Tara Tedrow Wins Ohio Valley
Ohio Valley finalists Tara Tedrow and Michael Jaskiw
Congratulations to the Ohio Valley Invitational finalists, Tara Tedrow of Celebration and Michael Jaskiw of Hawken! In the final round, Tara negated against Michael and won on a 2-1 decision. (”I guess this gives Tara reason to celebrate?” questioned Nathan Zerbib-Berda jokingly.)
Nathan joined Paul Schiano in negating. Amanda Rankin affirmed.
Tara is coached by Jackson Mumey and Tim Case. Michael is coached by Bob Shurtz.
Thank you to Michael Boyle and Paul Schiano for providing live results throughout the tournament!
OCTAS
(1) Hawken MJ def. (16) Glenbrook North RP (Reenie Patel)
(2) Hawken SB def. (15) New Trier ND (Nick Dilallo)
(3) Celebration TT def. Glenbrook North CE (Carmel Epstein)
(4) Celebration JL def. (13) Henry Clay ML
(5) Glenbrook North AP def. (12) East Mesa MB (Michael Boyle)
2-1 (Huynh, Rankin, Case*)
(6) Bishop Guertin AH def. (11) University School AC (Anuraag Chigurupati)
(7) Harker AV def. (10) Celebration KA (Kelsey Averill)
(8) Glenbrook North BB def. (9) Glenbrook North MR (Mike Roytman)
QUARTERS
(1) Hawken MJ def. GBN BB (Ben Balter)
3-0
(2) Hawken SB def. (7) Harker AV (Amira Valliani)
3-0
(3) Celebration TT def. (6) Bishop Guertin AH (Allison Huberlie)
2-1 (Zerbib-Berda*, O’Hara, Barkhausen)
(5) Glenbrook North AP def. (4) Celebration JL (Joshua Loveall)
3-0 (Huynh, Shurtz, Switzer)
SEMIS (TOC Bid)
(1) Hakwen MJ def. (5) Glenbrook North AP (Ari Parker)
3-0 (DeBlasio, Brendel, Barkhausen)
(3) Celebration TT def. (2) Hawken SB (Sara Baley)
2-1 (Rankin, Switzer, Schiano*)
FINALS
(3) Celebration TT def. (2) Hawken MJ (Michael Jaskiw)
2-1 (Rankin*, Zebib-Berda, Schiano)
CHAMPION
(3) Celebration TT (Tara Tedrow)
Popularity: 1%
test
89 Responses to “Tara Tedrow Wins Ohio Valley”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Tara Tedrow Wins Ohio Valley
- Work, Wit, and Wins: Wolfish
- Shyaam Subramanian Wins CPS
- Sam Kleiner is Auburn Champion
- Kunal Raygor is Alta Champion
- Day One of the Tour Draws to a Close
- "Flex Time": Reshaping the LD Round
- Tisha Vaidya Wins Isidore Newman
- Blake Registrants Thus Far
- Scarsdale Closes Out Hendrick Hudson
Posted from: 172.141.247.207
December 5th, 2004 11:39
Who is Hawken SP? Should it be Hawken SB (Sarah Baley)?
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 12:19
in the bid rounds:
Hawken MJ vs GBN BB
Celebration JL vs GBN AP
Hawken SB vs Harker AV
Celebration TT vs Bishop Guertin AH
Boyle lost on a 2-1 with Tim Case as the squirrel.
I’m watching the TT vs AH as we speak. I’ll have live results :)
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 12:26
My vote doesn’t count, but I thought TT won the round. Paul is meanwhile frantically playying with an empty bag of some snack. There is no food for judges at the tournament, thus the quality and sanity slowly decreases. I’ll have real results for this round up in a second.
Judges are Nate, or as he’s known here, “zerbib”, a policy guy, and someone else who I do not know. Yeah, I need to be a better reporter lol
Posted from: 24.6.187.21
December 5th, 2004 12:29
hey michael can you post the “live” results of the hawken v harker round for me? thanks man
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 12:34
Tara was neg, Allie was aff.
In the entirely useless portion of this post, I’ll post my thoughts on the round. I thought the negative won. There is grumbling among the judges and calling of cards - it’s a very close bid round. Ryan O’Hara and Nate have come to a decision, we’re waiting for the policy guy (I think Ryan and Nate split)
And the decision is a:
2-1
Nate Zerib Berda - Squirrel (ha ha)
Ryan O’Hara - Neg
Policy guy - Neg
Bid recipient - Tara Tedrow.
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 12:35
I’ll be finding further results as we speak.
Posted from: 24.6.187.21
December 5th, 2004 12:45
thanks!
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 13:33
I’m pretty sure I was right. Oh well, congrats to Tara.
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 13:34
I’m pretty sure I was right. Oh well, congrats to Tara.
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 13:34
I’m pretty sure I was right. Oh well, congrats to Tara.
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 13:35
Sorry I posted so many times, stupid KU internet
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 14:26
I’m watching the Jaskew-Ari round. Basically it’s coming down to contractual arguments. It’s a close round - I’m not sure how it’ll go, and it’s a very hard to read panel. It’s very difficult to predict - I say a 2-1 for Jaskew, but I think Ari could still pull it off - he’s now qualled, regardless about the quarrel about our previous round, he’s still good :) Must be his coach…. everyone’s favorite judge…. the coolest guy around…. that’s right… Mark Batik :) I’ll post live from this one, delayed from the other round, and probably live from Finals. Photos won’t be in till Monday. There’s a great one of me and J-Dub. Hope it’s not the last time I get a photo with J-Dub :(
I’ll see y’all at Hen Hud, Mineapple, DHRR, VBT, or some other tournament.
In totally unrelated banter while I’m waiting for the decision, Mark Batik now has stopped wearing contacts and wears glasses. They’re kind of like emo glasses, but not quite as great as Bietz.
The only thing that would make this tournament better is Jon Gordon….
How did the Magician do at Princeton?
I volunteered Nate to keep time this round so I could use his laptop. He was removed from the pool lol after squirreling :)
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
December 5th, 2004 14:27
Mineapple? Do you mean Lexington? :o)
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 14:38
No, I mean Blake, and I actually meant to write Minneapolis. my thought-action cooordination could use a little work
post round - I predict a 2-1 for Michael Jaskew, the negative. We’ll see - I just can’t see a panel like this (traditional LD-ers and Policy guy) coming to the same conclusion, but if they did it could be a 3-0 for Jaskew. Nate the squirrel/timekeeper thinks Jaskew won, so that might be the kiss of death ;)
Posted from: 24.191.68.142
December 5th, 2004 14:41
Jaskiw is his name. A(ri) Parker is so cute.
Posted from: 68.3.149.85
December 5th, 2004 14:42
congrats to tara, parker, and jaskiw on well deserved bids
Posted from: 24.205.214.223
December 5th, 2004 15:13
Everyone who recieved bids at Ohio Valley is an awesome person. I had the pleasure of going to camp with all of them. :)
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 15:17
Tedrow v Jaskew
Deblasio, Nathan Zerbib-Berda, Paul Schiano adjudicating
Flip for sides
Tedrow is coached by Tim Case and I’m sure some others. I’ve met Jaskew’s coach, he’s a nice guy, but we did not exchange names.
Paul is beating Nathan in fantasy somesport.
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 15:19
Sorry if I’ve been misspelling his name - I’ve been trying to get stuff up quickly.
Posted from: 24.205.214.223
December 5th, 2004 15:29
Tara is coached by DR. MUMEY. :)
Jaskiw’s coach is Bob Shurtz (sp?)
this final round pairing makes me happy. it should be interesting.
Posted from: 24.205.214.223
December 5th, 2004 15:34
Additionally, Sara Baley’s name doesn’t have an I in it.
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 15:35
I voluneered Nate to judge :)
It’s Kentucky, what else is there to do. Honestly, our hotel gets 13 channels.
Posted from: 24.205.214.223
December 5th, 2004 15:36
And Jaskiw, coincidentally, does have an I.
(it’s sunday…i have no life.)
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 15:37
btw, in the first semis round, schiano replace o’hara as judge and sat out on a 2-1. the other semis was a 3-0. stupid laptop battery :)
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 5th, 2004 15:38
katherine - that’s what happens when you go to every camp
Posted from: 24.205.214.223
December 5th, 2004 15:40
true!
but the other thing that happens is 4 weeks with you, mr. boyle. =D
Posted from: 209.30.26.225
December 5th, 2004 16:32
Good Job tara, I told you that you would win. Your a really good debator and I wish you sucess. Good luck the rest of the year.
Posted from: 24.0.98.173
December 5th, 2004 16:42
Could someone please email me the status of the prelim packet at sooner99@comcast.net
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
December 5th, 2004 16:55
my round was scheduled to be that, but was Rankin, Joyne, Case*
Rankin picked up a lot of people’s ballots. She refused to be photographed; saying “you people probably hate me.” I’m not kidding. I did not reply negatively.
Packet will be in tomorrow evening.
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
December 5th, 2004 16:59
I guess this gives Tara reason to Celebrate??? hahaha so easy
Posted from: 68.3.149.85
December 5th, 2004 17:43
i agree with corbin congrats tara
Posted from: 24.205.214.223
December 5th, 2004 17:56
congratulations tara!
i knew there was a reason you were my lover. <3
Posted from: 12.158.56.105
December 5th, 2004 18:49
ryan was actually on the semis panel with me, not rankin
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
December 5th, 2004 19:29
This is why people need to stop picking up each other’s balllots lol. I assumed Paul had picked up O’Hara’s ballot. Otherwise, it’s all good :)
Congrats to Ari for qualling. Congrats to Paul for creating a really solid LD program there - every GBN debater I hit was great. Congrats to Mark Batik for doing well his first year at a new school. The whole rivalry between Cruz/Schiano not withstanding, they’re both fine judges.
I was actually very polite to Ms. Amanda Rankin. I asked if she’d mind having her picture taken. She said she would. So I didn’t take one of her. Then she made her statement - I have no hostility towards people with different views of LD then me - everyone is free to view the activity as they want - so I’m sorry if I sounded as if I were any different, and I apologize to Ms. Rankin were she to be offended.
It was a fun tournament - but why was I the only one to buy CDs from JW? I mean, who wouldn’t want the Greatest Hits of Merle Haggard? :)
Posted from: 12.158.56.111
December 5th, 2004 20:02
Jessica Hunyh was the judge on top in Ari’s octas panel, not Joyne.
His quarters panel was Schurtz, Hunyh, and Switzer, it was a 3-0.
Congrats to all!
Posted from: 12.158.56.111
December 5th, 2004 20:02
Jessica Hunyh was the judge on top in Ari’s octas panel, not Joyne.
His quarters panel was Schurtz, Hunyh, and Switzer, it was a 3-0.
Congrats to all!
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
December 5th, 2004 20:20
I remembered what the name sounded like lol… I at least did my best - no intentional suckage on my part, it’s just Case was the only one I knew, and I wrote down the other’s names kind of sloppily lol.
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
December 5th, 2004 20:22
There is no “Cruz/Schiano rivalry.”
But I would like to second the congratulations to Ari on completing his qualifiation. I don’t know many people who are more into this activity or who work harder than he does. Congrats, Ari! And, to echo Michael, congratulations to Paul on really helping the LD program at GBN grow.
Posted from: 12.158.56.99
December 5th, 2004 20:40
tara youre too hott! congratulations!
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
December 5th, 2004 21:14
OK everyone needs to quick remember that I cheered on Tara, Ari and Jaskiw in the “give a shout out to your friends at this tournament” thread thing… and they ALL GOT BIDS. OMG. Seriously, my liking you goes a long way in this activity.
Jaskiw, congrats for breaking out the rights good/rights bad cases and still doing well.
Ari, congrats for being so furious and Jewish
Tara, congrats on not managing to lose in the bid round. I know that means a lot to you.
ps. I need to make the mandatory I’m-a-girl-in-debate-and-thus-must-make-jokes-about-Tara-sleeping-with-me joke. YOU SLEEP WITH ME AND ARE HOT!!!
Posted from: 128.227.3.56
December 5th, 2004 21:30
tara will always be my favorite high school cheerleader
Posted from: 204.210.36.190
December 5th, 2004 21:52
did jaskiw wear the sweatband?
Posted from: 67.174.90.115
December 5th, 2004 22:36
am i the only one that is *mildly* perplexed as to why paul schiano was judging tara tedrow’s outrounds…?
Posted from: 208.186.95.222
December 5th, 2004 22:44
Major congrats to Sarah Baley as well for getting her first bid of the year! Sarah’s one of the nicest and coolest people around, so big props to her.
Posted from: 162.83.174.228
December 5th, 2004 22:47
daryl. no–i agree.
Posted from: 162.83.174.228
December 5th, 2004 22:48
daryl. no–i agree.
Posted from: 209.30.26.225
December 5th, 2004 23:02
I mean I could agree.
Posted from: 12.158.56.99
December 5th, 2004 23:05
umm.. i agree with daryl too. just a BIT odd.
although…squirreling the semis wasnt sketchy at all.
Posted from: 128.252.250.12
December 6th, 2004 00:56
Schiano judging Tara haha that’s so golden. Someone needs to never speak another word about judging illegitimacy.
I’m loving it
Sam Duby
Posted from: 167.206.155.194
December 6th, 2004 10:56
why is that weird?
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
December 6th, 2004 11:42
whether or not Paul should have been judging Tara in the first place, he picked her up once and dropped her once, so I’m not sure how illegitimate you could claim the final product was.
Posted from: 205.188.116.203
December 6th, 2004 14:03
For all of you who claim to have slept with tara….i actually have. numerous times. nights when i got cold at VBI, tara was always there to warm me, with her sweet sweet lovin’.
Paul judging Tara…..interesting. But honestly, wouldnt we have to ban every guy in the activity from judging her if we enforced that kind of rule?
;)
Posted from: 136.242.122.224
December 6th, 2004 14:08
yeah — while I agree that for the sake of appearances it probably shouldn’t have happend, I think Paul has the integrity and self-control to be able to adjudicate the round fairly and commensurate with a man of his talent and skill.
Posted from: 128.227.3.56
December 6th, 2004 14:41
i personally think no matter who judged the round some one was going to make some unfounded comment about tara’s being picked up…and since it would’ve come regardless of reasoning i think its a waste to consider
you’ll note both ballots tara gets in finals come from judges who voted against her earlier…stop trying to make things out of nothing
Posted from: 205.188.116.203
December 6th, 2004 14:43
Guess this means no bids in Jaskiw’s stocking. What’s Santa gonna do now?
Posted from: 205.188.116.203
December 6th, 2004 15:04
Congrats to Tara on a certainly deserved win! It was a good tournament—sucks that we had to hit in the bid round, but it was certainly one of the closest rounds I’ve ever been in (and one of the most agonizing decisions I’ve ever waited for, haha!)….so congrats on picking up that one, too!
-Allison
Posted from: 128.252.250.12
December 6th, 2004 15:06
At no point did I or anyone else imply that Tara’s win was in any way illegitimate. People who have posted recently are reading something in the prior posts that just isn’t there.
But this isn’t a complicated idea, you don’t judge someone you’ve hooked up with/dated regardless of whether you think you can do it fairly or not. You just don’t do it. Seeing that Paul is someone who constantly comments on judge quality I’m surprised he decided to do this thats all. I’m more than open to hear reasons why it’s a good idea to judge someone you’ve hooked up with/dated.
Sam Duby
Posted from: 63.252.69.217
December 6th, 2004 16:15
I know it has been said before, but congratulations to the GBN program for cleaning up the mess that I left in my wake. :)
Seriously, while I make that statement half-jokingly, Ari (and a lot of that team, actually) works infinitely harder than I ever did. Not to take away anything from Batik or Schiano, but I think these guys, Ari in particular, deserve all the credit for getting where they are and putting Illinois LD back on the map for the first time in three years.
As for why I’m still reading VBD…I have no idea… :)
Oh yeah, and as long as I’m posting: congrats to Tara and don’t get me started on Ms. Rankin.
Posted from: 128.227.3.56
December 6th, 2004 16:58
you can question w/e point is its not necessary to bring up
let the girl (or anyone else) win one time where there isnt a questionable statement made or a question of if/why something should/shouldn’t have happened
and once again…that he squirrels one round and picks up in the next should be reason enough to drop the comments
Posted from: 24.205.214.223
December 6th, 2004 19:11
Uh…maybe Tara won the tournament ‘cuz she’s a good debater.
Just a thought.
Posted from: 128.227.3.56
December 6th, 2004 19:34
that was what i was saying…but as has been proved in these forums time and again tara…along with half the debate world…is not allowed to legitimately win…it always has to have an asterisk placed next to it by someone
Posted from: 199.74.93.130
December 6th, 2004 19:38
I didn’t really want to judge Tara, she didn’t want really me to judge her. Linda Oddo waited 30 minutes into the round, while JW and I talked about it, until there were 0 more judges and they begged me to judge. I still give the same RFD’s I always did, and will stand by any decision I make. I think when i squirrled with one of my best friends on the panel, and someone who said everything in my RFD was right and told the two kids what the difference between our decisions were, shows the indiffence I have in judging kids. There are lots of people who don’t like lots of other people in debate, or who have histories with them. As Jon Cruz may say, I’m already an illegit judge who votes for who I like, so what’s any differnt this time?
But seriously, I don’t wana sound arrogant or anything (ok maybe I do) but both rfd’s made perfect sense, all 3 kids understood (even tara knew the reasons she lost my ballot) and the other judges understood. End of story.
Posted from: 199.74.93.130
December 6th, 2004 19:54
and yah duby — you’re right, i scream about judge legitimacy all the time. i think i know how bad it feels for that to happen and i don’t wana be that guy. maybe i’ve become a little more expierenced with realizing they’re kids. i guess if you coached at a school you’d know that too, sam.
Posted from: 66.126.175.148
December 6th, 2004 20:01
I tend to think that given the circumstances Paul outlines in his post and the fact that he DROPPED Tara in semis, those questioning the legitimacy of his judging look pretty silly. Also, I think insinuating that Tara didn’t deserve to win or whatever is really messed up and not appropriate at all.
Beyond that though - am I the only one who finds it kind of weird that people are posting about what is really a PRIVATE matter between two people on a PUBLIC forum? I don’t think Tara or Paul would appreciate people talking about their personal lives like this in front of the entire debate community - I know I wouldn’t. People should probably exercise a little more discretion in the things they make public.
Posted from: 67.174.90.115
December 6th, 2004 21:17
a) i wasnt making an argument about tara “legitimately” or “illegitimately” winning. i know tara works hard, and regardless of who judges her she has shown this year that she clearly has the capacity to do very well.
b) my point was more about the principle of what was going on. barry bonds hits a zillion home runs and puts up amazing offensive numbers…that makes people go to games and buy giants hats(i even own one), but he also uses steroids so the principle behind all the goodness that he hass caused is bad/wrong. so regardless of whether or not paul dropped her both times or picked her up both times wasnt why i posted originally it was that the principle behind it is bad, meaning that he never should have been put in the situation to be adjudicating her rounds.
c) this isnt like a me-picking-a-fight-with-paul/tara sort of thing either, i was just genuinely perplexed as to why/how that happened. i think that as much “blame” for it happening goes to the tournament director.
d) on the privacy issue, i agree dan it probably is private, but i dont think its ok to just “let it slide” b/c it’s probably something that should be discussed so that it’s avoided in the future. also, this isn’t just specific to tara/paul. as a general rule, these sort of things shouldnt happen in any activity b/c it hurts the integrity of the activity. i mean, my girlfriend plays lacrosse and if i was to officiate one of her games then it probably would compromise the integrity of the game.
so thats the whole point, not that i think its “illegit” or whatever i just think that when this stuff happens it genuinely compromises the integrity of the activity, which is why it NEEDS to be discussed.
Posted from: 199.74.93.130
December 6th, 2004 21:31
Why does it NEED to be discussed? The rounds are over, I told you why it happened, either she strikes me or I don’t judge her otherwise? What are you solving, Daryl? You might not officate you current girlfriend’s game, but please, Dr., explain to me the psychological impacts that my failed relationship 7 months ago has to do with my judging now? I’m a coach too, right, so I guess I have a lot of incentives to make particular decisions in every round, so do all judges. Should we lock them in a room, allow them to come out to judge, and only speak during the RFD? Or should we go Ted Turner style and only allow lay people to judge?
I’m so interested to hear what a strong contriubution you think you’re making by this intriguing discussion
Posted from: 128.12.53.89
December 6th, 2004 21:31
In my opinion, a person should never judge someone they have dated. Now, others may disagree given all sorts of extra variables (i.e. no other judges are available and we know the person will be objective, etc.), but I don’t think it’s patently wrong to question Paul judging Tara. Now, Paul has come online and explained the situation, and there is a division of whether that situation justifies him judging that round. In my opinion, the situation shouldn’t dictate whether it’s alright to judge someone you have dated. If, however, some people feel that in certain situations it’s okay, there is no reason to jump on Duby when he didn’t even know half of the variables that people are now using to justify this occurrence. Personally, if I was debating in a round, I’d rather have a single judge than 3 judges with one of them having dated my opponent. Even if I’d lose the opportunity for a 3 panel, even if that person had dropped their ex the round before, and even if I knew they were a good judge, I would not be happy having that judge on the panel. What I’m curious of is, if there was some question to the legitimacy of the situation, were the opponents made aware? If I was Michael Jaskiw, I would’ve at least liked to have been told of the situation, and asked if I would like for Paul to be struck. If both competitors agree on something, it makes it seem a lot less shady. As far as the idea that this is a personal issue in a public forum, I think that the people who brought it to the public forum were not the posters on this thread, but those who allowed for this to happen in the final round of a TOC tournament. You can’t expect to be judged by your coach, mother, or ex in the final round of a TOC tournament and not have people at least raise their eyebrows.
Posted from: 199.74.93.130
December 6th, 2004 21:40
I judged his teammate in semis and picked her up. I talk to his coach, who was nodding his head during my finals RFD. Look at the judging pool.
Why does Daryl get to judge Tisha or Archer at GBN? I mean, he works for Victor and Sam is his best friend. If you want the ex-girlfriend to be a condition, then you better just start filling out questionares before tounaments about who’s slept with who, the number of phone conversations you’ve had with potential judges, who you’re employed by, and how many people at the tournament are on your buddy list
Posted from: 128.12.53.89
December 6th, 2004 21:52
I don’t judging a debater you dated and judging a debater who goes to a school that is coached by a guy who employs you, along with 30-40 other people, over the summer at his camps are quite the same. I also don’t think being best friends with someone who went to the same school as the person you are judging is the same as judging someone you dated. I’m not saying you can have no connection with any person you’ve ever judged, I’m just saying there are certain lines that should exist. I do, also, think there is a pretty clear difference between talking to someone on the phone and sleeping with someone. Call me crazy.
Posted from: 24.7.195.35
December 6th, 2004 21:55
Talking with Jaskiw before and during the tournament I know he had no problem with Paul or Ryan judging him. Infact, he welcomed it because he thought they were two of the better judges in attendence. After round one, he commented on how happy he was to have Ryan judge him to have the ability to spread at a tournament not known for a progressive pool. Although it’s possible, I doubt his desire to have Paul or Ryan judge him changed based on the opponent.
Posted from: 67.174.90.115
December 6th, 2004 22:04
paul, im not going to argue with you. like i said, i could CARELESS who you voted for in either of those rounds. it’s the fact that you were judging the rounds to begin with. dont play dumb, if you genuinely think that you judging her or anyone judging someone that they’ve dated is “ok” or a “good thing” then, uhh, cool.
it should be talked about b/c youre right maybe i shouldnt have been able to judge tisha/belinda so then my question to the community is at what point do we draw the line? i think that if we went to the extreme that paul thinks we should to be absolutely clean then all judges would be dirty. but, you can call me crazy like mckay, because i think that at least drawing the line at not being able to judge an ex is probably a good start.
Posted from: 128.227.3.56
December 6th, 2004 22:05
id just like to…again….point out that my reason was simply to say that this entire discourse is unwarranted because the person it (at least originally) seems to have negative implications on is tara…who is about as unable to control any of this as the million people who have joined in on arguing it. If you have a problem with someone’s being allowed to judge a round…and this has been stated many times…then your problem is one that ought to be reserved for a tournament director or a specific judge NOT an open forum of comments on a CONGRATULATIONS to the particiipants in the round.
this was my original point…be it one thing or another any time tara has achieved something so inane question/challenge has arisen that sparks a hundred responses and arguments (anyone recall new in the 2 from cfls?). whatever your reasons DEAL WITH IT and move on…i highly doubt that any of the competitors involved care anymore about schiano’s judging so give it up
Posted from: 67.174.90.115
December 6th, 2004 22:12
me: are you dumb? no one is taking away from anything tara did. have you just not read anything that either duby/mckay/me has written, and wtf are you talking about w/ ppl taking away from tara’s past accomplishments from what i recall whenever tara has done well the posts have all said “whoaaaa tara yourrrrreeee hotttt” and certainly havent been derogatory. i mean i havent called her hot, but by no means am i trying to take away from what she accomplished.
Posted from: 128.227.3.56
December 6th, 2004 22:22
must have been over your head daryl
Posted from: 128.227.3.56
December 6th, 2004 22:26
my last post on the matter:
the reason i refer to it as having implications on her is that, in this instant it starts as a comment that seems to challenge validity of a decision in the round…say thats not the case, i feel it was the case
unecessary
and sure it always starts with tara’s hot comments…but somehow someone always manages to turn it into this
(and i did include that this isnt only limited to tara….somehow drama seems to arise out of many people’s accomplishments being posted on these debate sites)
Posted from: 69.151.156.36
December 6th, 2004 23:59
daryl- question to you… i’m intrigued by these stipulations you’re placing on judging… i do think it’s inappropriate for certain ppl to be judged by others but how do you discern which relationships were more meaningful (ie will lead to more arbitrary decisions) than others. like last yr you were well aware that at gbn i was judged by jen fluke and was debating a kid from harker… this caused problems since jess huynh (jen’s best friend) is an asst coach at harker and jokingly before the rd had said “you better pick up my kid”. this rd was also crucial to my clearing… so that made me feel rather uncomfortable, along with the fact that at the time jen wasn’t your biggest fan ;). agreed I thought the rd was adjudicated fairly and jen gave a phenomenal rfd… but in my mind i’d be more worried about such an occurance (going up against a kid who’s asst coach is best friends with my judge) than tara and paul’s situation. why? bc they have more history… what about good friends… i’d be pretty scared if i was debating ernie rose and had eric palmer in the back. not bc i doubt eric’s legitimacy as a judge… but just bc they are extremely close friends… so where do you draw the line? the entire debate community is interwoven through several relationships, and it just seems impractical to assign judges to rds when half the pool is dirty against particular debaters…
also how would you monitor the assurance of objective judging? Would you hand out personal surveys that made ppl list: which judges they’re friends with, which judges they’ve fallen for, which judges they dream about at night, and which judges they wake up next to in the morning… like at gvine i knew it would be inappropriate to be judged by a certain person, but no one besides the judge and i knew of the situation. so i myself had to speak up and request a different judge after briefly explaining the circumstance… how can you insure that ppl will fess up to their judge being “dirty” if it could possibly be beneficial for them?
having objective judging sounds magical and lovely and all… but it doesn’t seem like it could be ever practically implemented unless we start monitoring aim conversations, listening in on ppl’s phone calls and peaking into ppl’s bedrooms…
i’m not trying to mock anyone or even downplay the need for having objective judging… it just seems that if you don’t have faith in judges moral convictions that urge them to make unbias decisions when in the back of a room, then i should be worried everytime i walk in that my judge isn’t racist/sexist/agist/ etc…
it’s late and i’m sorry if this rant didn’t make much sense …
Ps- congrats tara :)
Posted from: 128.252.250.12
December 7th, 2004 03:40
There are a few distinct claims being made on here
1. Tara won. Let’s all shut up about everything else
2. Other sketchy judging pairings happen so let’s not complain
3. It is impossible to not have a sketchy judging pairing.
There has yet to be a straight up defense t of “It’s ok to judge someone you’ve debated”
Trust me there are tons of unsketchy pairings for example Clancy/Seiler/Bietz may be very friendly with little Wolfish but none of them are jumping into bed with him.
Additionally, there are tons of bright lines for judging that exist and arguably more should
You don’t judge
-Family
- People who your old school
- People you coach
- People you’ve dated
There probably should be more brightlines. But come on guys these arguments you are making are just silly and don’t deny the original premise which is you shouldn’t judge someone you’ve dated.
Posted from: 128.252.250.12
December 7th, 2004 03:42
Dated not debated and trust me the two are no where near the same
Posted from: 128.12.36.68
December 7th, 2004 03:42
I’m sorry, but much of the responses that are being posted just aren’t dealing with the issue. No one is saying that Tara didn’t deserve to win the round, and I think that if a. it was cool with Jaskiw, b. it was cool with the tournament, c. it was cool with Paul and Tara, that there isn’t too much reason to complain. All we’re saying is that, as a general rule, it is shady for judges with strong personal connections to judge students. I am not proposing a bright line, but I think it’s something that requires self imposed ethical judgments. I am perfectly willing to defend the idea that as a general principle, if you’ve had sexual relations with someone, then there is a good chance that you’ve formed a stronger bond with them than even a coach forms with their direct students. We would never allow coaches to judge their own kids, so why would we allow someone who has arguably had an even stronger bond with someone judge them? I don’t think such a bond exists in most transitive scenarios (friends of friends, etc.). Perhaps in this specific situation all sorts of conditions existed to the point it was justified. The initial questioning of the legitimacy of this occurrence happened BEFORE all of those things came to light.
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
December 7th, 2004 08:12
Let’s not forget Paul also voted against Tara earlier. Let’s also not forget the fact that even though he was the “deciding factor” so to speak in finals, it’s not surprising that two “first year out progressive judges” saw the round differently then a t “traditionalist Kentucky judge”. That’s all I’m going to say in the matter. Yes, I watched finals. Yes, it was close. Yes, I listened to Paul and Nate’s RFD, as did I to the squirrel’s (I’m sorry, I don’t know her personally, so I feel bad calling her by her first name). I think the round was fairly adjudicated. I thought the decision was fair, and no, I have never dated Tara (lol).
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
December 7th, 2004 09:43
BTW - also understand literally there was no around at finals who could judge. There was Tara’s judge, Jaskiw’s coach, and that was about it. Zerib-Berda got a ballot because we stayed till finals to get a pic and provide VB coverage - they gave him a ballot not because he had a commitment but because he was literally one of the only ones left available. So it’s not like it was some sort of “set up”.
Posted from: 207.180.207.248
December 7th, 2004 10:31
Hi–I usually don’t post on these sorts of forums, but since the issue regards a round which I debated, I’ll put in a few words. I’d just like to say that I was totally fine with Paul judging me; I’m confident that he was one of the best judges at the tournament. IF I HAD TO DEBATE THE ROUND AGAIN, I WOULD HAVE KEPT HIM ON THE PANEL. Claims that he wasn’t objective really aren’t grounded–I thought his decision made sense and was clear. Before the round, I didnt know anything about Paul and Tara outside of debate–
it’s not as though I started the round feeling intimidated or nervous. Personally, I think its a discussion in which hearsay is replacing the actual facts. Moreover, I think this discussion has cast some doubt on whether Tara deservedly won the round. Speaking as her opponent, there should not be any doubt about that.
Posted from: 68.76.186.41
December 7th, 2004 11:29
i agree with mckay’s posts 110%
Posted from: 12.216.144.4
December 7th, 2004 13:54
1. I think Paul was probably objective in the round because I know he cares about keeping the activity fair.
2. That said, it probably would have been better had someone said something to Jaskiw as Mckay said.
3. JASKIW IS THE MAN.
4. “… i’d be pretty scared if i was debating ernie rose and had eric palmer in the back. not bc i doubt eric’s legitimacy as a judge… but just bc they are extremely close friends… ”
I’d be more scared about the fact he’s coaching me. That seems like a bit more of a bias than the friendship :)
Posted from: 69.151.156.36
December 7th, 2004 18:32
i realized eric was coaching you a bit after i posted… :)
no one addressed my previous inquiry :(
Posted from: 152.163.100.203
December 7th, 2004 18:35
i dont mind the discussion thats going but i do find it odd daryl that you told me not to strike you at the glenbrooks (mind you i did block paul there). double standards are amusing.
Posted from: 67.174.90.115
December 7th, 2004 19:20
tara, our conversation was if your team doesnt want to waste a strike on me dont do it…but i think pretty specifically we talked about how if i came up to judge you, id tell oravetz to switch the ballots. but, uh, if you struck paul at gbn why didnt you just strike him at ohio valley?
so- my original question was whether or not i was the only one perplexed by the situation, i wasnt…so my question’s been answered and ive had fun reading the thread. peaaaaaaaaaaace.
Posted from: 66.218.240.111
December 7th, 2004 21:59
There were no strikes at Ohio Valley, afaik.
Posted from: 69.137.177.196
December 12th, 2004 14:15
as if you dont hear it enough you are gorgeous tara.