the fun stuff. They can agree to meet a Scooters and just have fun. We want there to be a sense of community at DCI which outweighs kids who know they aren't doing well running dumb arguements. The perm has a solvency deficit. The solvency of a closed tab room is that NOBODY knows. The logical assumption then would be that since know one knows that teams should treat each round as a go round because it might be. When the stakes are at the highest, and you don't know, then why would you blow the round off? The point is that you "like" to know what's up. You don't "need" to know what is up. If no one "needs" to know, and that causes logical people to treat each round as if it is relevant, that has better solvency than some people knowing and some people treating the rounds as irrelevant. Your best argument. The reason most invitationals, including ours, have an open tab. However, the national tournaments have close tab rooms and are even more important to get the tabbing right. You solve for this by having a system of peer reviews and audits. Open tab is not the only way to solve for tab errors. Okay, so can we arrange that you judge every kid who wants to run a dumb argument and allow the rest of us to judge the rounds that the kids are actually trying to present persuasive arguments? Seriously, I'll take all the rounds in which kids are attempting real world arguments and you take all the rounds in which kids are trying to one up each other on the stupid thing that can come out of their mouth. I don't think it was. If a team is 4-2, what are they going to do different if they were 5-1 or 6-0? If every team is entering round 7 as if they are 6-0, what strategy change would be better in the case they really are 4-2? The only thing you can add by letting kids know they are 3-3 or worse is to tell them they will not be winning/placing at DCI so that round 7 is irrelevant. Then they can treat it with the lack of respect. If everyone approaches the unknown as if they are doing well, then the only logical strategy change would come from the truth being different than the illusion. So the only kids who would change strategy would be the kids who are losing, not those who are winning. Your theory of strategy shift is just not logical. Bottomline, DCI is not broken. Any harms are insignificant and do not justify the inherent risk of change, much less the clear indications that the changes would push us away from what makes DCI special.
  14. I respect your opinions, but must disagree on a couple of your ideas. That tab room must remain closed. Having everyone in the dark about how they are doing makes this a special tournament. Teams that have 2 wins are still debating as if they had 6 because the competition is good and you just never know. While I agree a coach wants to coach, let this be the one tournament where the kids walk in the room and just debate their hearts out against whoever they are facing. Don't make it an elimination tournament. I've voiced before that DCI is special because at the end everyone is still there. Everyone is hoping they won it (because of the closed tab). Everyone is there to congratulate the winners of the tournament, not just the team who took second. This makes for a much better celebration of the best of Kansas. Don't make it just another invitational in which everyone goes home without knowing who did well. I don't care if the coaches decide to medal all 5-2 or how that is decided. The placing is what matters. I think that the current power matching works best, but if there is a bunch of people who are deadset on creating hidden brackets, then high-low for round 7 would be fine. Again, lets not make this the same as all other tournaments. I believe opp record is better than speaker points, but ranks are the most important. Perhaps the tie breakers need to be different for power matching and final placings. opp record after round 2 is pretty meaningless.
  15. You need to find a route via Googlemaps that is drivable and within 500 miles of a point on the Kansas border.
×
×
  • Create New...