Jump to content

laker24

Member
  • Content Count

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

laker24 last won the day on May 31 2012

laker24 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

124 Excellent

About laker24

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 10/16/1993

Profile Information

  • Name
    Ideen Saiedian
  • School
    Blue Valley West '12, USC '16
  • Biography
    I like to perm disads...
  • Location
    Kansas

Recent Profile Visitors

4065 profile views
  1. Available for hire at NFL. Will judge any event, can do updates at the tournament, and can help with pre round coaching. Don't need transportation or housing. ideen.saiedian [at] gmail Bio: Sophomore at USC - qualified for the NDT twice, led a lab on the Latin America topic and have about 50 rounds on the topic
  2. Available for hire at NFL. Will judge any event, can do updates at the tournament, and can help with pre round coaching. Don't need transportation or housing. ideen.saiedian [at] gmail Bio: Sophomore at USC - qualified for the NDT twice, led a lab on the Latin America topic and have about 50 rounds on the topic
  3. Hi all, I wanted to echo congrats to all the qualifiers. I’ve had my own fair share of frustration with this system (that I have both been benefited by as well as let down by), but I’m also relieved that our state continually does well at nationals and am genuinely happy and excited to see everyone represent Kansas this year I think the main source of the antagonism is from a fundamental disagreement in what we believe to be the purpose of this activity, so obviously we will have differing opinions on what we perceive to be best for it. However, even with that said, the main issue with the NFL qualifiers, in my opinion, seems to be its [consistent] inconsistency in what it rewards (regardless of which style of debate you advocate). This stems largely from a judging pool that is very unpredictable and that includes an extremely wide range of judges in terms of experience. While I’d be a strong advocate of MPJ or even a coach voting system that elects a set of “first round†teams (this was suggested during last year’s post-NFL qualifier discussion), there are some structural barriers from national rules. I wanted to present an alternative solution that may reduce the extent of the problem while avoiding the red tape from national NFL rules: Cap entries. NFL has the 4 team limit, but there are no rules preventing schools from sending less. The methods for this could be 1) each school can only send their top 2 teams (in recent history, I don’t recall an instance where the top 3 or 4 finishers at the qualifier were from the same school) or 2) the KS coaches/community create a “non-official†requirement for teams to attend the qualifier (e.g. DCI qualification). The only disadvantage to this idea is that it reduces the number of qualifiers in most cases from 3 to 2, but this would resolve instances where schools simply complete the competition pool by sending maximum teams possible, which also necessitates dilution of the judging pool with 2 more judges for each of those teams. It should be noted that I honestly think this is a solution to the problem and that I actually am disincentivized to say this as it would mean that I probably would not have qualified my junior year. It may, however, resolve Amanda’s dissatisfaction after the qualifiers when she debated. Nonetheless, I think qualifying 2 teams with a more desirable judging pool would be preferred over qualifying 3 teams where the process is more unpredictable (especially if the reduced competition pool resulted in substantially reducing desperate attempts to recruit non-experienced parents to fulfill judging requirements for the large pool). I’m interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts on this. On some other portions of this discussion: Changing NFL qualifier dates – I think this is also a very reasonable solution that resolves the issue of desirable judges being overstretched on the same weekend. Would moving qualifiers to after the state tournament conflict with KSHSAA rules? If not, that is a plausible option. If it does conflict, the other option would be spreading the qualifiers throughout the “regular season,†but this would conflict with other DCI tournaments and potentially exacerbate another issue that is being discussed on the bidtracker about too many qualifiers if the top teams from a district don’t attend a bid tournament for 5 weekends. Freshman judges – I think they’re still more experienced and can decide more objectively than parents who are new to the activity. Amanda raises an important issue, but I’m not sure that her concerns are about the nature of being a freshman or simply from certain relationships or biases that would still exist for sophomores and older. If a judge feels uncomfortable about objectively judging a certain round, that can be easily fixed, but I don’t think it justifies eliminating all freshman from the pool (e.g. Sean Duff who was used as an example above). Modeling the national tournament – From my own experience, I only had flow rounds at nationals, especially in rounds 7-10 (including 2 non-traditional/critical debates). Even while there exists a pool ranging from college debaters to judges who prefer slow rounds, there were not any "non-experienced parents" from what I saw at least. It is certainly not a “lay†tournament, and recent finalists who have also been teams with the most TOC bids are a good indicator of this (Greenhill, Iowa City West, College Prep, GBS, Damien). Samantha’s post – Sam raises the importance of debate as a communication activity and being able to adapt. While I still personally prefer an experienced college debater over a parent, I think adaptation as a skill is fine as long as it’s consistent. Many times, including the round I was eliminated in last year, included a parent with no experience, a flay judge with little college experience, and a more experienced “high-flow†judge. Round-by-round adaptation, which I think what Sam is talking about, is distinct from having to debate in front of 3 different people at the same time with different judging preferences. Obviously eliminating panels resolves this issue, but I think the benefits of a panel may outweigh the need for this. However, alternative solutions that result in a more similar/predictable judge pool resolve this. And while I agree that even “flow†judges aren’t perfect, I still think we should strive to reduce non-experienced judges who have a greater potential to make decisions that are not as objective as an experienced judge. Is that wrong? On a side note, I’m happy to see my peers who are out of high school engaging in these discussions. I feel indebted to Kansas debate for everything it gave me, and if I was closer, I would love to remain involved in the community and judge tournaments frequently.
  4. Anyone have the GDI 2008 Framework File?
  5. Set up the new wiki and archived the old one. Both links below. Also created the first team page for 2012-13 so other teams know how to model when creating pages. It's important that the team pages include "2012-2013 --- [school Name] --- [Debater 1 Last Name] & [Debater 2 Last Name]" because that is how the pages will be alphabetically be sorted under the Pages & Files section. Email me if you have questions. New Caselist (2012-13): http://kansasdebate.wikispaces.com/Kansas+Debate+Caselist Archived Caselists (2010-12): http://kansasdebate.wikispaces.com/Archived+Caselists
  6. Hey sorry - the place I'm staying at has terrible internet service, but once I settle in next week, I'll update the wiki so you can add new teams. And that sounds great, Old School. I'll contact you via email
  7. Linda Pei/Peg Wefald, Manhattan '12, with the most single season bids should definitely be included here
  8. Hi all, Hope everyone is enjoying the remaining days of your summer before the season begins. I made the Kansas Debate Caselist Wiki ( http://kansasdebate.wikispaces.com/) and have been running it the past few years, and I'm proud to say that it has been very successful (definitely more than originally expected) with over 35 team pages the last 2 years and a clearly visible increase in overall disclosure practices in the state! Hopefully the documented successes from these teams will encourage more debaters next year to participate and this number will grow even larger! Thanks everyone who participated I will go ahead and archive this past year's caselist in the upcoming week and set up the 2012-13 one. I am, however, no longer as directly involved in Kansas debate now that I have graduated and am looking for someone new (preferably a coach in the area who supports this practice) to continue to maintain the wiki, update it, archive previous years, take care of formatting issues, help students who have questions, make sure people don't abuse the wiki, etc. The website is pretty intuitive to work with and is very user-friendly. The wiki is modeled after the national wiki (http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/) run by Bill Batterman. Anyone who is interested, please email me: ideen93 [at] gmail [dot] com. Thanks again to everyone who has participated and made the caselist wiki as successful as it has been! Ideen
  9. This may be a nub question, but my laptop, like many others, has the function keys (F1-F12) on the same key as other options such as sound control and brightness control. In order to use the function keys, I have to press/hold the "Fn" key in the bottom left of the keyboard and then that enables me to use the function keys. As a debater though, I use the function keys for formatting cards a lot more often than those control keys. Since I have to use the "Fn" button, it makes it difficult and annoying to use those function keys with one hand. Does anyone know if there is a way to lock the "Fn" key or make it so that the "Fn" key is used to enable those other controls instead of the function keys I'm trying to use. If it helps, I'm using a Lenovo IdeaPad U400. Many thanks in advance
  10. laker24

    Intrinsicness

    posted this on a different thread a while ago: Intrinsicness tests the germaneness of the disad link to the plan. It's usually an argument that the aff will make against certain disads. The argument is that the disad must be the unavoidable result of the affirmative. It argues that if something else could be done to prevent the link, then it should be done. You can do this by either saying the disad is not intrinsic to the plan, or in some instances, making a permutation. For example on a politics disad, you could say that a rational policy maker would pass the plan and the politics scenario. It's usually justified by the fact that the link can be overcome simply by doing both or taking an extra action. Other disads it could work on are spending-tradeoff DAs for example. It's definitely a strategic time tradeoff, at the very least; it takes less than 5 seconds to make in the 2AC. It'll take the negative longer to answer, if they don't drop it altogether.
  11. Does anyone have a SciVerse or ScienceDirect account who could give me this: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508002619 Or just if anyone has access to Energy Policy (volume 36, issue 9, pg 3360-3365, September 2008). I have files to trade, let me know.
  12. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10324364/Neoliberalism%20K.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...