Public Dialog in the LD Community: W(h)ither VBDominance?
The appeal of debate as an activity is that it provides a forum for a critical examination of competing viewpoints. However, while contest rounds create a framework designed to foster impassioned clash between ideas, this juxtaposition of conflicting perspectives is notably absent in our community’s non-competitive forums. Instead, much of the discourse on this website – certainly the most frequent locus of LD news, and perhaps the most popular website about any form of competitive debate – tends to avoid rather than encourage discussion. Since I’m sure this claim will prove controversial, I’ll first attempt to both justify and explain it. I will then contend that the dearth of argument in our community is a major threat to the continued progress of the activity. I hope to offer throughout the course of the article possible ways to alter this trend and recapture the value of contention.
While VBD is not completely devoid of any discussion, the discussion which takes place tends to be so narrow in scope that it proves inconsequential. Most of the primary content on this site consists, understandably, of results from tournaments. These provide difficult avenues for dialog, as any argument made in a comment on those articles is immediately decried as drawing attention away from the debaters who were successful. In particular, criticisms of the tournament itself are labeled as sour grapes and often dismissed out of hand. Moreover, tournament results provide a very limited scope of topics for debate – after all, who took home the trophy is a question of fact, not opinion. Posts that express tangentially related arguments are chided for irrelevance. While I don’t think that VBD should decrease its coverage of tournaments, those articles are certainly not ripe zones for deliberation.
Ironically, the content ostensibly most designed to encourage argument – the occasional “Topic for Debate” articles – are often among the least-discussed. Consider the 5 most recent of these posts:
“I’m In” (2008 Presidential race): 5 comments
Beckham to LA Galaxy: 24 comments
Troop Increases to Iraq: 9 comments
In the Name of Justice? (Saddam Hussein execution): 72 comments
Discriminating Dollars (Visual disability and currency): 32 comments
The grand total? 142 comments on 5 articles, with over half of them coming on a single thread. By contrast, the total for the last 5 LD tournament results threads is 385 posts – over two and a half times as many comments. Additionally, even if they were to cultivate discussion, these “Topics for Debate” are not about debate as we know it. Instead, they focus on political issues that might be interesting, but don’t serve as meaningful springboards for an analysis of our own community.
Of course, VBD is not all business (pun somewhat intended). “On every non-tournament Sunday and Tuesday,” we get a dose of zany photos with the wacky feature Crystallize! It should be obvious how this too is ineffective for the sort of discourse I intend to advocate. The same is true for other minor content categories like tournament announcements, “Field Reports,” and calls for the submission of paradigms and photos. Again, I don’t consider these types of content actively bad; they’re merely examples of poor sources to draw on for community conversation.
The most dialogic of VBD articles are the interviews; however, even these fall short when it comes to engaging discussion. Despite involving controversial figures like Jason Baldwin or Stephen Hess and Prashant Rai, the interviews themselves tend to be formulaic rather than probing and the comments that follow tend to focus only on the most trite of issues. “Traditional vs. Progressive” battles are certainly important, but these discussions are plagued by a few big problems.
First, they tend to occur in really broad generalizations – not only in terms of the sweeping claims made, but also in terms of the scope of the arguments. Too often, threads on these issues devolve into a parallel series of multi-faceted debates that are related but distinct. The unfortunate outcome is that we get bogged down by vague assertions while failing to address the particularities of any particular aspect of the discussion.
Second, as is true for much of VBD discussion, the members of our community with the most to contribute often remain silent: the judges and coaches on the front lines of the style wars. At the end of the day, they control who wins and loses as well as which styles are taught to the next generation of debaters. Unfortunately, it is instead current debaters who banter about stylistic issues – many times with little actual experience with the trends they advocate or indict. I have no intention of advocating the ageism that’s so prevalent in debate, and many current students have an important role to play in discussion. At the same time, when they are the only ones engaged in that discussion it often amounts to nothing. Also, many posters choose to remain anonymous on the most contentious issues, undermining the perceived credibility of otherwise persuasive claims.
Third, these debates don’t encompass some of the most significant issues that we face as a community. While the way debate evolves is important (and the sole subject of another article I hope to write in the near future), more striking are issues like the under-representation of women and ethnic minorities in debate, the cost barriers to participation, online celebrity culture and our shift toward what could be termed a one-dimensional community, or a litany of other questions that extend beyond the format of contest rounds.
Finally, discussion on VBD is often cut short. Articles quickly fall to the bottom and new threads emerge. Tracking responses to posts becomes cumbersome and, at least for my part, I often quit trying to keep up. Many threads that could have cultivated deeper analysis end up cut short.
The forces that drive the lack of open discourse are somewhat complex. Many fear political backlash. In a world where wins and losses are decided by extremely subjective criteria, it’s reasonable to worry about the implications your opinions might have for your own success as a debater or your students’ success as a coach. In a broader sense, the LD community has developed a culture of what I call “coerced friendliness;” it has become taboo to publicly express disagreement with someone else’s actions. This may be attributable in part to the shift away from open forums like the apparently-defunct LD-L and Westman. Now that VBD is the online center for all things debate-related, there are rarely opportunities to voice an opinion if its not directly related to the news of the day – as I mentioned above, a confrontational post is often viewed as bitter or tangential.
When I was just entering high school debate, I remember a number of high-profile coaches and judges arguing that we had lost our sense of civility in public discussion. The debates at those times were certainly very intense – I still remember certain fights after tournaments like Stanford and St Marks that involved some of the biggest names in debate at that time, and the arguments quickly turned personal. It seems now we may have swung back the other way, focusing on avoiding hurting each others feelings and insisting that what is more important is that we all just get along. The “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” approach may be seen as a natural fluctuation in our community standards. With that in mind, I found it interesting that some of those same people who argued for civility years ago recently contacted me after my series of posts on VBD that precipitated this article. I was at first surprised to find them in support of the central thesis of my argument. When I began to reflect on the issue more, I arrived at this conclusion: Debate is no more civil now than it was 5 years ago when I began competing. We are no longer confrontational in public, but we are all the nastier behind closed doors.
I find this particularly dangerous. The most serious of allegations are never confronted. In previous comments on VBD I’ve cited claims that certain members of the community are sexist as perhaps the worse instantiation of this problem. If they were true, those sorts of allegations would affect our community as a whole – sexist behaviors are reflections of attitudes and mindsets that are ought not be tolerated. On the other hand, those accused should also have a chance for rejoinder. In a world of purely private discussion, this is impossible. Rumors spread quickly through the debate community, and a public confrontation can alter behaviors through scrutiny while also providing a forum to clear a persons name.
Claims of drug or alcohol abuse and inappropriate relationships with students are also very serious problems, but these sorts of allegations are frequently inappropriate for a public “call out.” Such issues should be dealt with directly between the supposed offender and the person offended rather than through the rumor mill or a public assertion of wrongdoing. They are fundamentally private matters, not offenses against the community writ large. However, I believe that if these claims have already been made through private channels, those accused certainly ought to have the option to make the matter public. Again, its often very difficult to combat a false rumor through private channels, and open rejoinder may be the only way to restore a reputation. Moreover, the very process of spreading those rumors is insidious and something we ought to reject as a community.
Accusations against a particular individual are intrinsically personalized – they are not the sort of detached argument that we enjoy in the sterile laboratory of academic debate. This does not mean we ought to shy away from them. I may not be in a position to look at this matter objectively, but I don’t think any coach or judge in debate has an ego so fragile that a public confrontation would drive her out of the activity. Additionally, public controversy is still better than either alternative: letting the troublesome actions continue unabated or challenging them only in private.
Students, of course, need to be dealt with more carefully. Thankfully, they are rarely the subjects of the sorts of serious allegations I’m referring to here, and it’s important to avoid demonizing them for actions they may take in a debate round. Like those privately accused of personal wrongdoing, though, students should always have the option of rebutting accusations in a public setting.
Not every issue is so intensely personal. There are still innumerable debates to be had over broader problems in our community, including the issues of exclusion I alluded to above. These too require a more impassioned and detailed discussion. Real solutions are unlikely to emerge in the time frame that a news story will remain on the front page of VBD. They must be developed and challenged over time, through a constant dialectic rather than a three day debate.
Even for the style war that have gripped debate, truncated discourse will inevitably fail. Evolution happens one mutation at a time, and just like in an in-round theory debate it is important that we’re able to offer detailed justifications for or against each particular controversial strategy or stylistic move. Proposals and alternatives must again be examined over time, and the discussion must be able to begin freely when new issues arise.
It may be the case that a setting like VBD is hopelessly inadequate for discussions like these for the reasons mentioned above. I readily admit that I don’t have any particular alternative venue in mind. I believe an email list-serve in the style of the LD-L would be an excellent option. For whatever reason, e-mail groups seem to have a more professional atmosphere than posts to message boards, as well as more focused conversations. A revival of the Westman forums or some replacement could also be a good choice. While I truly appreciate the kindness of VBD in allowing me to write this article, I hope that such a new forum would not be one administered by VictoryBriefs. Expanding the number of people who have ultimate control over dialog is always a good idea, even for those who don’t believe in the “VBD Conspiracy Theory.”
Fears of political backlash would certainly still exist in any new forum. However, oftentimes these fears are unfounded (and they certainly ought to be). I believe we should all have the respect for each other to put our personal feelings aside when it comes to adjudicating debates. I also believe that a more open and, frankly, confrontational community would be willing to expose episodes of political manipulation. Despite the claims of innumerable motivational speakers, peer pressure can be a valuable tool if used for the right purposes.
Most importantly, we ought to all recognize that we can still work together at the end of the day. I have had many bitter fights with many members of this community, and some of the bitterest were with the people I respect the most and consider among my closest friends. If there is anything I have learned from competing in debate, it is that arguments can – and in fact should be – fierce, but once they are over we should not dwell on them. My hope is that we can apply this same principle to our discussions about debate. In so doing, we can recapture the value of public deliberation that forms the very basis of this activity.
Popularity: 8% [?]
test
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 5th, 2007 16:47
Thanks for the article, michael.
-bietz
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
February 5th, 2007 16:56
id have to agree with a lot of the content
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 5th, 2007 17:01
thanks to vbd for publishing this.
Posted from: 66.108.90.188
February 5th, 2007 17:09
I don’t particularly like Michael’s preferred spelling of “dialogue” in this piece. :o)
But that having been said, I think there are a number of valid and interesting points in this piece. First, though, I have two questions.
To Michael:
“Finally, discussion on VBD is often cut short. Articles quickly fall to the bottom and new threads emerge. Tracking responses to posts becomes cumbersome and, at least for my part, I often quit trying to keep up. Many threads that could have cultivated deeper analysis end up cut short.”
While I think you have a valid point about broadening forums elsewhere, I’m curious what you think about the new forum system Bietz has been developing to allow discussions to continue after the article has dropped down.
Hopefully everyone will take a look at the Women’s Round Robin article and see that the discussion is now continuing in said forum. Granted, it hasn’t *yet* continued there, but I’m interested in seeing what people think about this new option.
http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2007/01/30/nominations-solicited-for-lone-star-womens-round-robin/
To those who have been around for longer than both the author and myself:
I’d be interested to know if you think that there is indeed a “natural fluctuation” in community standards about public and confrontational “call-outs,” etc., or if the recent atmosphere Michael describes is a very new development.
I’ll have more to say in a bit, I’m sure. But for now, those are my questions.
Also, a general comment:
I do not agree with everything Michael has to say about debate or the debate community, but I very much appreciate his willingness to take the time to write a lengthy guest piece for this web site.
I have received a number of requests over the past few months for similar guest piece opportunities, but the pieces were never sent to me. We welcome and encourage guest writers. Please let me know, or let Bietz know, if you’d like to write something. I am also always on the lookout for guest photographers, tournament correspondents, and the like.
And yes, I owe Michelin Massey an interview d/o.
Posted from: 128.135.224.25
February 5th, 2007 18:55
I personally disagree with Mangus’ thesis. In every other public community, problems with other people’s attitudes and actions are not publicly called out. In the NFL, “going to the media” is a poor, nasty way of handling things. In almost every public area, (workplace, adult sports league, dealing with your kids schoolteachers, whatever) calling out on a forum isn’t the solution. The reason is simple; it’s not fair to make accusations on a public forum…it’s excessively slandering. Mike’s article is written from the perspective that the criticisms made are generally accurate and well intentioned. That’s not my experience with the debate community. If you have a complaint about someone, it seems like talking to them is the adult solution. If that’s not viable, email their principal/school admin. It seems like that’s the legitimate way to implement change (and the inconvience of having to explain your complaint to an administrator is a good check against petty accusations). Look, I don’t know who’s right in most of these arguments online. I do know too many “constructive” criticisms are really just immature potshots. It’s rare I’ve seen an online argument about a person end constructively. Mike might blame that on the structure of VBD and the debate community in general. I don’t buy that- I blame the lack of constructive dialogue on the fact that it’s high school debate. People have their “people” and everyone has grudges, and we all believe we’re as smart as they come. You don’t become a good debater without being confident, and that, combined with the fact that we are (or were) all in high school, it’s not hard to see why people get pissed. I don’t think an online discussion of personal issues ever will end well, and that’s pretty much true for any situation, debate related or not. Mike’s concern regarding “private” solutions is legitimate, but I doubt the comparative efficacy of the public solution is at all significant.
-Jay Bhatnagar
Posted from: 24.12.175.184
February 5th, 2007 19:12
1. y do ppl sign their names at the end of posts if it’s already in the header?
2. i think that the point is that you should deal with issues in the private sphere if you have a problem with somebody, but the problem occurs when ppl talk behind other people’s backs. Sure the discussion might be a bit shallow at times, but at least ppl can come to a resolution by the end of it rather than other ppl talking about some event or outburst that never happened.
Now, maybe a forum like this might not be the greatest place to post these concerns, but where else can you have this sort of a discussion? Some things should probably stay in the private sphere, but there are other rumors that should be brought out and put to a rest for the sake of everyone involved.
Posted from: 130.58.224.172
February 5th, 2007 19:36
Debaters manage to avoid ad-homs when they debate about eminent domain. The fact that flame-wars exist only proves that moderators are necessary in public discussions. In addition, posting IPs and requiring a log-in impedes one;s ability to post very offensive material. Regardless, debaters can be belligerent. But that shouldn’t discount the value of the discussion that takes place on a public forum.
For example, after the TOC final round, the judges, Mr. Patterson, our coaches, and a few other people who were interested in the decision listened to the RFDs and had a discussion related to trends apparent in outrounds and things in debate generally that the round reminded us of. Misconceptions were clarified, positions were rearticulated, and most people who wanted to contribute were able to speak at least once. However, location and a lack of prior announcement prevented others from participating. I think that often claiming that the “private issues can be settlesd in private” ignores that private issues can bring up interesting questions and that the distinction between public and private is often muddled at best.
Posted from: 68.38.86.244
February 5th, 2007 21:01
Being a sophmore it is difficult to really create an opinion about a lot of issues comparing different periods but with that said i think one interesting issue was ageism and traditional and progressive judging. This past weekend i watched Hertz and Aks debate a really good round including a lot of interesting theory debate yet the judges were completely turned off to the theory and non traditional round.
Furthermore, i tend to agree with many previous peoplewho question how much of the problems indicated in the article are really specific to debate or are part of a bigger societal norm. The widespread rumors he talks about might not be good but thats a bigger social issue outside from the debate sphere
interesting article though
Posted from: 24.183.50.20
February 5th, 2007 23:45
As someone who used to comment a great deal, but now rarely checks the site, I can at least offer one justification for why the trend that Michael identifies exists.
First, I’m often confused as to what end arguments on this website occur. Frankly, in prior discussions appear not to be an honest discussion about whether or not stylistic and argumentative practices are acceptable. Rather these discussion are an attempt to make them seem valid after they have already occurred. A believe a correct term for the idea is a confirmation bias. Something already happened, now lets justify it.
Second, in the past where folks like me have shared their views they are not met with an honest discussion. Instead, I have received taunts and jeers. Why should I feel compelled to share my viewpoint if I know its not going to receive an honest response? One of my rhetoric professors in college used to say that argument starts at the point where you consider the the opposing argument is worth merit. Considering that all view points and people have merit is severely lacking on the “national circuit.”
Third, engaging in a discussion only makes me more likely to be less involved in tournaments. This is due to judges preferencing and strikes. If I engage and share my view point, it makes it more likely that people are going to strike me. Striking me and preferencing me out makes me think that the amount of time that I give to this activity is meaningless simply because I’m from an unknown region of the country.
Before some one attempts to “turn” this third point on the basis that my discussion makes more salient and more likely to be preferenced highly – let me first say that’s empirically denied. Over the last few years, and I can’t think of one tournament where I judged more than a single round.
I can fully understand a decision to only include judges that are known to the competitors – it makes the round more predictable and a better debate is usually developed. However, a true, honest, and open discussion is not going to occur unless all people are welcome to the table and their ideas considered. As a coach of two state-champions and qualifier to the National tournament champions – I shouldn’t feel that my views are excluded or unimportant. Until I can see that my voice makes an impact or an impression on others, folks like me will continue to withdraw from important discussions.
I don’t want to be characterized either as significantly attacking VBD, though. Jon and Mike do an awesome job of attempting to cover everything in the country and inviting people to the table. No one has more respect for the work Bietz and Cruz do, than me… because I’ve been quite inspired about their efforts to create a community that I’ve tried to do it for my own state. (Shameless plug: check out http://wiforensics.com)
On that same note, I can also appreciate the difficulty of getting someone to write on a regular basis. A sincere thank you to Michael – it is not easy to actually write and submit a piece to website like VBD.
Posted from: 24.183.50.20
February 5th, 2007 23:48
I should clarify, I mean National circuit tournaments. I obviously judge much-much more than that in Wisconsin.
Posted from: 128.36.68.27
February 6th, 2007 00:06
how ironic is it that this article has like no comments
for someone who openly advocates that debate rounds should be nothing but purely open critical discourse, why is michael trying to define what are good and bad discussions?
Posted from: 209.80.137.250
February 6th, 2007 08:05
Briefly between classes….
As the founder and still administrator of the LD-L, I can say that is still exists, though it has been many a month since anyone has posted on it. “At last, responsiblity without work.”
The LD-L dates to 1995, probably peaking in activity in the late 1990s. Over the years, I saw a great many trends similar to this website. Michael notes that many times listservs foster a more professional atmosphere than message boards, and perhaps that is true, it takes at least some effort to subscribe etc, than on a website, so that must discourage people who are casual in their approach.
Sadly, as some others can relate, the LD-L had enough problems with personal attacks that we had to go to a system of confirming people’s identities. (this meant that I had to know who you were). With free email accounts, that meant- and still means, seeing as I have not changed the system- having a list member or some person whose ID had been confirmed testify that a prospective member was really who they claimed to be. Or, in a worse case scenario, mailing me copies of your ID, though only 2-3 people actually had to go that far.
Someone did subscribe just the other day, and there are 6-8 people who subscribe a year. So if people want to use it, at least my $5/ month would be good for something other than a testement that I am too lazy to shut the puppy down. There are over five hundred email addresses subscribed last time I checked. The Nostrum, abetted by Jim Menick, had the ‘email’ episode up last week, so that many account for the subscription.
PJ Wexler
LD-L Adminis
Posted from: 69.74.79.110
February 6th, 2007 09:39
The medium determines the message. VBD is a blog, and is limited by its blogness to doing only what a blog can do.
I like communicating, especially with people with whom I disagree. And I like reading the communications of people with whom I both agree and disagree. Sometimes I like to blather. Other times I like to keep my mouth shut.
As PJ points out, the LD-L was far from pristine, and while it was absolutely essential, it was occasionally also downright annoying. One takes the good with the bad: it was a listserver.
Personally, I would love to see more open communication (absent any discussion on my part here about Mangus’s comments about the apparent raw underbelly of LD in America, a subject on which I have no opinions worth mentioning). VBD does have an inactive forum. Take a look:
http://www.victorybriefsdaily.com/forums/
I believe that VBD, by default, is where such forums should be, and where coaches and debaters and the generally interested could discuss whatever they want to discuss. Without changing the course of the blogishness of VBD, or asking the Army of Gray Men behind the scenes at VB—i.e. Bietz and IO’C—to do a lot more work, how do we make move these forums to a place of prominence?
Posted from: 69.74.79.110
February 6th, 2007 09:41
Of course, I meant O’C. IO’C is his input/output cousin from Des Moines.
Posted from: 76.170.37.59
February 6th, 2007 09:42
The first thing we should do is take a poll… which forums:
http://www.victorybriefsdaily.com/forum/
or
http://www.victorybriefdaily.com/vbforums/
I personally prefer the second.
Posted from: 76.170.37.59
February 6th, 2007 09:43
IO’C is the corrupt organization that drives O’C.
Posted from: 150.212.0.90
February 6th, 2007 11:03
Was there something about the part where i said that this shouldnt be a victorybriefs-owned venture that was unclear?
more elaboration on that question + substantive answers to other posters coming later when im not in class.
Posted from: 165.155.160.145
February 6th, 2007 11:39
No, that point was perfectly clear, and as I already said, “I think you have a valid point about broadening forums elsewhere.”
My questions about the forums Bietz said up was in response to your following point:
“Articles quickly fall to the bottom and new threads emerge. Tracking responses to posts becomes cumbersome and, at least for my part, I often quit trying to keep up. Many threads that could have cultivated deeper analysis end up cut short.”
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 6th, 2007 12:19
How does who runs the forum affect the content of the forum? I can’t imagine Mike West would describe himself as being or having been actively involved in the content of his forums. I don’t think there would be anything wrong with an alternative “host,” but I can’t think of any reason it’s necessary.
Posted from: 128.62.216.37
February 6th, 2007 13:05
I agree w/ Babb.
Moreover, the only reason why VBD dominates online discussion in this community is because Jon & Bietz are the only people willing to spend the time and energy necessary to create an online forum. Nobody is forcing you Mangus to read VBD or partake in any VBD discussions. If you feel so strongly about your criticisms then why don’t you do something about it rather than just complaining until VB lets you posts a critical article.
In other words, I look forward to the lanuch of Mangus’s new website.
Posted from: 69.74.79.110
February 6th, 2007 14:17
I actually didn’t read Mangus’s original essay that closely. Next time I’ll pay more attention, given that my disinterest is going to cost me points on my final grade.
For all practical purposes, VBD is the default LD site. Love it or hate it or give not a hoot about it, that’s where people are, and it makes some sense that there’s where the forums would be if we actually wanted anyone to participate in them.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 6th, 2007 15:33
this is probably gonna be really long. fair warning.
A/T JON + “vbd forums good”:
reasons the new vbd forums are bad:
1) starting a discussion one place and finishing it in another is counter-intuitive. you cant see any prior posts from the comment threads in the forums.
2) web-site inertia. people use vbd in a particular way. they are unlikely to go from one way of doing things to another if the old way is still viable. that is why these forums have virtually no posts on them
3) ease of use. the forums are easy to overlook if you dont know they’re there. they also create the appearance that there are only those threads that are linked to on the sidebar to the main page.
4) open-ness. it also appears at first glance that no one can actually freely create threads, which means this has huge issues of moderator influence in discussion. if thats not the case, then classify this under 3 bc im a fuckin compsci student and i didnt figure it out.
5) moderation. someone said westman proves ownership doesnt meant control (i think it was babb). that is because no one actively moderates westman. i am not sure if the same would hold true on vbd. if moderation exists it runs the risk of being political. vbd seems to also have a bad record w/ spam filters.
6) content isnt just posts. i am not sure what the victorybriefs policy on advertising is, but there are ways to control the content of a site without actively moderating posts. presentation is relevant.
7) unipolarity is bad for creativity. a site that had to compete with vbd would have an incentive to fill in the gaps in the vb model and create innovative content, etc.
8) extra burden on vbd. moving to a non-vbd forum would be good because theres no reason this site should have to take on the effort+cost of running an additional forum.
9) presence breeds credibility. vb has a sly business model. a lot of people entering debate associate VB and LD inextricably. a surprising number of younger debaters ive talked to think jon cruz was a successful national circuit debater. i dont mean that as a slight against jon, but rather as an illustration that your ability to control content and discussion lends to your perceived credibility on all aspects of debate. one corporation controlling all avenues for content also gives them near-endless credibility. i think that sort of influence is dangerous.
10) publicity. these forums havent gotten a lot of attention paid to them so far, so for right now theyre unlikely to attract much discussion. this could easily change soon.
all that aside, i have no intention of cutting off the nose to spite the face. i would still be extremely happen if the vbd forums sparked more frequent and open discussion. i just think its still potentially problematic.
for those who are still reading: ive now answered a grand total of one post. i told you this would get long.
A/T JAY:
i think i’ve mostly pre-empted pretty much all of jay’s post. he seems to assume i want lots of personal call-outs, which isnt the case. i think thats only appropriate when there is something that is happening that is an affront to the community as a whole rather than just an individual dispute. i talk about that specifically in the article.
additionally, im not really talking about students, so i dont know how telling a principal is going to help. who would you contact if you thought i was, say, making racist decisions? my college debate coach or something? thats not a viable option.
look, im not saying everything deserves a personal call-out. a few work-arounds for jays objection:
1) contact the person privately if they do something once, and then make it public if a trend emerges
2) make a public post that indicts the sorts of things you are concerned about but without mentioning any particular person by name
3) dont say things that arent true. this is can easily work in conjunction with part (1).
A/T DWEEKS:
not sure if we really disagree about much but i did want to add something. i think private discussions of things like debate theory probably arent bad in the same way that private discussions of things like ‘judge x is sexist’ or ‘camp y is unsafe’ might be. i was otherwise occupied (euphemism alert?) during that TOC final round discussion, but if i had known it was going on im sure i would have made an appearance. things like that should be publicized because they can be really valuable.
A/T KATZMAN:
my article isnt really about ageism at all. i just sortof mentioned it in passing. i think it is probably a barrier to communication and that is probably bad. judges who ignore what debaters say in-round are also probably bad, but thats not directly related to my article, which is about how we interact outside of rounds.
the second paragraph of your post is an interesting example of a logic i just dont understand. since when did ‘the problem you isolate happens other places too’ become a reason that its no longer a problem? even if this is a broader social issue, we should fight it in our community. there are certainly a lot of things about debate that ARENT like broader society, so lets try to make this one of them (same goes for everyone who uses this same logic in the sexism/womens rr debate).
A/T NICK BUBB:
I hadnt thought a whole lot about the potential for getting struck from judging as a result of comments on this (or any) website. however, it seems to me that even without any public discussion your ideological leanings would probably get around. most tournaments that implement preferences also require judges to submit paradigms, and all it takes is a few high-profile unpopular decisions for your reputation to get shot down. in other words, this is terminally non-unique. at least in a world of open discussion, you get a chance to voice your views (since you dont really get to express them as a judge). i agree with you that a lot of people dont actually engage what each other are saying, but i dont know if anyone has a solution to that. i see a lot of that trend in the comments on this article in particular (my writing has been unfortunately possessed by my debating, and a lot of people seem to have missed some pre-empts), and it bothers me. again though, not sure what we can really do about that. i think part of the appeal of a new forum would be that, since it wouldnt be nearly as established like vbd is, it would probably attract people who were truly dedicated to making our community discussions better (in other words, if you’re willing to go somewhere new to do something, youre probably pretty dedicated to doing it).
A/T LEVINSON:
don’t think you really have a point. i think the comments on this article are coming at a reasonably quick pace. its also not ironic, since i claim that vbd is a bad place for discussion. im not sure when i ever said we shouldnt have nothing but purely open critical discourse, but even if i did that doesnt imply that we cant prefer one form of discourse to another. im progressive, not nihilist. just like at the end of a debate a judge will vote for one debater over the other, we can also make value judgments about what we want to see in our community discussions. youre really missing the boat.
A/T PJ WEXLER:
i didnt realize the LD-L was still operational. Im somewhat curious what percentage of those subscribed are still live e-mail addresses and how many people subscribed to it are still actively involved in debate. i know that a lot of the current generation of debaters (even some in my class) dont even know such a thing as the LD-L ever existed to begin with. however, if we can revive it i think that’d be great. i think that someone should probably find a way to archive it (like it used to be archived on westman, or like edebate is archived at ndtceda.com). if vbd were willing to do that i wouldnt object to it as strongly as i do the forums (since they wouldnt really have any control over the medium); however, this would also be a very simple task for an independent website to do and definitely something i hope someone will consider doing.
Jim Menick and Babb’s arguments are answered above.
A/T RCOOP:
ryan buddy, i dont understand the hostility. sure, a few short months ago we were competitive rivals. not only did you control the series, but those days are now over. in general i like it when things get heated but im not sure why youre so miffed about this. it cuts deep to get called out by a big texan teddy bear. if you want to dismiss my criticism because i dont personally have the time/resources to “solve” 100% of my “alternative” so-to-speak, i think youre being disingenuous. i hope this article spurs someone who has the skills (im studying computers but not web programming) and the time (im doing a full course load and attempting to qual to the NDT in 2 weeks) to do this. i know at least 2 people have contacted me in the past day suggesting that they are trying to get something started, so i think there’s a good chance that my article will be at least instrumentally valuable.
wow. i told you thatd be long.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 6th, 2007 15:35
when i say i would be ‘extremely happen’ i mean ‘extremely happy.’ i need a proof reader.
Posted from: 72.224.50.34
February 6th, 2007 16:32
I would point out that such forums for discourse do indeed exist. lddebate.com, and .org both still exist, although possibly with less participation than they once had. (I know that .com in particular has shrunk in the number of active members since I joined as a freshman.
Regardless of that, I think Michael has a valid point: Concerns about cost are very central to me, as a debater, as I feel that there is a somewhat direct correlation between the number of tournaments you are able to attend in your career, and the ammount of sucess you will have on the national circuit. The fact that certain debaters just have more chance to go through money and the like just seems wrong. I think I’ve seen Sheffield argue this point many times.
I’d like to further point out that the level of censorship in this community is appalling to me. For anyone who didn’t notice, I was very supportive of Michael when he first started making his comments in the ‘scarsdale’ thread. I felt he had made several valid points. No sooner had I made the comments, when I got IMs from friends of mine. Debaters, (I don’t think it would be right to name names) who were very angry at me. “Mangus is an idiot” they told me. And the only reason that I could see for such a statement was that they happened to disagree with the statements that he was making, not at all taking the time to understand the position that they were tacitly advocating; that VBD ought to be a place where only people they agree with should state their views, and everyone else can just clam up. That’s not the kind of community I support. I support a communtiy with open discourse, and where everyone has a voice. That seems to me what is being advocated here, and I support it whole-heartedly.
Posted from: 128.62.216.37
February 6th, 2007 16:54
Ya, Mangus, the tone of my last post was entirely unecessary. I apologize.My hostility was the product of being frustrated at your criticism of VBD, not at all you personally.
You are incredibly quick to criticize every aspsect of VBD. But completely fail to appreciate all the time, energy, and I imagine money that goes into creating VBD. Maybe your post will be instrumental in getting more people involved in facilitating an online LD community. That would be great. But you have to remember its more than just web-design skill and servers that go into creating VBD. Jon and Bietz pour a huge part of their lives into this project. In that sense, your article makes me think of a homeless person who gets handed a hundred dollar bill and complains that it’s wrinkled.
That being said, I don’t completely disagree. There is definitley merit to an alternative forum.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 6th, 2007 17:03
ryan:
you know nothing of my thought process and the slowness or quickness with which i do anything. if jon or bietz are offended let them speak for themselves. ive been talking to bietz ever since i started to write this article and he doesnt seem too upset about it. to simplify: you dont know what youre talking about.
Posted from: 66.108.88.37
February 6th, 2007 17:16
One thing that stuck out to me:
“a surprising number of younger debaters ive talked to think jon cruz was a successful national circuit debater. i dont mean that as a slight against jon, but rather as an illustration that your ability to control content and discussion lends to your perceived credibility on all aspects of debate. one corporation controlling all avenues for content also gives them near-endless credibility. i think that sort of influence is dangerous.”
I have never claimed to be a successful national circuit debater. Actually, as I have reminded students at both my own program and at camp, I only attended four out-of-state LD tournaments in my entire career, and only had limited success at two.
I understand that you may not be implying that I am trying to create a false image of myself, but I want to be clear that any perception of personal laurels beyond success on the local level is not intentional.
Interestingly, I’ve also never met any younger debaters who had that misperception. That doesn’t “prove” anything, of course, nor does it negate Michael’s point. But all of this is interesting food for thought for me, and I appreciate you bringing this point up.
Posted from: 66.69.143.45
February 6th, 2007 17:16
oh shit.
Posted from: 66.108.88.37
February 6th, 2007 17:19
I haven’t had a chance to read all of Michael’s post yet, as I’m in the middle of grading his paper, but I did notice his response to P.J. Wexler, and I second the motion to archive the LD-L. I’m going to contact Mike West to see if he still has access to the old archive. It would be good to have those e-mails online, if only for preservation purposes.
Posted from: 172.191.222.15
February 6th, 2007 17:43
mangus, what about people who can’t afford debate!?
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 6th, 2007 17:45
my point was not ‘jon cruz creates a false image of himself,’ it was ‘the power of vbd has created a false image of jon cruz.’ just want to be clear on that.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 6th, 2007 17:46
i have no idea how people who cant afford debate have anything to do with this discussion. i am probably not among the wealthiest of debaters, although i managed to have a lot of opportunities thanks to good funding from my school, both in HS and now in college. i really dont understand that post, at all.
Posted from: 68.38.86.244
February 6th, 2007 17:47
mangus, i mean i think you have somewhat of a valid point to the argument about how conversations can be heavily one sided and there should be more free participation but you lose a lot of it in my eyes when you feel the necessity to have A/T’s to any dissenting opinion. Furthermore, this is extremely opinionated and i dont know how anyone’s opinions can be right or wrong. Even if you have 10 great logical arguments people can still disagree.
Posted from: 68.196.112.19
February 6th, 2007 17:49
Such angry children. Maybe a solution is to not take everything so seriously.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 6th, 2007 18:02
post 33 has missed the point. completely. i shouldnt post answers to objections to my argument? youll seriously advocate that? my entire article is a reason thats bad. im honestly baffled right now.
Posted from: 205.173.47.254
February 6th, 2007 18:34
Do people think Bietz was a successful national circuit debater? I still remember the Visual Aids at Minnesota state. THAT was quality debating.
(On the other hand, he cleared and I didn’t, so who am I to talk?)
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 6th, 2007 18:37
As far as specific implementation goes, I really don’t have an opinion. Michael seems to want a website or forum designed with particular specifications in mind, aiming to maximize some kind of open dialogue. Sounds great. The LD-L and LDDebate.Org are both alternatives that I once enjoyed quite frequently. They have not lost traffic due to any particular conspiracy of which I’m aware. And what’s more, West’s site has not lost ALL traffic. So a VBD alternative seems to exist already. I believe forums have also been generated by the old UNT website as well as a project by Stanford’s summer program. Short of forcing people to use these, I’m not sure how to popularize or animate an alternative forum short of some extensive publicity and a genuine niche or advantage which people by and large acknowledge.
But if the past or the status quo offer nothing adequate, then I would join Cooper in inviting people to put something together. If people want to use it, great. If not, well it wouldn’t be the first time the community decided it wasn’t quite big enough to robustly sustain multiple forums.
I want to say something a bit more concrete on two points:
1. VBD Heg: Mangus suggests VBD ought not be the sponsor for the ideal message boards. Several of his arguments appear to be grievances with the short-term solution Cruz discussed (the presently existing forums); fair enough, the forums could work better, be more emphasized, restructured, whatever. The points I am concerned with are those which indict VBI institutionally as an organization which, for inherent reasons, ought not operate a/the “central” forum.
Mangus says:
“5) moderation. someone said westman proves ownership doesnt meant control (i think it was babb). that is because no one actively moderates westman. i am not sure if the same would hold true on vbd. if moderation exists it runs the risk of being political. vbd seems to also have a bad record w/ spam filters.
6) content isnt just posts. i am not sure what the victorybriefs policy on advertising is, but there are ways to control the content of a site without actively moderating posts. presentation is relevant.
7) unipolarity is bad for creativity. a site that had to compete with vbd would have an incentive to fill in the gaps in the vb model and create innovative content, etc.
8) extra burden on vbd. moving to a non-vbd forum would be good because theres no reason this site should have to take on the effort+cost of running an additional forum.
9) presence breeds credibility. vb has a sly business model. a lot of people entering debate associate VB and LD inextricably. a surprising number of younger debaters ive talked to think jon cruz was a successful national circuit debater. i dont mean that as a slight against jon, but rather as an illustration that your ability to control content and discussion lends to your perceived credibility on all aspects of debate. one corporation controlling all avenues for content also gives them near-endless credibility. i think that sort of influence is dangerous.”
Moderation: West’s site has had moderators for awhile, one for each section. I don’t know if they continue to “actively” moderate or if their activity has declined some with that of the site. But the claim that there hasn’t been moderation is factually incorrect.
Advertising: Sure, moderating post isn’t the lone issue. As an empirical matter, I believe the VBD has been pretty reasonable about advertising, often offering space to ostensible competition. As a theoretical point, sure it might influence people some… but to what end? If the handful of VBD’s VBI-partial Ads are enough to confirm a conspiracy for some of its readers, I can’t imagine there’s much incentive to create an exclusive marketplace which competitors or the cohorts thereof would bemoan to no end.
Unipolarity: Sure it’s bad, but I’d say articles like Michael’s demonstrate how easy it is to provide alternative and creative views from outside the inner-circle. It may require some minor effort or inconvenience, but if anyone really has something revolutionary to say, I bet they can send a couple of emails or figure out a way to generate whatever kind of discussion they want on VBD. Given the history of hijacking otherwise intended posts to do precisely this, the biases of “unipolarity” of Mike Bietz and Jon Cruz seems readily open to circumvention.
Burden on VBD: What a nice gesture of concern! Sure, I can agree that VBD shouldn’t have to run the forums. The question is, pending a willingness to do so (or even to hire someone to do so), why shouldn’t they?
Presence & credibility: I think some of the most present voices on the VBD have historically been those of other institutes congratulating their students’ performances, endearing interviews of people who have criticized if not mocked VBI, and plenty of open or anonymous criticisms of the VBs brand name, the VBI summer program, or the VBD. If these readily heard voices still have no credibility, then it is not for lack of presence. If Victory Briefs has a little bit of credibility in the eyes of some, it is not because alternative ideas and organizations have been crowded out. Which brings me to the second point…
2. The Fuss Over Dialogue. Michael seems to have a curious position on dialogue. Openness is a good thing, apparently, because people should be aware of just about everything, as long as they’re made aware publically, and not privately. Presumably, people should know things either because they have a right to know them or perhaps because progress is found precisely at the nexus of openly competing opinion. In any case, this marketplace of high school debate ideas should not have a corporately sponsored locus, says Mangus. Rather, it should reflect a proliferation of distinct but overlapping communities of discourse. And yet, the community seems more or less content with a hub or two to find its news and have some discussions. It seems that the only thing Mangus is reluctant to hyper-democratize is a discussion about venue itself. The masses or public should be entrusted through an ethic of dialogue and openness, unless of course those masses should choose something Mangus doesn’t like. And I have no clue what the apparently defunct status quo reflects other than uncoerced popularity. If Mangus doesn’t like popularity contests, then I worry his commitment to open dialogue is a bit conditional.
As a final note, I think it is worth acknowledging a central implication of Michael’s position: in his ideal world, VBD traffic is significantly reduced (at least in terms of its market share). They’ve agreed to feature the article in a genuine effort to build community with those of all backgrounds and points of view. But it is absolutely unfathomable that in spite of this, the VBD continues to be written off as some kind of corporate mouthpiece. It may not be a perfect vehicle for everyone’s ends and there may be advantages to proliferating venues for dialogue, but there are also advantages to having a one-stop internet resource where everyone in the community has access to one another. Anything that builds on that.. grand. But it is entirely unclear how VBD has contributed to homogeneity when it has in fact done far more to celebrate difference than many institutions.
Posted from: 24.12.175.184
February 6th, 2007 18:42
I don’t really see y the VBD forums are a bad idea… I mean, sure the “VBD image” may create some “false perceptions” of people, but you can’t just say that some dumb ppl who actively chose to tragically believe that JCruz was a great debater means that VBD is bad or anything. And on that note, is there any real problem with people thinking that?
Furthermore, Cross-X basically is the policy forum, much like VBD, but you don’t see policy debaters bitchin about some giant corp. So even if it is one corp then that wouldn’t create problems. Even so, please give some examples of how VBD has silenced voices.
To conclude, I am in favor for almost everything your article talks about, I just think that the VB forums are an effective solution. Honestly, I really didn’t know about the VB forums, but I think that that could be easily solved by showing that the site exists in the banners right below the pictures, or putting it elsewhere on the site. VBD should remain an LD news oriented site and have the occasional article on coaches and debaters as well as the random pictures. The discussions on issues in the LD community could simply occur on the forum site. That really wouldn’t be that uneasy for people. Even so, who else has the time to moderate another forum site or host it and deal with all the technical problems?
Posted from: 24.12.175.184
February 6th, 2007 18:46
Also, if somebody else were to host the forums then somebody else would inevitably complain that they were inserting their own bias on the site. So there’s really no reason not to use the VB forums; it’s just that people have to be made aware of the forums.
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
February 6th, 2007 18:59
Alot of the bias cries have been kinda iffy. Idk much of what the deal is bein all up in da NE away from all y’all west/south debaters.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 6th, 2007 18:59
the apprehension in “advertising” the forums, per se, has been to avoid stepping on lddebate.org’s toes. I have a ton of respect for Mike and the historical significance of lddebate.org. This is why I never explicitly advertised the forums, even though they’ve been in existence for months.
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
February 6th, 2007 19:16
wadetx05 (9:14:23 PM): silly vbd wars
BeneSyed (9:14:37 PM): wrd
ewadetx05 (9:14:37 PM): theyre all centered on a problem-solution methodology that constructs the world as a simple object to be mastered and understoodwadetx05 (9:14:39 PM): SPANOS WRITES
BeneSyed (9:14:48 PM): HAHAHAHA
Stop reintrenching the logic of the Occident
Posted from: 24.25.215.34
February 6th, 2007 19:22
For those of us non-old-timers, what’s Westman and LD-L?
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 6th, 2007 19:22
Shea S.: Someone disagreeing with Michael and calling him rude names is not censorship. In fact, it is probably the opposite of censorship. If you like open discourse, then what’s wrong with people responding openly? But to clarify, no comments were censored. And even if something were hypothetically “censored”, it wouldn’t really be censorship, because the VBD does not have anything resembling a monopoly on coercive force as far as I can tell. A private entity refusing to broadcast something is not at all like a government censoring.
Posted from: 67.87.135.47
February 6th, 2007 19:42
While I don’t have a fully formed opinion yet (being a novice), I can read a few things.
Mangus, you’re telling us the problem but no solution. Even were we to build a new mode of communication, how does it solve the problem?
Your argument, as far as I can tell, is that people don’t communicate enough on VBD and aren’t as open as they should be.
But how does another forum/e-mailing group/whatever solve the problem? You talk about how people don’t post on VBD and about how any comments are shot down. If that’s the case, then its not VBDs fault that this is happening. If anything, you would need to reach out to the individuals to stop to problem.
You’re assuming that the people who keep their anger behind closed doors, as you put it, are going to decide to have civilized public discourse on everything that comes up.
As far as I can tell, force of habit wins. I would say people could just decide to change, but I doubt it will happen.
No, what I think you should be advocating is a proverbial circle where everyone sits down and doesn’t leave until everyone’s grievances with everyone else are resolved. Or something to that affect.
But just creating a new method of communication doesn’t seem to solve your problem at all, at least to me.
Then again, I read the article really quickly so I have no idea if this all makes sense. XD
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 6th, 2007 19:50
babb i know that after the infamous wedding photos everyone wants to be zizek, but i think youre trying a little too hard with your arguments about hyper-democratization. dont think id ever use that word. i consider myself skeptical of digital pancapitalism, if we’re going to speak in buzzwords. this is a dressed-up version of the levinson argument that i already answered. no disrespect to the big lebowski, but i am not a nihilist. i believe in something. jokes aside, youre wrong on a few issues:
1. i never claimed westman had never been moderated. will claim these things:
a) very few qualified people post on westman now days
b) no more active moderation regardless of the past. as a result, its overrun by crazy porn spam. thats entertaining, but likely to bother a lot of people.
c) i dont think westman isnt viable any more. thats why, yknow, my article has this line:
“A revival of the Westman forums or some replacement could also be a good choice.”
did anyone ACTUALLY read what i wrote? someone? anyone?
2. your answer to unipolarity is just straight bad. ok, so i post one article…cool. does everyone else who has something to say have to also write an extended article? will we now have dueling articles like professional academics writing in journals? can you IMAGINE translating the kind of discussion that happens in comment threads and forums into a series of articles? your alternative here is completely unworkable. would more articles on vbd be great? yes. is that a good way for us to have all of our discussions? no. way too inconvenient. i love the one-dimensional society. everyone can have an opinion — as long as they say it in a vbd article.
3. your answer to credibility/presence is irrelevant. a few comments on the site dont really create the same sense of authority that writing all of the primary content does. im also wary of your characterization of just how powerful dissenting voices are. remember all those parts in the article where i talk about when criticism gets marginalized?
4. your characterization of my argument is hugely off base. honestly its like you ripped this shit straight out of the lacanian post-politics playbook. i think people should talk more. i think the way people talk on this website is lacking/dangerous/bad (select your adjective of choice based on how much you believe in “Truth,” we’ll make this like a pick-your-own-adventure novel). thus, it follows that people should talk somewhere else. if people all voted that only you and i should get to talk, id think that was bad(/problematic/yougetthepoint) too.
i love the way people think they know why other people do what they do. while ryan thinks i am quick to criticize, babbs proud that vbd published this article in a genuine effort to include me. we are all mind readers i guess. at least offer reasons you think these things are true. im not saying that i think vbd is all-evil, i just think there are trends on vbd that need to be changed. cry “conspiracy theory” all you want.
a/t kamil:
i never said “it is bad that jon cruz is seen as being a good debater.” here, let me copy paste what i said again. “i dont mean that as a slight against jon, but rather as an illustration that *****your ability to control content and discussion lends to your perceived credibility on all aspects of debate.*****” in other words, that whole line of argument is a reason that the people who control access to content gain influence in the debate world. since i think more people should have influence, i think more people should control access to content.
phil kerpen doesnt run a camp. i guess he sells the thursday politics file, but i dont know how popular that or any of the stuff on evazon is. plus different people write it all the time. also, cross-x.com focuses on forums. there is no central news blog focus like what we see on vbd. it is a good model of the kind of thing that i like.
ill again reiterate that i think the vbd forums are better than the status quo but still not the best idea.
i’m increasingly frustrated with where these comments are going. for gods sake can people actually read things completely and in context?
Posted from: 152.17.119.175
February 6th, 2007 19:52
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2007-February/069734.html
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 6th, 2007 20:04
the college policy community is actually part of what inspired me to write this article. they are certainly more willing to call each other out than we are. check the archives of the topic discussion last summer – that got really intense. i think its really interesting that ross made that post today.
Posted from: 67.80.219.156
February 6th, 2007 21:08
Mangus, I think you need to get a life. Stop trying to stay in the debate community by defaming other people and *trying* to argue.
You must feel special that all these people care about your opinion. Good for you.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 6th, 2007 21:16
Great post.
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 6th, 2007 21:19
Haha, yah the wedding photos were sweet.
Re: Westman. Very few people posting is not a structural flaw in Westman. And you concede as much by suggesting a revival. It isn’t that no one read your post; it is that upon concession that viable alternatives do exist, it’s very unclear what you are calling for… if people want to post or conduct conversation beyond the corporate gaze, they can. If they don’t feel so threatened by that gaze, they can continue posting on VBD. If they don’t like the organization of those discussions according to posts which slip through public memory too quickly on ‘VBD comments’, they can conduct them elsewhere. Ultimately, your argument becomes… why don’t more people value and pursue the exact parameters for dialogue in which you are interested?
-Unipolarity. Your response on this is worse! My claim is that in the few cases where writing something is SO important as to merit a venue BEYOND that which is easily available to people through comments, people have options.
“does everyone else who has something to say have to also write an extended article?”
No, and the vast majority of cases in which people have ‘something to say’ are cases in which the present scheme of comments seems to suffice, admitting a few inconveniences.
“will we now have dueling articles like professional academics writing in journals? can you IMAGINE translating the kind of discussion that happens in comment threads and forums into a series of articles?”
No, but as has been the case, articles can serve as springboards for discussion, as is the case at this very moment. I am not claiming everything should take VBD article form; my point is that the very few cases in which your qualms with VBD commenting-format are actually relevant, people can find a way to be heard with relatively little effort. Otherwise, comments offer most people the venue they seek… an opportunity to submit their two cents and read the thoughts of others.
Presence. You write:
“a few comments on the site dont really create the same sense of authority that writing all of the primary content does. im also wary of your characterization of just how powerful dissenting voices are. remember all those parts in the article where i talk about when criticism gets marginalized?”
The link here is atrocious… that writing primary content somehow warps perceptions of authority for those engaged in dialogue. First, the ‘primary content’ is typically either non-controversial results coverage, interviews of community figures (you conveniently ignore that some of these figures have been hostile to VBI to varying degrees, and that these figures are praised rather than marginalized), well-meaning sentiments for people in the community, or special articles which clearly aren’t produced on any regular basis by come VBs braintrust. From there, any potentially controversial dialogue in which perceptions of authority would even matter takes place via comments. And as comments go, authorship/authority has very little to do with what Jon Cruz or Mike Bietz says.
But what’s more curious is your mission on behalf of the marginalized! What happened to:
“i think youre trying a little too hard with your arguments about hyper-democratization. dont think id ever use that word. i consider myself skeptical of digital pancapitalism, if we’re going to speak in buzzwords. this is a dressed-up version of the levinson argument that i already answered. no disrespect to the big lebowski, but i am not a nihilist. i believe in something.”?
If this is the case, who on earth would care about the marginalization of criticism? And how does someone so concerned with marginal voices get off saying: “a) very few qualified people post on westman now days”. If critics need to be qualified to matter, wouldn’t a few be justifiably marginalized?
Some opinions (or means of voicing those opinions) marginalize themselves. There can be no expectation of popularity from the critic; nor should there be. Real criticism means risking unpopularity, clearly. The institutional question is one of creating a meaningful space for that criticism. More often than not, VBD bends over backwards to allow the airing of opinion which is not only unpopular, but self-evidently ridiculous. As Westman.org suggests, the issue clearly isn’t one of silencing. Why haven’t these desperate outcasts and revoutionaries colonized Westman? Probably because the need for a privileged place of enunciation is almost entirely fictional.
Re: your unfocused anxiety. Very little if any of my post resembles Lacan, Zizek, or any other author of whom you know I may be fond. The claim that, “its like you ripped this shit straight out of the lacanian post-politics playbook,” would be interesting to someone who knows me and hasn’t read this conversation, but it fails woefully in engaging what I actually wrote. The prior claim that I have misrepresented your argument is likewise lacking. You want more discussion and yet it is also clear that you only accept certain kinds of discussion as sufficient. If the discussion that occurs here is insufficient, then by all means: talk away wherever you want. But, that would never be a reason to advocate replacing or relocating a discursive community. Such a relocation might relocate the center and its margins but, as the novice poster pointed out, most of the exact same problems (and perhaps some new ones) would come up. Why? Because alternative forums have been and are in use. And there’s nothing about VBD institutionally which causes discussions to dissolve.
I can think of a few things that do… like open and unmoderated public criticism. And yet, while you rebuke VBD for its failure to create an ideal speech situation, you advocate a world with so few parameters that marginizalization simply becomes a function of flame-war brutality rather than the good taste of a few good people. I would be far more concerned about your envisaged free-for-alls not only silencing people, but driving them from the activity entirely. Absent a clique of circuit-savvy “+1″ goons or online-debating-prowess, more than a few kids are going to be silenced in a hands-off forum.
More you:
“i love the way people think they know why other people do what they do.”
Well Mangus, I don’t know entirely why you do what you do. I think your positions are interesting and sometimes refreshing. I agree with you about some things, and disagree on others.
“while ryan thinks i am quick to criticize,”
Can you fault him for that perception? Your recent record of posts suggests you are much quicker to criticize than to praise. I don’t think anyone can disagree with that.
“babbs proud that vbd published this article in a genuine effort to include me. we are all mind readers i guess. at least offer reasons you think these things are true.”
Well, I talk to Mike Bietz all of the time. And he has said for a long time that he wanted VBD to be as much of a community resource as possible and to reach out as much as possible. Frankly, I would never have let the VBD become so inclusive. But some people are a lot nicer than I am. I would love nothing more than for Victory Briefs to have 10 of its most die-hard summer camp instructors post articles every month about why we are the best national program in the country. But we generally try to keep any hardcore promotional content off the VBD. Otherwise, I would happily write a guest article tomorrow on why malcontents want to take readership from the VBD.
“im not saying that i think vbd is all-evil, i just think there are trends on vbd that need to be changed.”
Well, if trends need changing, you should take that up with those who generate those trends. They (debaters, coaches, judges) generate the same trends whatever forums they happen to be posting in. I do not think the structure of VBD is responsible for these trends, outside some minor implementational issues.
“cry “conspiracy theory” all you want.”
I don’t know why I would cry conspiracy. I don’t think there is one.
As far as reading you in context, though, I am doing my best. If these responses stil fail to account for that context though, specific references would help.
sb
Posted from: 69.211.111.62
February 6th, 2007 21:32
Ok my attempt to appease Mangus in argument.
First I think its ironic that this article will, according to you, not get the attention it deserves as it is on VBD.
Now a rebuttal to your arguments on why VBD is bad. (My 1,2 etc. are responses to your 1,2 etc.)
1.These types of problems plague other forums as well. What starts as one topic quickly turns into mini arguments sometimes related to that topic and sometimes not with tangents all over the place. As long as people know who you are responding to (signpost) it really doesn’t matter. If VBD had a quote feature or something it might make it easier for direct responses or at least make it easier to track the thread. Also as you say less informed students post more meaning that the discussions will never be as “deep” until more informed coaches get involved.
2. You say coaches remain silent on debatable issues. Well as VBD is mostly tourney results more students who aren’t attending the tournament will look to see how they’re friends/teammates are doing. Most coaches/judges are at these tournaments and if they are not they less free time then high school students (another tourney not reported, grading school work). Like how Stacy Thomas has had trouble responding to all the criticism of the women’s RR. This means that mostly students will comment until coaches can be sure that there will be debatable issues on the site or have more free time.
3. I don’t know if there is a forum that could neccesarily (spelling?) encompass all these issues that you talk about. You don’t even mention all of them in detail. What do you mean by a one dimensional community? and what are those “litany of other questions” that you talk about?
4. (your finally) I agree. I felt that the debate on the Jason Baldwin article was interesting if nothing else but never got anywhere substansive as it was soon overrun with Emory results and no resolution came close from those 100 some posts.
My finally, students will always be afraid to speak out publicly as long there are ballots to be won and lost. I’m terrified to post this for fear that in my proof reading I missed something stupid that I said that might be considered offensive.
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 6th, 2007 21:35
And Joe, Mangus surely means that because more discourse is always good discourse, especially calling other people out. Fortunately for you, the only reason VBD hasn’t deleted your post, broken into your house, searched your library records, and put you on a federal watch-list is that you were further marginalizing a critic of corporate gigantism.
Posted from: 71.218.243.251
February 6th, 2007 23:51
I thought the ads exist to help pay for the website. It’s expensive to host and create content that can be read by thousands of people for free. VB gets a lot of calls and angry emails when this site goes down like it did a couple of years ago during the NFL nationals.
Shit costs money. Y’all should be happy about the number of ads on the site. If I had my way when I worked at VB, there’d be at least three times the ads on the site than what you see today. Bietz disagreed and implemented what you see on the site.
If members of our community are genuinely concerned about this forum, stop using it. Entirely. Tell Jon that you refuse to have your image on the site. Ask politely that your name be stricken from the results, judge philosophies, or anything else on the pages here.
Alternately: start your own forum. Say nothing. Call people out in the public square at individual tournaments. In my opinion, boycotting a perceived beheamoth is much more effective than drumming up the numbers in reply to an essay.
Bottom line: VB will exist so long as it is desired. People wanted to buy Victor’s old school handbooks. Then, they wanted to attend the camp. Then, they wanted to see how tournaments were progressing. Then, they wanted to see photos. Then, they wanted to see further discussion.
VB gave those things to the people. Bitch all you want about the effects. BUT, if enough people want something, someone’s going to put the money together to provide it. That’s how our community and our country works. If people want for VBD to end, then it will. Until that day, deal from within or shun it competely.
Thanks for reading.
Posted from: 169.226.40.176
February 7th, 2007 11:04
“Shea S.: Someone disagreeing with Michael and calling him rude names is not censorship. In fact, it is probably the opposite of censorship. If you like open discourse, then what’s wrong with people responding openly? But to clarify, no comments were censored. And even if something were hypothetically “censored”, it wouldn’t really be censorship, because the VBD does not have anything resembling a monopoly on coercive force as far as I can tell. A private entity refusing to broadcast something is not at all like a government censoring.”
And yet you completely fail to comprehend the point. The arguments of the people that I was referring to were not that michael was wrong (although presumably that is what they thought) but rather than his making the comments was wrong, and I was wrong for supporting him. The implicit advocacy was that one should not say what they feel unless it is germain with the opinions of this person/the majority of debate in general.
Note, I was never contending that VBD itself had censored anything, but rather than the mindsets of certain people in this community are so set on ‘hero worship mode’ and ‘I’m always right’ mode that they do not think anything ought to be expressed except the status quo. If you do not think that community pressure can exert coercive force, then I do not know what to tell you. I can tell that the message was clear: mangus should shut up, I should shut up, we should all shut up.
Furthermore, in response to your hypothetical point; that is bull and you know it. While a private website may not exercize a monopoly of coercive force, per se, when one controls the only viable forum for expressing views within a certain community, then one DOES have a certain amount of power with regards to censorship. I think this is pretty evident. LD debate.com, which I am a part of has declined rapidly in recent years, as has lddebate.org, althought I am not contending that VBD is responsible, I am contending that the fact gives them responsability.
But again, note that I was never, even implicitly accusing VBD of censorship. Your reaction seems a little bit overdefensive to me.
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 7th, 2007 11:46
Then maybe you should select words more carefully. When you say, “I’d like to further point out that the level of censorship in this community is appalling to me,” you sure seem to be calling someone out for censorship, and it’s 100% incoherent to suggest backchannel trash talk is some kind of censorship.
If your problem is with someone’s willingness to listen or deliberate, then perhaps you should be upset about that. But, I have no interest in defending all of these unknown ‘hero-worshipers’ telling you off. I would say, with respect to the disagreement taking place on this discussion, that most responses to Michael are in no way a blanket defense of the status quo. They may take issue with Michael’s diagnosis of the flaws in the status quo and perhaps with his particular conception of what a solution would look like. But no one is telling Mangus to stop thinking or to stop talking. I think that, on balance, his contributions are pretty valuable, even if we don’t always agree. So it seems that this ‘close-minded community’ remains open to discussion for the most part.
You say:
“While a private website may not exercize a monopoly of coercive force, per se, when one controls the only viable forum for expressing views within a certain community, then one DOES have a certain amount of power with regards to censorship.”
1. What makes a form of expression viable? Do we have to guarantee someone is listening, respnding, agreeing? Why cant people express themselves “viably” on LDDebate.org?
2.”A certain amount of power with regards to censorship”? Let’s be clear. Victory Briefs is a company. They like building community and seeing debaters get to know each other. This has been a huge priority for Victor Jih: having connectivity that renders traditional distinctions (national/local; NFL/TOC; regionals/etc.) less divisive than they have been. That said, people do not pay Victory Briefs taxes or even to use this website. If it didn’t want to publish something, it would be no different from your dentist leaving Hustler out of his waiting room. VBD likes to give people something to read; it is not obligated to publish whatever people want to say. THAT SAID, does it have some kind of responsibility vis-a-vis the community? Sure. But that same community is by no means in agreement about what ideal public discussions should look like. I think VBD tends to err on the side of being ‘hands-off.’ But I can promise you enough people have been hurt, saddened, and angered by public pissing-matches, that there is no consensus on behalf of completely open dialogue.
“Your reaction seems a little bit overdefensive to me.”
1. Don’t psychoanalyze me.
2. It is a lot easier to criticize a community or a brand within that community than to try to build something. While I am not directly involved with the maintenance of VBD, I have been deeply involved with our summer program for a while now. To that end, I am 100% appreciative of constructive criticism that comes our way. And, I think you will find that Bietz and Cruz are much the same way when it comes to VBD. In fact, many of the changes undergone over the last couple of years are no doubt the product of readers making comments and recommendations. That said, in recent weeks, there have been a handful of comments made here and there implying some kind of nefarious VBD dynamic where people are silenced or marginalized or where the Victory Briefs “agenda” is overwhelming. Given that Bietz and Cruz rarely defend themselves beyond factual clarification, I think it’s fair that someone engage some of the groundless assertions which are seemingly made with no real productive aim.
I think Michael’s article, on the other hand, does have a laudable aim. I just disagree with or am skeptical of a few things.
Posted from: 24.19.93.31
February 7th, 2007 12:00
Shea, I\’m having a difficulty reconciling:
\”Note, I was never contending that VBD itself had censored anything\”
With:
\”While a private website may not exercise a monopoly of coercive force, per se, when one controls the only viable forum for expressing views within a certain community, then one DOES have a certain amount of power with regards to censorship.\”
And also with (though I find this statement just confusing):
\”LD debate.com, which I am a part of has declined rapidly in recent years, as has lddebate.org, althought I am not contending that VBD is responsible, I am contending that the fact gives them responsability.\”
The charge of censorship has been leveled against VBD before. Knowing how seriously Jon and Bietz approach the VBD, I\’m sure this is an allegation which is very hurtful (even if they don\’t complain). So I think we could all benefit by a precise definition of censorship. The first dictionary entry is: \”the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.\”
A couple of clarifications, then:
1–The type of comments that Shea seems to object to–where other *readers* post comments questioning the appropriateness of another poster\’s comments–are NOT censorship. VBD does not delete posts. Bietz and Cruz do not edit posts (except maybe for excessive profanity? maybe even then they don\’t).
2–To blame VBD for the decline in other forums is an odd way to locate blame. If *readers* prefer VBD to its competition, then what is the accusation? That VBD does too good a job attracting people? The site\’s quality should be degraded so that *readers* will be compelled to chose other sites?
3–If your indict of \”censorship\” is just a criticism of the comments posted by the website\’s *readers* (as opposed to its administrators), then there is little reason to believe your critique is unique to VBD. An alternative forum (which, it should be underscored that both Bietz and Cruz have gone on record as endorsing) would presumably be competing for the same *readers* that you have taken objection to here. Since your criticism is not about VBD as an institution, but rather specific to the consumers that use VBD, you seem to have set up, as Mangus said earlier, a \”terminally non-unique\” argument.
I think a lot of this discussion has become a red herring about VBD\’s flaws. I think Bietz and Cruz would admit the site is, as always, a work in progress. However, the criticism of Shea (and others) are really about *community* standards of discourse and about what *community* norms deem acceptable topics and forums for communication. If the community needs change, that\\\’s a discussion we can have (and I believe the intention of Mangus\’s article). Blaming VBD is pretty reductionist and a false isolation of a concern that is much broader.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 7th, 2007 12:13
michelin i think youve missed the point. i dont really care a whole hell of a lot about ads. i think the regulation of ads might be one reason why a vbforum might be comparatively worse than a non-vbforum. i admit that i dont know what vb’s policy on outside advertisement is. if you think the crux of my arg has anything to do w/ ads youre mistaken.
your suggestion that anyone who has any problems w/ vbd stop using it entirely is pretty reactionary. i dont think my beef w/ vbd nearly approaches that level. thats why there are numerous times in the article where i make note that theres no reason vbd should change its content system, just reasons we should look for an additional forum.
i seriously feel like if you think your post has a ‘link’ so to speak to my argument then you probably didnt actually read what i wrote. i get that feeling from a lot of comments on this thread.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 7th, 2007 12:20
i also wanted to note the irony of babb saying “Don’t psychoanalyze me.”
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
February 7th, 2007 12:32
I took Shea’s original comments to be in regards to self-censorship (either refraining from discussing or refraining from considering alternative viewpoints expressed in a discussion, e.g., Michael Magnus in a previous thread). While the subsequent defenses clouded that straightforward interpretation (making it a VBD issue, rather than the behavior of the participants), I think the original view is more or less sound – whether VB lets threads stay up longer is fine, but if people do not engage in vigorous discussion, then the value is minimal, no matter how cool the technology.
Having said that, I think the issue of civility (or over civility suppressing real disputes getting a proper airing) is a bit misleading. I have butted heads with Michael a few times since I began posting on the site. My own impression is that there is more than one type of civility that needs to be parsed – first, the type Michael rightly rejects, where contentious issues are stewed in private but where public discussion is out of bounds; and two, civility within the course of discussion, so that the tone, rather than the subject matter, discourages dissent, trivalizes an opponent, or fundamentally questions whether they are entitled to to express their voice on the topic. For truly vigorous discussion, participants, even those who are new to the activity or lack hardware, are treated with respect and therefore feel they can express views…
Simply put, the discussions that degenerate into insults, name calling, or deeming opponents as unworthy of participation or contribution is bad, no matter who perpetuates it (and we all do to varying degrees). There is no institutional change (that I can think of) that can solve for this – instead, it requires people to abide by an ethic of respect. That ethic should not suppress discourse, but encourage it.
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 7th, 2007 12:38
A couple comments and then I will be out for the day (but will check this evening):
1. Mangus, for my part anyway, I think that I take exception with only 2 or 3 elements of your advocacy, namely that there’s that much of a status quo *structural* problem with venues for discussion AND that discussion should be *quite* so open. I’ve already discussed at length why I think you’re slightly over-tagging VBD’s structural inadequacy. As far the dialogue itself goes (and perhaps this is really your central thesis..), I agree that the backchannel trash talk sucks. But I think it’s bad not so much because it’s private, but because it often takes the form of unsubstantiated gossip and is accusatory/mean spirited. We’ve witnessed public mean-spiritedness too, and it sucks also. Does openness make fact-checking more possible? Maybe… sometimes? Most people reading still have no access to ‘how things really went down.’ I guess my feeling is that public sucker-punches aren’t much better than private ones. But, I 100% agree with the thrust of your position here and elsewhere that the private shit-talking is a massive buzz kill.
2. I also want to say that, to the extent VBD has a lot of readers, yes I’d like it to stay that way. I think you have been more fair than some in your assessment of VBD; yes it has strengths and weaknesses, etc. But, I cannot help but feel like when I read between the lines, I see someone straight up trying to relocate the center of debate discussion. The reality is: rarely is national circuit dialogue anything OTHER than unipolar. It’s just not that big of a community. LDDebate.org still has activity; I think people pronounce it dead simply because the national circuit tends to congregate elsewhere. So if there can really only be one *central* national-circuit forum, then it just seems to me like you hope to take it away from VBs. And I cannot speak to your intentions; I don’t really know how you feel about VBI or anything else. BUT, I can (in the spirit of openness) say how things APPEAR to me. My impression of the situation is that, as a matter of camp attendance and employment and friendships, you are a lot closer to some of VBI’s summer competition than you are to VBI. Do I think that means you got together with some “haters” to craft a smear piece? No. I don’t view your article in that light at all. I think it’s interesting, well-reasoned, and a great springboard for re-thinking this stuff. But, the question marks arose for me when you were so quick to dismiss a VBD-run forum. I know you have some good reasons for wanting one. But, I think I have some good reasons for thinking one is unnecessary. At the end of the day, I’ve invested a lot of my life into VBI because I think it’s a good service and I like some of the people involved quite a bit. And likewise, a lot of your opinions about people involved with Victory Briefs have been shaped by a very different experience and nexus of friends than what I’ve been exposed to.
I am just throwing that out there because I think a lot of disagreements do ultimately come down to where we are coming from, where our loyalties lie, who are friends are, and so on. Does than mean either one of us is being disinginuous? Absolutely not. But, I do think it contributes in some way to the places where our opinions diverge. Fair?
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 7th, 2007 12:41
And a note to the note on irony: I didn’t say psychoanalysis is bad. I’m just saying Shea isn’t in the position.. more of a jurisdictional issue. :-) But irony and humor so noted.
b
Posted from: 209.11.48.2
February 7th, 2007 12:50
From what I understand, the crux of your argument is the VBD discourages open discourse. Correct if I’m, but that’s what I gathered after reading the article again.
And that still leaves the point: Why would a non-VBD forum encourage this?
As I said before, anyone who doesn’t take their problems with people to a public forum wouldn’t do so simply because they had a new place to do it.
I don’t disagree with the point you’re making, but I fail to see how a new forum will solve the problem. The problem seems to lie more directly with the people involved.
Some of the claims you make about why VBD discourages discussion make sense to me (i.e. blacklisting, which would theoretically happen anyway), but things like threads failing to cultivate serious discussion could be solved fairly easily.
But all of your problems with, as you term it, the one dimensional community debate is becoming, lie with people directly.
I just think that the argument is aimed at the wrong place. Open discourse won’t come more readily in a non VBD forum.
I just think there should be a more comprehensive solution to the problems that you yourself pose.
Posted from: 24.173.0.187
February 7th, 2007 12:58
i like peas. Do you like peas?
Posted from: 169.226.6.233
February 7th, 2007 13:11
Just a few points of clarification:
1) I am not attacking VBD, but rather the way the community uses it. I have great respect for Mr. Cruz, having met him and been judged by him many times. The summary of my point by Mr. Prashier was pretty much exactly what I had intended to convey, and I was surprised by the swift defense of VBD, when I do not feel that I even attacked VDB, hence the ‘overdefensive’ comment.
2) Censorship is discouraging discourse. Any method of discouraging discourse. It does not have to come from any complete monopoly of force, but rather can easily come from factions within a community. Saying that the only way censorship can occur is in a state setting is what’s actually 100% incoherant.
3) The statement you say is confusing is intended to convey one thing: I am not saying that VBD has caused the other websites to lose membership, and even if it had, its not something it ought to be blamed for, but rather because it has become the only viable method of discourse, it has a greater responsability to promote positive discourse then it did before.
4) I think publsihing this article was a great start, and I in no way intended this to become a pissing contest. I was trying to talk about some problems I see with how members of this community view their biggest avenue of discourse. This is something that is fairly important to me, and I feel I have been trying to discuss it in good faith. I would appreciate a reciprocation.
“I think a lot of this discussion has become a red herring about VBD\’s flaws. I think Bietz and Cruz would admit the site is, as always, a work in progress. However, the criticism of Shea (and others) are really about *community* standards of discourse and about what *community* norms deem acceptable topics and forums for communication. If the community needs change, that\\\’s a discussion we can have (and I believe the intention of Mangus\’s article). Blaming VBD is pretty reductionist and a false isolation of a concern that is much broader.”
THIS is what I have essentially been saying all along. I am not trying to indict VBD per se, but instead trying to indict the way the community uses it. I thought that was clear from my original post, where I said “The censorship in this community” not vbd community. But if it wasn’t, I apologize.
Posted from: 24.19.93.31
February 7th, 2007 13:42
Shea, thanks for clarifying-I understand better your original post.
I do think what I said about accusing VBD of censorship is a more general comment as I’ve seen it done elsewhere.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 7th, 2007 13:48
if there are structural flaws in the place discussion happens now, then that inhibits changes in the way discussion happens. my article is two-pronged: (1) discussion good, (2) discussion on vbd isnt working. it is not anti-vbd. it is not a claim that a new forum will solve everything. it is an argument in favor of community change toward more openness, and a claim that that openness wont be able to happen given the way we have discussions on vbd right now. frankly a lot of people commenting on this have only considered what they THINK my opinion is, not what ive actually said.
Posted from: 152.17.54.204
February 7th, 2007 13:55
I think this discussion has been great, and I think that Michael’s article makes a few interesting points.
But first: Shea, your argument makes no sense, or at least is based on a definition of censorship that is just not true. The Victorybriefs coporation owns this website, you and I have no share in it. If I decide to start posting strings of profanity, senselessly attack members of the community, or post random links to porn sites, VBD has the right to remove my post. If VBD had forbid Michael from saying certain things in his article, or had edited it in attempt to distort its content, that would be censorship. Also, if somebody tells you the shut up because you’re making a dumb argument, deal with it. Clarify your argument or jump ship if you really are being stupid. Are you really calling for people who voice dissent with your views to be censored?
My actual point: I really enjoy this website, I think it serves a great purpose and keeps people from all areas of the country and at all levels of the community involved and up-to-date. I think VBD should continue to serve that function, obviously the VB staff does great things for a lot of people.
However, Victorybriefs should not be the organization to fill the void left by the loss of the Westman forums. I don’t think that VBD has been trying to do that, but it seems that people from VB are thinking about it. I think that VB serves a certain purpose, parents, students, coaches, school administrators, etc. can access VBD to check out results, see how their friends, kids, or students are doing, and read some interesting interviews now and then.
Because of the vast amount of people who read the articles and results posted on this cite, I feel like it’s become an inappropriate place for public call-outs, arguments over the capacity of individuals to judge, debate, and concepts of theory debate.
Also, Victorybriefs is political. VB is a for-profit organization, the organization has a direct interest in drawing in more readers, getting more people to buy more briefs, and drawing in more attendees to their institute. More importantly though, VB is a corporations that employs members of this community. I think that makes it a uniquely inappropriate place for public disucssion and dissent over problems with certain individuals in the community, ESPECIALLY if these individuals are involved with VB.
I would ask that anybody reading this take a look at the link I posted earlier. eDebate, as Michael pointed out, is the type of forum that would make the LD community better off. Ross’ post in particular, deals with issues that have been brought up by this very article, and in posts to this website over the past couple of weeks. In a string of posts, Ross called out a debate program for bringing bad judges to tournament, an individual for awful speaker point allocation in a bad debate, and another person for having a bad judging philosophy. I could be wrong, but I feel like if I said “Greenhill brings shitty judges to tournament,” or “Jon Cruz made a terrible decision,” (Please don’t be stupid and attack me for these examples, that’s all they are) that instead of people responding to me, my posts would be met with hostility. I’d probably be called immature or dismissed as hostile by fans of VB, and staffers/campers from VBI. Regardless of whether this reaction would ensure (I think the Scarsdale quals 7 debaters to TOC thread proves it would), at the very least people like myself would be hesitant to use a VB forum in such a way in anticipation of this.
So rather than have VB take on the role of Westman, I think somebody or some group of people should create a new site modeled of Westman or eDebate, a forum whose sole purpose is to create a place for discussion, deliberation and conflict among the community to occur with as little bias as possible from the website administrators.
In my (and I think Michael’s?) proposed world, the online LD community would model the NDT/CEDA online community. 2 websites with 2 unique and distict purposes. VBD would parallel debateresults.com, and do a little extra guess given the interviews etc. And this new site would be like eDebate, a forum for discussion that everybody could participate openly in.
I think a set-up like this would eliminated some of the back-handed trash talking mentioned above.
Maybe this post missed the point, hopefully it didn’t. But I think the existence of a new forum is totally plausable, and preferable.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 7th, 2007 14:14
it has already been indicated that LD-L still exists… why can’t that be used?
Posted from: 66.176.42.254
February 7th, 2007 15:01
I negate the resolution,
resolved: the postings on VBD ought to be held to the same standard as postings on forums.lddebate.org
is victory briefs daily supposed to be like a debate newspaper? (the name suggests it) i have never had any expectations of vbd above telling me the goings on a various tournaments i don’t go to. most newspapers have limited discussion that rarely gets to the core of the subject. i found Michael’s article entertaining in that it was framed like an argument that could be read in round with multiple implications. i can’t say that i wholeheartedly support it because I’m sorry to say i don’t have intense feelings about this site. a major problem that i hope is addressed is the annoying posts on forums.lddebate that don’t answer original postings or correlate to the resolution.
Posted from: 68.196.121.203
February 7th, 2007 15:34
whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 7th, 2007 15:55
why do people keep posting ‘why couldnt we use the ld-l’ or ‘why couldnt we use westman.’ we could. thatd be great. but people arent right now. so my point is that we should start.
i agree w/ tom’s post. i think it does a good job of explaining where im coming from.
Posted from: 209.80.137.250
February 7th, 2007 17:42
Mike raised an an obvious point about the # of active email addresses on the LD-L. So by golly I have gone through a # of them, and will continue to do so by sending out a test message, which two people were kind enough to follow up on with postings of their own. I have not had so many non-deliverable messages in my in-box since I worked in email sales for Hormel.
In the mid two-figures right now for bad addresses., actually a good deal less than I would have thought. If I hit three figures by the time I’m done, that would still be less than 1/5 of the subscribers…
Maybe email addresses are not really as transient as I would have thought- or being part of this activity. Or perhaps b/c of the lack of ld-l activity people just have not bothered to unsubscribe, inertia being a fundamental part of human nature.
Three messages today. We’ll see if that stirs people to leave. or join. or both.
Posted from: 128.62.216.37
February 7th, 2007 18:28
Michael, I’m not sure why you continually fall back on this accusation that people haven’t actually read your article and posts. If you are being misinterpreted then it seems all you need to do is clarify your advocacy, but I promise you people aren’t just completely ignoring what you have written. Part of the problem stems from the fact that you seem to advocate three (albeit not necessarily mutually exclusive) things:
1) The discussion that happens on VBD needs to change. (“discussion on vbd isnt working. it is not anti-vbd. it is not a claim that a new forum will solve everything. it is an argument in favor of community change toward more openness, and a claim that that openness wont be able to happen given the way we have discussions on vbd right now.”)
2. Discussion needs to be relocated to alternative forums. (“why do people keep posting ‘why couldnt we use the ld-l’ or ‘why couldnt we use westman.’ we could. thatd be great. but people arent right now. so my point is that we should start.”)
3. A new forum (or several) are needed.
It’s pretty clear that while number one my be an element of your advocacy, that its not the only one. You clearly want discussion relocated away from VBD. I am unclear as if you think there are structural problems with the existing alternatives that prevent discussion or not. Your last post would seem to indicate that you don’t. If that’s the case then your entire discussin seems to miss the point that VBD is winning the popularity contest. I don’t mean to undermine the power of your persuasion. You might be succesful in convincing a number of people to move discussion elsewhere, but two things to consider:
1) People seem content. (Babb mentions this earlier) If so many voices are being excluded then why haven’t these voices taken to using other forums, which we agree exist. Even if these forums don’t presently exist, the great thing about the interent is there are very few structural obstacles to publication. With a little time, anyone can set up a blog. The fact that people continue to use VBD seems to underscore the idea that it has consistently taken a fair hands off approach. The fact that you continue to very vocally express your opinion on this website does the same. If everyone needs to move to alternative forums, shouldn’t you lead by example? Why are you continuing to post on VBD? From here on out, will you be utilizing Westman? I think its also worth pointing out that in some cases where VBD is an inadequate forum discussion is relocated to other forums. Two examples: 1)Discussion of camps, which for obvious reasons isn’t well facilitated by VBD. 2)Discussion of local circuits, which despite admirable attempts, cannot be easily be faciliated by a national website. So in short, the problem your are indicting seems to be self correcting.
2) The reason why VBD is winning the popularity contest is likely because its more than a hands off forum. It’s also a content driven blog. For whatever reason people seem to like that. It gives them a reason to come to the sight. They don’t have to wait for discussion to be started by random people, the website facilitates it. So if you think the creation of new forums is part of the solution it seems you necessarily must advocate the creation of similar content driven debate websites. (You seem to agree: “unipolarity is bad for creativity. a site that had to compete with vbd would have an incentive to fill in the gaps in the vb model and create innovative content, etc”) If this is whats needed then once again it seems the criticism reflects most strongly on you and people who share your opinion. Its noones fault but yours that you aren’t creating website and expressing your opinion, in the sameway its noones fault but the Republicans that they didn’t show up at the polls in larger numbers in november.
But my more important concern with this advocacy is that it would have the potential to stifle the discouse you so adamantly encourage. In a world where multiple VBesque websites exist it seems people would form exclusive communities around each of those websites. NSD people would engage in discussion on its blog, VBI people on VBD, etc. Like minded people would only encounter like minded people. In that sense there seems to be something to be said for a single website that the entire LD community utilizes…maybe you would just prefer that website not be owned by Victory Briefs.
Posted from: 75.3.251.22
February 7th, 2007 19:18
ryan cooper speaks the truth
Posted from: 152.17.54.204
February 7th, 2007 19:43
Ryan, (im not answering for anybody, just throwing my opinion out there)
1) your main argument seems to be, “VBD exists and a lot of people use it; Westman exists and people don’t use it. That means VBD is obviously the best choice”
If you believe this you either have a fairly selective memory or just never used Westman. After being dismantled and attacked with that stupid “All your base are belong to us” thing, Westman was effectively destroyed. Yes, there are still a few dedicated posters who go there from time to time but traffic to the site plummeted after it was shut down for several weeks do to piracy. During this time, people began posting a bit more than “CONGRATS TO X!” or “GOOD LUCK TO Y!” in the absence of an alternate location to do this. Anybody who would claim that Victorybriefs didn’t profit from the effective destruction of the Westman boards is out of his/her mind, after a while it just became more convenient to continue posting on VBD after several lengthy discussions had been started during the time Westman was down. People could use it, and even Westman was “back” its archives were near destroyed and several threads were down for months. The reason: Mike West obviously has less time to devote to or just cares less about hosting a debate forum.
2) So why keep using Victorybriefs? Because there is no viable alternative at the moment. Yes Westman and the LD-L still “exist” but that’s a very relative term. Both URLs may still be active but are only skeletons of what they once were. The reason somebody hasn’t made a new forum is because a) until recently this concern hasn’t been a big issue out in the open b) most of the members of this community, or at least the ones who are loudest on this site, are college students who have remained in the activity as judges and coaches and current hs debaters. Both of these groups have academic responsibilities to deal with on top of any debate work that needs to get done (which for many exceeds school work).
3) Your last argument isn’t really a realistic conern, and is the same attitude used to justify “VB heg” or whatever you want to call it. Most importantly on this issue, who suggested that NSD start their own blog? It seems to me that the alternative to VB that anybody desiring one seemed to offer was an open forum with no commercial interest or factional bias (like Westman, but something that actually work/people haven’t abandoned). The reason for this isn’t just that VB can’t cover local circuits, but that VB has an interest in protecting their own (sort of like exactly what you’re doing right now), and that the factional/corporate bias of this website prevents me from saying things like “X (say in this instance X is an employee of VBI) is a terrible judge” without receiving an onslaught of not only childish attacks from immature debaters trying to sound cool (which are probably inevitable anywhere) but with attacks of immaturity and a failure to deal with the actual issue at hand from administrators of the site itself and other employees of VB.
4) This is kind of a silly side-concern, but I find your attitude in the last paragraph of your post a little disconcerting. I’ve said earlier that I really do appreciate the services that VB provides (to a degree) but why shouldn’t NSD (for example) deserve a shot to try their hand at a website? Because it may hurt Victorybriefs Inc.??? Presumably, if this is all a free-market capitalists wet dream and the best site really does win out (as you indicate at the beginning of your post), anybody should deserve a shot to challenge VB to do a better job; and if they did a better job, then following from your logic (that the best man wins and VB is the only game in town because its so good) nsdebate.org would be the new victorybriefsdaily.com (functionally).
Posted from: 66.108.88.37
February 7th, 2007 20:02
Tom makes a lot of good points, and I don’t have time at the moment to respond more substantively to his post or to others on this thread.
I do want to say that I have long been interested in covering more local and regional circuit debate. (I have made some attempts. The Northeast and California sometimes get more “regional” news than other areas simply because I’m in the Northeast and Bietz is in California.) I’d love for ideas on how to effectively cover these, and if people would like to volunteer as correspondents (both for more “local” and more “national” tournaments, and both for results and photographs), that would be awesome.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 7th, 2007 20:11
thank you “SHAGRIN” for your excellent contribution.
ryan: when people are posing questions that are literally answered word for word in my article, i cant help but wonder if they might have just paid no attention. i defended 3 statements! oh no! in all your time in debate youve never had to keep track of more than one argument before? youre just being silly. on a related note, i dont understand why you think youre in a position to be so fucking condescending toward me.
your argument that people are content is pointless. (1) not everyone is happy w/ vbd. in fact, lots of people arent. i did not just pull this shit out of my ass. i am not alone in my criticism. (2) none of your arguments here take into account ANY of the criticisms in the article about why vbd discussion is NECESSARILY stunted, narrow, and vapid. THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE USING VBD FEEDS MY ARGUMENT. IT DOESNT ANSWER IT. my point is about the way people participate, the type of people who participate, and the limits of this medium for that participation. let me put this in debate terms: your claim ‘a lot of people use vb in the status quo’ is uniqueness for my argument.
your lead by example argument is ridiculous. i am not claiming vbd is evil. it would be absolutely stupid for me to demand that this discussion move to westman. i may be opinionated but i am not insane. my argument is to implore people to increase their use of other fora. it doesnt mean SHUT DOWN VBD. your attempt at a strawman here is just awful.
id love to hear a reason that the specific arguments i isolated in the article are self-correcting. you arent making that argument.
being hands off doesnt correct a ton of the arguments i make like:
1) cant start your own thread w/o having to write a feature article
2) lots of smart/qualified people avoid discussions
3) discussions fall to the bottom
etc.
so your account is woefully incomplete.
for christs sake ryan let me say it again: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE EXISTENCE OF VBD. i just wish we would talk someplace else and use vbd for what its good for – news and results. youre being absolutely absurd.
your arg that vbd facilitates discussion is dumb. would tournaments stop happening without vbd? thats what most of the news here is anyway, and i dont think people would just stop talking about results in a world w/o vbd. this is empirically denied by every post made on the ld-l or westman prior to around 2002.
your spelling of ‘noone’ [no one] is hysterical. and your argument is bad. i already answered the ‘START YOUR OWN WEBSITE’ argument earlier. im not doing it again. i am so fucking sick of repeating myself.
who said this had to be a camp-affiliated thing? thats also ridiculous. an nsd-run website would be equally bad. so would a unt-run website or a pinnacle-run website or any of that shit. no link.
i honestly am tempted to retract my article. as long as people ignore each others arguments theres no reason for us to bother to have discussions. peace.
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 7th, 2007 20:53
Briefs comments for Tom:
The reason Ryan supposes that alternative forums would reflect the same political dimensions as VBs is probably multifold, but begins with the assumption broached by Mangus that content-creation is an important stimulant for discussion, and should be creative, etc. Someone has to actually do that. Even if there isn’t a discrete organization/company behind it, there is sure to be a group of somewhat like-minded people. So, the unipolar though ostensibly diverse centralized forum is simply fractured into two or more comparatively more homogeneous forums. The problem with a completely disinterested forum (or a set thereof) is: Who runs it? Who generates content to keep people coming back?
I have no interest in engaging the question of why people do or don’t post on Westman, but it does illustrate that leaving discussion entirely in the hands of those posting in forums runs the serious risk of losing those posters little by little and eventually losing content. Continuous content, on the other hand, offers a better guarantee for traffic… and thus, for robust discussion. So the question of who generates that content remains extremely relevant to Michael’s project, undermining (I think) the possibility for an entirely disinterested forum. Westman provides precisely such a forum, but unfortunately suggests disinterested site admin often leads to uninterested readership.
As to whether NSD deserves a shot at running forums… First, I don’t think Ryan’s point is ever really that the fittest should survive. I think he is suggesting that the status quo structural problems perceived by some do not appear to be perceived by most given the availibility of an alternative and that alternative’s comparative lack of popularity. This isn’t a prescription for VBD’s heg so much as response to Mangus’s claims about the need for alternative discussion venues. Second, no one is suggesting others DONT deserve a shot. In fact, I previously noted that several other summer institutes HAVE tried their hand at incorporating more community-discussion into their websites. If NSD wants to do that, fine. I, for one, noticed their labs posted blogs during this last summer’s session, which simply attests to the potential for multiple organizations to generate lots of interesting web content.
Ryan’s point is that a discussion about the availibility of venues should be acknowledged differently from a discussion about which venues people SHOULD use. As far as venue creation goes, the issues have been covered: (1)alternatives already do exist, (2)the attractiveness of those and new alternatives requires content generation and thus a real committment on someone’s part, (3)as several have said, the shape a venue should take is fundamentally determined by popular opinion, and (4)the advisibility of forums inviting completely open and unrestrained dialogue is seriously in question. But as to this other question, about which venues people SHOULD use, my first problem is that foreclosing this question is inconsistent with a preference for autonomous discussion; it amounts to claiming, people should be able to say whatever they want, but not wherever they want: they should prefer precisely the same conditions for speech as those preferred by Mangus. I have further contended that this kind of prescription may be counterproductive to Mangus’ aim for ‘more discussion’ insofar as negligible restraints tend to invite rule-by-mob rather than rule-by-Cruz/Bietz. I get a kick out of people thinking that by posting on VBD they somehow UNIQUELY open themselves up to being blacklisted. Political backlash to a person’s comments is inevitable, regardless of forum. This can be a very good thing (insofar as it theoretically checks back licentious discussion) and a very bad thing (by chilling unpopular but potentially legitimate discussion). But on balance, I think a semblance of civility and the presence of reasonable moderators is probably more conducive to comfortable discussion than it is chilling. At the very least, unrestrained flame wars are every bit as likely to chill.
sb
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 7th, 2007 21:03
I’d also reiterate that the suggestion that people should just talk elsewhere fails to acknowledge the advantages of a one-stop website (in terms of convenience, diversity, interconnectivity, etc.). To put things in debate terms for Mangus, you’ve isolated some VBD disads, while utterly failing to be comparative. Additionally, no one has discussed the viability of splitting national circuit discussion… no one has demonstrated that this would (a) be realistic given the limited size of the national circuit or web-interested debaters or (b) produce a net benefit for discussion. Ryan suggests discussion would likely become more homogeneous and clique-oriented. While this is almost a certainty if another organization decides to generate content, it is likely either way given the community’s social trends. I think VBD offers a unique potential for inclusion and recognition of difference, and that these advantages permeate VBD discussion as well.
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 7th, 2007 21:05
Post #79 also pertains to Mangus v. Cooper, I suspect.
Posted from: 128.62.216.7
February 7th, 2007 21:05
Mangus, the expectation that people pay as much attention to the specificity of a vbd article’s claims as they would an AC or a Confucian manuscript stikes me as unrealistic. I’m sure non-responsiveness frustrates you as much as it does anyone else, but I think some of your replies come across as bordering between adversarial and confrontational, which generally inhibits positive discussion. Less extreme language would probably minimize defensive and nonresponsive comments.
Posted from: 129.116.10.2
February 7th, 2007 21:10
I agree with everything Babb and Ryan have said minus one thing. I think the argument that “Michael is not democratizing the venue for discussion” does not make sense, particularly because this is not a context where it would be relevant. This seems to rely on some assumption that Michael is forcing people to use another venue despite their expressed preferences, which I do not see this as. He’s not the state, or some all-powerful individual or general social consensus (take your pick) imposing a structure from above. Rather, he is trying to convince people that they should prefer to use another venue, which is vastly different from overriding their preferences and forcing them to make X number of posts on westman or suffer the consequences. This argument would seem to imply that persuasion or discussion is undemocratic because it aims at changing preferences. The difference is between President Bush trying to convince protesters that they should move somewhere else vs. putting them in a free speech zone.
That’s pretty much it for me, like I said, I just think it’s a little silly to use words like “hyper-democratization” in a discussion about online debate forums. I think Babb and Ryan are right on point when they say that the problem is a. probably not that bad and b. if it were, there would be a huge grassroots movement of people who immediately flocked to Michael’s argument, and provided the creative content necessary for something else.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 7th, 2007 21:15
babb: wasnt aware disads had to be comparative. guess a cp might be nice but its not too important if your da’s outweigh the case. maybe policy has corrupted the purity of understanding of argument.
david: point taken. i think i should be clear though – this discussion is driving me insane, to the point that i honestly dont really want to participate any more. the level of non-responsiveness, misrepresentation, etc. just makes me feel like every post im making is saying the exact same things. this is something bietz mentioned to me when i was talking about the article w/ him, and i think this thread has really proven it: nobody takes the time to actually think through what the other side is arguing. we just respond to what we think person x might say. it makes me really question whether or not more dialog is even worth it if people never engage each other.
Posted from: 129.116.10.2
February 7th, 2007 21:16
Two more things to make the point clearer:
1. This is referring to “My first problem is that foreclosing this question is inconsistent with a preference for autonomous discussion; it amounts to claiming, people should be able to say whatever they want, but not wherever they want: they should prefer precisely the same conditions for speech as those preferred by Mangus.”
2. If Michael is undemocratic for saying that “VBD is bad we should go somewhere else guys” then it seems equally undemocratic to say things like “we should prefer a one-stop website”. Both are attempts to shape preferences regarding forums by convincing people, it’s unreasonable to say one is undemocratic because it goes against prevailing doctrine/opinion.
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 7th, 2007 21:34
John, good point. I think to that end, I agree I am overstating my case with respect to my claim about inconsistency.
Michael, if you are using the disadvantages of the VBD as a reason for using an alternative, then it seems absolutely crucial to seriously compare the merits of VBD and its alternatives. But you fail to compare on two levels: (1) there is no attempt to weigh the advantages of multiple forums against the disadvantages of multiple forums and (2) there is no attempt to weigh the merits of VBD as THE forum with an alternative as THE forum, assuming some de facto mutual exclusivity.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 7th, 2007 21:50
what disads do we have to other forums?
there would be multiple websites to check? i did that for years. i still do check westman almost as often as vbd. i think most people will bite the bullet. this has no substantive impact in terms of the quality or quantity of discussion, except maybe ‘people wont do what your article says.’ lets use another debate concept here: fiat. ‘plan doesnt solve’ is different from ‘plan wont happen.’ your reasons that no one will do what im suggesting is not a reason that what im suggesting is bad. no one has made ‘westman bad’ args as far as i can tell. all your args on the questions you bring up are descriptive. the naturalistic fallacy abounds.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 7th, 2007 21:52
one more debate analogy i wanna throw in here: offense/defense. reasons vbd is ok are not offense to my article (i.e. reasons what im saying are bad).
Posted from: 152.17.54.204
February 7th, 2007 21:55
babb: (these will be out of order in relation to your post)
1) The fact that the only people actually voicing arguments against michael’s position and my own (your post still really only tangentially answers my greatest concern with VB hosting/controlling forums in addition to news and results) are employees of the Victory Briefs Institute is functionally a link to my argument, VB will always protect its own.
2) It doesn’t really matter what you’re “interested in discussing” so far as the fall of Westman and the elevation of VBD are directly correlated. This website is great, but it didn’t get to where it was (complete domination of the cyber debate community) simply on it’s own merits, it got there because after Westman got jacked there was no other game in town but VBD.
3) I agree about political backlash, if people are flat out disrespectful of their peers (judges, coaches, debaters, etc) there will be some form of consequence. This is the result of any form of openly disrespectful communitcation. MY point is that we should be able to criticize debaters, coaches, and judges not necessarily for their character BUT for their capacity to competantly fulfill their roles. The fact that you, Ryan, and John are the only people that take real issue with michaels argument (posts like “ryan cooper speaks the truth” are vacuous and pretty much a waste of anybody’s time) and the common denominator among all 3 of you is that you are Victorybriefs employees speaks to the truth of my argument (as mentioned earlier). Yes, factions will always exist. Your assertion that any given forum is controlled by x faction is absolutely proposterous, case and point: Westman.
Moreover though, even if you’re right and this factional element is inevitable, Victorybriefs is still a uniquely poor host for forums and “open discussion” because it’s corporate. There are financial motivations behind every defense of every VB policy, every VBI employee, etc. Friends will defend friends no matter what, you’re definitely right about that (even though i disagree that any forum HAS to be controlled by a group mentality). The reason that factionalism goes deeper than friendships on VB is because of the economic element (absent from every other past forum mentioned here).
4) I think you kind of miss my point on the issue of NSD running a site. That’s my fault not yours, I was unclear as to my intent. I wasn’t trying to say NSD should run a forum (that would be just as bad as VB running one) but merely trying to expose the blatant hypocricy of Ryan’s post. I found it disconcerting and borderline disgusting that Ryan actually asserts that more venues outside VB would serve to isolate groups from each other and stifle communication. That’s a cheap trick and a horrendous excuse for the perpetuation of what i guess we’ve termed “VB heg,” NOBODY suggested that another corporate force in debate create an alternative forum, the corporate aspect of VB is its biggest problem (for me at least).
5) Your point about content generation is complete bull. The only interesting content this website generates (I think I can honestly speak for most) is in results and interviews. See Michael’s article, the amount of user posts under various points of interest highlighted by the site administrators is shameful. Furthermore, the most interesting commentary to be found on VBD aside from results are the comments of its users. This article is proof of that. If you want more proof see the article about scarsdale qualling 7 debaters to the TOC. The direction and creation of “content” on this website is largely controlled by its viewers, interesting dialogue would still happen (as it did on Westman) if Jon didn’t post silly pictures of random debaters on a weekly basis.
Also, your analysis of Westman to prove your point is awfully mis-representative of what actually happened, perhaps you should’ve re-read my post. Westman did not gradually decline, people came here during the weeks and months when Westman effectively did not exist. lddebate.org went from having hundreds of participants to 0 in a matter of hours.
6) Finally, the alt: somebody create a forum with no corporate ties. If it’s set up like eDebate that solves factionalism, everybody has an equally vested interest in participation in it. If it’s set up like Westman it solves even better, the creater of the site has the ability to appoint various moderators for each individual forum (like West did). Somebody really interested in an open unbiased space would diversify forum moderators and administrators so as not to have the site controlled by one clique within debate. Absolutely nothing you have posted here answers why this is not a preferable option to VB.
Michael:
You’re obviously free to approach this discussion however you want. BUT, if you let yourself get frustrated too easily with people’s seeming incompetance I really think you’ve already been defeated. There are people who will inevitably agree with you, there are people who no matter what you say will fight for VB. That will be inevitable. I truly don’t believe I personally have a vested interest in any “debate faction” and I agree with what you have to say. But, using profanity and getting frustrated only makes it easier for your opponents to dismiss you, and those who sit on the fence to turn away. Good luck at districts.
Posted from: 129.116.10.2
February 7th, 2007 22:15
This argument is completely silly:
“The fact that the only people actually voicing arguments against michael’s position and my own (your post still really only tangentially answers my greatest concern with VB hosting/controlling forums in addition to news and results) are employees of the Victory Briefs Institute is functionally a link to my argument, VB will always protect its own.”
This is because it is an example of ridiculous link stories in debate trickling into real life. The argument is that because Victory Briefs people defend each other, they are clearly prejudiced enough to do things like censor opposing viewpoints. I completely agree: in fact, I’m so biased that if you criticize VBI, I will come to your house and destroy your computer. The warrant here is absurd. There are other mitigating factors which prevent censorship, such as, we’re not crazy.
Not to mention that we often disagree over certain things and are not hesitant to make those disagreements public, and a lot of us are friends with people from other camps.
Posted from: 152.17.54.204
February 7th, 2007 22:34
John:
You’re taking my argument a little too far. I never accused VB of censorship, in fact if you direct your attention to my first post, I rebuked Shea Strausman for claims of censorship.
My point is that we should have an open forum in which I can criticize a policy of VB or a VBI staff member’s decision in a round without every VB employee who reads the post rushing to the defensive. As silly as it may sound, as long as the only outlet of online communication is this website, you guys have a permanent homefield advantage. There will always be a greater propensity of posts from the “VB faction” than any other on this site because those people just pay more attention to what goes on here.
My point serves a second function though, if VB is so great and everybody loves it, why are the only people adamantly coming to its defense its own employees?
Posted from: 129.116.10.2
February 7th, 2007 22:49
Alright fair enough, I did mischaracterize your argument.
Here is my partially new response: First, the claim at the bottom of my last post is still relevant. We often do disagree and make those disagreements public, i.e., I thought Babb was kind of pulling stuff out of the “lacanian post-politics playbook”. We don’t immediately rush to defend each other. Second, your argument is just straight up not true. Go look at the posts in this thread. There are very very many people posting in defense of Victory Briefs/disputing Michael’s arguments who are not from Victory Briefs. That’s not to say his argument is indefensible or completely unsupported, just that you cannot polarize discussion so simply. Third, a lot of VB people post on westman too. Trust me, if your claim is true, I have no idea why we won’t flock to defend each other somewhere else. If financial ties are that strong, a change of venue probably won’t do much. Fourth, I think you’re focusing too much on the scenario in which discussion happens and not the actual arguments being made. It seems like discourse is not completely reducible to the venue it occurs within. Maybe our arguments are just right or persuasive and not simply accepted because we have a “home field advantage”.
Posted from: 152.17.54.204
February 7th, 2007 23:08
John:
1) Your “disagreement” with Babb wasn’t actually content related in the larger scheme of things. I’m not denying VB employees their individuality, you don’t all judge rounds the same way, don’t like the same arguments, but you all love VB. You never really disagree with Babb’s main point (that Michael’s wrong and VB should fill the void left by Westman (i.e. control of the open forum for discussion online for the LD community)).
2) I want the name (or pseudonym) of just one person who made a substantive, defensible argument that VB should not be the locus of and open online forum for discussion (better put, a poster in favor of VB control), who is not affiliating with VBD. Jay and Nick Bubb never say VB control of an open forum good, and they’re the only non-VB posters who disagree with part of Michael’s post. Note the word substantive, Shagrin saying “Ryan Cooper speaks the truth” is not an argument or defense.
3) When’s the last time you’ve been to Westman? Posting is fairly rare and the amount of people online is never in the double digits.
4) Financial ties (and lack thereof) change everything. Yes you and your peers will still post on whatever new forum might spring up, but your concerns and opinions will be more equally met with people from other camps, who can’t voice their opinions on this website without people like you, Ryan, and Babb jumping down their throats in defense of their organization. Notice that there are several names who probably agree with michael (given past positions in past articles) who haven’t spoken up here. But, this still doesn’t answer my argument that when the site administrators can dismiss somebody as immature or hostile whenever they question the organization, that harms the legitimacy of the poster.
4) Who accepts your arguments John? A bunch of mindless VB groupies who havent contributed to this discussion in any productive fashion? This article exists because your arguments aren’t unanimously accepted. It makes sense that a lot of the people who read VB attended VBI, have ties to the organization in some way.
Posted from: 129.116.45.213
February 7th, 2007 23:24
A few thoughts in response to Tom:
I suppose there is no way to know for sure why VBD became dominant over Westman. I find your counter hypothesis interesting. I was makign the assumption that b/c Westman still works fine today that the transition had nothing to do with the structure or functionality of the site. You might be right that a period of time where Westman became disfuncational led to a transfer and people have failed to remigrate for no other reason than inertia. I think this argument relies to heavliy on the idea that people once people have started posting on a website they won’t use another forum for any reason short of that forum completely failing. Surely, there is some other explanation for VBD dominance other than inertia and laziness. While you might not appreciate the content (results, articles, interviews, pictures, paradigms, etc) that VBD provides many, many people do. I think it is just undeniable that on the content driven nature of VBD is at least partially responsible for VBD’s success.
Also the fact that Westman and other alternatives are merely barebones as you put it I think doesn’t question their existence as an alternative, it merely demonstrates that people aren’t utilizing them.
Uh, so my argument about more forums leading to homogenous discussion is hypocritical, disconcerting, even disgusting? All I’m saying is that if other online forums want to compete with VBD they likely are going to have be content driven (obviously we disagree here.) My use of NSD as an example was bad. Whoever started a new forum, be it a person, a group, a camp, whoever…the odds are that different groups of people, most likely like minded people will begin to identify with each unique community. This happens all the time online. Conservate posters post on convservative blogs, liberal posters on liberal blogs, etc.. I’m not saying NSD (once again bad example) or whomever else shouldn’t make an alternative website. I actually encouraged people to do so. It’s just worthwhile pointing out that one symptom of creating new forums for discusssion is simultaneously dicreasing the actual substance of that discussion. Maybe I’m wrong. But disgusting and hypocritical?
Posted from: 74.70.147.189
February 7th, 2007 23:30
I just want to preface what I am going to say, by first warning that I havent read all of the comments on the thread. This is relevant to the article itself. Michael, I think the concerns you bring up are relevant and interesting. I agree with a lot of what you say, especially where you bring up there that needs to be a way for users of VBD to create their own threads to discuss, and that these threads should be more accesible in the long-term. However , in regards to the comment Ryan Cooper made, I see where he is coming from. I think that you should coat your concerns with at least an acknowledgement to Mr. Cruz and Bietz for putting so much time and effort into this site. Without people like these, there would be no way to have any discussion, including your article, what-so-ever. Also,I would like to point out that VBD doesnt intend ” to dominate” the community, it does not have any control over what users want to utilize. Simply put, if someone else is willing to take the time to create their own forum, then I encourage that, but when you do criticize VBD( which i am not saying is categorically wrong), then at least make you show appreciation for the existence of a forum amd locus for debate news before indicting it.
In conclusion, I agree with the content of Michael’s post, but warn him to present it in a more polished manner. His concerns are well warranted and legimitmate, putting the same concerns into less caustic rhetoric would work wonders.
Thank you to Mr. Cruz for letting Mangus write this article. I think this shows your willingness to truly engage the substance of what he has to say, even though you do not agree with it.
Posted from: 129.116.45.213
February 7th, 2007 23:36
“Yes you and your peers will still post on whatever new forum might spring up, but your concerns and opinions will be more equally met with people from other camps, who can’t voice their opinions on this website without people like you, Ryan, and Babb jumping down their throats in defense of their organization.”
Come on. First, while Babb has a history of posting, really the three of us are fairly rare posters. I don’t think we jump on anyones throat. If you are going to accuse anyone of that read Mangus’s posts. He is basically on a profane self-righteous rant trying to convince himself that there is no way anyone could possibly have anything meaningful to say to him. Surely everyone else just doesn’t know how to read. I mean maybe somethings ive said have been overly hostile. Maybe immature. Probably stupid. But good lord. To portray the three of us as demonic guards who defend VB at all costs is just silly. Particularly considering the vast number of issues which we agree with Mangus on.
The fact that VB employees defend the organization is expected and normal. Victory Briefs has provided people a forum to criticize it. And now you are asking that nobody even attempts to defend it because that merely demonstrates that VBD stifles discusion. That is like saying you should be able to go into Starbucks and stage a protest, and when the manager comes out and rather than saying get the hell out of my business he says lets have a discussion about this I see some of your points, you then reply that he has no right to say criticize you he is just a part of the corporate machine.
Posted from: 172.191.114.120
February 7th, 2007 23:37
mangus- what about individuals that feel intimidated b/c they are frought with vbdism?
Posted from: 152.17.54.204
February 7th, 2007 23:41
Sorry Ryan, calling your argument “disgusting” was a rhetorical exaggeration, I still think it’s absurd.
I think a lot of my position is starting to get warped. I LIKE VBD, I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS DO, I RESPECT YOUR INSTITUTE, I SUPPORT VBD HAVING A SORT OF MONOPOLY OVER RESULTS ETC.
Now that it’s (hopefully) clear that I do not hate your organization, my point is simply that VBD should exist as a provider of results in conjunction with an unbiased website with no corporate afiliation that exists as a provider of an open online forum for discussion. That’s the position I’m defending.
If you claim you’re encouraging more forums to spring up, then I apologize again for mis-understanding your argument. I read your post as saying “other sites bad.”
The idea of a new unbiased source is that substance might decrease temporarily as the shift from VBD to New-forum takes place until VBD has a clearly defined role as a results provider and X new forum as a provider of open discussion.
Posted from: 129.116.10.2
February 7th, 2007 23:47
Yah, since apparently you don’t know nearly as much as you think you do, we can go through some names. I think the ridiculous conditions you put on whether or not someone external to VBI is defending VBI speaks to how weak your claim is. I guess for me to not be mindlessly defending VBI I would need to throw in some personal insults towards Babb (well, there is his desire to get with Mel Gibson and erase the history of indigenous peoples in south america) and a complete rejection of his position. I have no idea why people aren’t at least partially defending VBI even if they criticize some aspects.
Starting with the people you just write off…
Jay: “Mike might blame that on the structure of VBD and the debate community in general. I don’t buy that- I blame the lack of constructive dialogue on the fact that it’s high school debate.” Seems to be saying that VBD does not hurt discussion like Michael says it does, which is a defense.
Nick: “I don’t want to be characterized either as significantly attacking VBD, though. Jon and Mike do an awesome job of attempting to cover everything in the country and inviting people to the table. No one has more respect for the work Bietz and Cruz do, than me… because I’ve been quite inspired about their efforts to create a community that I’ve tried to do it for my own state.” Seems like he is praising the aspects of VBD which help discussion.
Menick says VBD is the natural place for a forum.
“New Trier KM” (sorry I don’t know your name?) says VB forums are an effective solution.
“Thurm” says VBD is not the cause of the problems.
Horowitz says the problems VBD does have are non-unique.
Michelin Massey thinks VBD is a good thing (yah he used to work at VBI, but go look at the NSD staff page – if financial ties are so strong, he should have done a complete 180).
Pashler doesn’t think VBD exacerbates the problems.
So yeah your claims are just completely absurd. There are plenty of non-VBD people who think VBD is worth having around. It makes zero sense for you to say that they’re only defending VBD if they defend the thesis you say they should.
But I didn’t really want to study for biology, so I’m just going to go down the rest of your post.
1. What does “we all love VBD” even mean? It is very very clear to me that we will call each other out from time to time, despite if it makes us seem “non-unified” or “weak” in response to challengers.
2. Above.
3. Completely non-responsive. Yeah, the alternative forum is not very strong. My argument is that even if it were, it would not mitigate financial ties.
I think since you have two “4′s” the first one is a reason why financial ties won’t be as significant if we change forums. So my response is that if your characterization of this thread is accurate and it’s a couple of ardent VBI defenders against hordes of unaffiliated challengers, I see no way “[our] concerns and opinions” could be any more equally met than they already are. I really really doubt that anyone is afraid of two first year outs and Stephen Babb and I think it’s “disconcerting and borderline disgusting” (sorry I stole your over the top rhetoric) that you would speak for them and claim that they’re too timid to speak for themselves. Where’s Alcoff when you need her? Finally, I have no idea why calling someone immature or hostile necessarily means a rejection of their message (check out Week’s post above) or why that power uniquely rests in the hands of the administrators.
4. Yo a. see the above list and b. this has nothing to do with my argument. My claim is that you have completely reduced discourse to the power relations of authority figures and completely ignored the content of the arguments themselves.
Posted from: 152.17.54.204
February 7th, 2007 23:48
Didn’t see the second post, was in the midst of writing the one above.
The fact that you’re rare posters isn’t terribly relevant. I very rarely post also. My argument is that VBD shouldn’t be the locus of an open forum because yes, it’s normal and expected for you guys to defend your friends and your employer. I don’t begrudge you that, but that’s why I don’t think this is the best place for an “open” forum. It’s controlled by a group of people with a definite financial and factional interest in the community.
Posted from: 169.229.77.223
February 7th, 2007 23:50
I don’t know that I have much of substance to say, so I’m not going to bother until I can make sure I’m making at least a decent point. That means that if you want to read something substantive, move on to something else…
Regardless, though, I want to say that while we were both in HS, I wasn’t exactly the biggest fan of Mangus’, based on what I’d heard of him and seeing him from afar than any personal interaction (very unfair of me, and a mistake, but…not the first such mistake I’ve made, and prolly won’t be the last). Seeing his posts here, though, I have newfound respect for someone who cares enough about the activity and little enough about others’ reactions that he’s willing to post such an article. I’ve had ideas about debate that I felt like sharing before, but chose inaction based on some combination of laziness and fear of reprisal/an ugly mess, and I think acknowledging the stance Mangus is willing to take, regardless of your views on the stance, is worthwhile.
Similarly, I don’t really know anyone affiliated with VBI at all, but they made a point to allow such a guest column, which speaks volumes regarding their desire to have open dialogue. You can hate their camp or their content, but doubting their love for the activity is frankly impossible. Even if Mangus is right about the structural problems of VBD, I think he concedes right at the top that he has no ill will against the people associated with it, and rightly so.
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 8th, 2007 00:08
Hey Tom, first of all: I have mad respect for a lot of the arguments you’re making. I don’t think we’ve talked before, but you make a lot of sense. To that end, tomorrow, I want to respond in more depth on how this conversation has developed.
I want to briefly comment, though, on this idea that VB corporate goons are jumping on people…
First, I’m really honest about my bias. In fact, you will notice at bottom of one of my posts to Mangus I acknowledge the relevance of mutual bias. So, people can take that for what it is… though I think motives shouldn’t obfuscate the merits of my arguments.
Second, I have absolutely no corporate incentive in making my posts. I don’t get paid to “defend this house.” I have primarily been involved with the summer program (VBI), though I also write topic material. It is well known that VBI has not been a money-maker. I do get paid to work there, but frankly I’ve been paid more for working at other camps.
That said, while I concede a bias in terms of affiliation and ideology (how I think the community would look), I wouldn’t really say it’s financial. I have worked at a ton of camps, and if VBI imploded tomorrow, I would just work somewhere else. I defend VBs because I believe strongly in what they do for the community and how they think about debate. If they stop paying me, someone else can start. But ultimately, I’d rather work for something I really believe in… and that isn’t to say I haven’t been huge fans of other programs. I worked at NDF twice and absolutely loved it. And I am looking forward to being at UNT this summer in addition to VBI. It’s nice to work for people you like and are willing to defend.
Third, it’s not like everyone at VBs agrees about everything. Trust me. We are all opinionated people and disagree internally all the time.. most organizations, at least healthy ones, are like that. So, I’d be careful about reading some conspiratorial agenda. We agree about more than we disagree, but there isn’t much of a “company line.”
Anyway, I want to engage some of the other things you’ve said tomorrow.. but enough for now.
best,
sb
Posted from: 152.17.54.204
February 8th, 2007 00:19
John:
Let’s go through the posts first;
1) I don’t really feel like I “wrote off” Jay and Nick, in fact I acknowledged both of their meaningful contribution to the conversation. Neither defend VBD as the locus for an open forum or a replacement for Westman. Fine, VBD good, I even agree. Nick’s post deals with the inclusive nature of VB coverage, Jay’s just says VB doesn’t make the problem worse, that doesn’t mean that VB is the best place.
2) “VBD is a natural place for a forum,”… What on earth does that even mean?
Honestly, the majority of these posts = VB good and I don’t think I’ve said anything to the contrary.
You seem insistent on misrepresenting everything I say, so in addition to clarifying I’ll try to respond.
1) The fact that all of you are uniquely affiliated with Victorybriefs makes this a uniquely bad place for a forum, in the same way and NSD forum would be bad. This is your website, you have an interest in giving preference to issues relating to VB. Is this claim really that far-fetched?
2) My argument isn’t that people do or should hate VBD, my claim isn’t even that more people on this thread agree with me than you (that’s clearly not true). My argument is that your assessment of this article and the posts under it as hordes of people supporting you because you’re “persuassive and make sense.” My point isn’t that people are “afraid” of you, it’s that when vb employees decry and criticize a post on a website url called victorybriefs.net, posts in dissent are robbed of their legitimacy. You never really explain why that’s not true, you just continue to mock me (I’m not sure why, I don’t even know you).
3) I don’t think I’m speaking for anybody, I said in an earlier post that I would feel uncomfortable posting a problem I saw with Jon Cruz’s judging philosophy because VB affiliates would instantly come down on me instead of allowing for a discussion of the way Cruz judges rounds.
4) What content have I ignored? You’ve warped my position into something it never was because I guess the argument you’ve contructed is easier to attack, so let’s make this really simple for the last time:
My argument is, VBD should cover results, and another unbiased source to host an open forum.
I’ve vested more time into these posts than I ever intended to. I appreciated the discussion, you guys can have the last word if you want. My screen name is greaterdark is anybody’s interested in continuing the discussion. It’s now 2:20 AM and I’ve got an enlgish paper to write. Good luck with Victorybriefs.
Posted from: 152.17.54.204
February 8th, 2007 00:29
Last quick post for the night,
Babb:
I respect your bias, and I respect the individuality of Victorybriefs employees (I mentioned this earlier).
The corporate motivation I’m talking about doesn’t really function at an indvidual level. I’m well aware that instructors make very little money. The corporate motive functions at a more institutional level (I think).
I reject the idea of a VB conspiracy, I believe that most people involved in this activity at the instructional level remain involved because they want to do some form of good for debaters.
Just adding a few quick thoughts because I’d rather not be blackballed as an “enemy” of Victorybriefs. Hopefully this discussion can continue later.
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 8th, 2007 01:04
LMAO to John’s comment on me and Mel Gibson, btw.
Posted from: 71.218.243.251
February 8th, 2007 02:14
Michael,
I read your initial posting in its entirety — twice.
(1) My comments about advertisements were not necessarily in response to you, specifically, just really the idea about the number of ads on the site. It seemed to be a point of testiness from people.
(2) My comments offered a solution to make your posting’s dreams a reality. I think that *your* reply is pretty non-responsive.
I’ll try to explain myself in a parable…
Imagine if Fox or Time-Warner owned a magazine (I know, difficult, right?) Then, one day, you decided that Fox and/or Time-Warner really sucked because you feel like they stifle public discourse on important contemporary issues and that people shouldn’t read the magazine in question.
To explain your position, you take out several multi-page ads and the editors allow you to write an op-ed piece in the magazine. You tear the magazine into tiny little pieces and the people who love the magazine write replies to you in the letters ot the editor and maybe even a snazzy op-ed response. During this time, the magazine sells millions of copies because of that controversy!
VBD operates in the same fashion. It exists in as much as people want to use it because it’s not easy to host, manage, and continually add content. If you write a piece that generates more attention and traffic on the VBD site, you’ve defeated your own cause. When I was in LA, I learned that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. It was you yourself who quoted Mike Tyson on a thread related to Miss Huberlie a while back. I’ll be sure to spell your name correctly.
If you really think that VBD is the wrong forum to create discussion, do not use it. This solution is not reactionary at all. It’s quite progressive and non-violent. It was the kind of reply used by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mohatma Ghandi.
Websites thrive on traffic. The more unique hits a site gets, the more it can charge for ad space. The more unique hits a site gets, the more its overall message is conveyed to readers who come to read/look at the site.
Even though 106 unique people have not replied to this thread, there are thousands who read these comments *on this site*. Will they stop visiting the site because of your essay? Probably not. But no matter what, VBD gets readers to look at the site.
This seems to be completely opposite of your aim. Or, am I reading you incorrectly?
Posted from: 129.116.47.100
February 8th, 2007 02:50
While I understand and agree with many of the points Babb, Ryan, and John are making, I also am sympathetic of Michael’s frustration that it seems people aren’t reading what he bothers to post. That being said, I also agree with David that the hostility of his responses comes off perhaps as a little strong.
Michael makes a couple of points about Victory Briefs I think are worth noting once again:
“[On VBD]
1) cant start your own thread w/o having to write a feature article
2) lots of smart/qualified people avoid discussions
3) discussions fall to the bottom, etc.”
I don’t think these are any part of a conspiracy or any flaw whatsoever in the incredible VB community (and I’ve been a little confused all along why everyone has been so defensive of VB). It’s just a flaw in the conceptual design of the site, more than likely because it was designed to post results and accomodate a few brief comments thereabout, not to serve as a public message board. I’ll address whether it even should be such below.
Babb calls for Michael to be comparative, and while I agree this is the only way to really “resolve” the discussion, I don’t think it’s necessarily a prerequisite to discuss the issues Michael highlights.
I think a redesign of VBD could possibly accomodate some of Michael’s criticisms, but I think that might be a mistake, unnecessarily complicating the website, making it needlessly cumbersome, and detracting from its important business goals and community reporting service (whether of the “national” or local circuits). This is a service probably better served by an alternative forum (pardon the pun), though I think it’s irrelevant if it’s physically hosted by the Victory Briefs servers or not.
Westman at one point in the past was excellent for this service, but as a quick glance at many of the forums will show, an unmoderated message board is as good as worthless. Not only for aesthetic and more obvious reasons, but because people with worthwhile opinions often leave in disgust. The discussions on Westman are not only declining in substance because things have been ported over to VBD, but because so many of the intelligent people with something worthwhile to say who used to post there have become disappointed and left. I know I’ve stopped even looking at the topic forums and most of my posts in the other forums are jovial at best.
What we should take away from the Westman forums experience is two things:
1) Moderation is absolutely essential. Moderators should also be chosen from varied backgrounds and representing varied interests. This solves back any lingering VB conspiracy holdouts.
2) Discussion would be much facilitiated by a more accommodating and intentionally-designed posting mechanism. On this I refer to Michael’s above observations and my own that this box is really small.
I think the Cross-X forums are a really worthwhile model to consider. Certainly Menick and others are right to observe that VB is the natural place for discussion, but there’s no reason why A) this couldn’t be changed with a clear dichotomy of purposes/focuses (debaters are generally pretty intelligent and can probably figure this out) or B) VB couldn’t maintain its well-deserved hege and find some way to expand its focus on an aspect that seems tangentical to the original purpose of the site and a bit forced in its current implementation, namely a forum for active lengthy/in-depth community discussion (I mean this to be contrasted with the “comments” approach).
I hope this post still makes sense tomorrow. Peace.
Posted from: 134.173.91.53
February 8th, 2007 04:51
I haven’t had a chance to read every post on here so I apologize for redundant content. I’ve done my best to steer clear of well-worn ground.
1) I’m perplexed by this continual rejoinder of “Well see here Jamer, VBD is so objective and inclusive that they let you write this article! Doesn’t that just show you how great VBD monopolization is?” Isn’t that the point? Doesn’t VBD silence criticism precisely by allowing Mangus to write this kind of thing? His argument is invariably muted because it is only able to occur thanks to VBDominance, and the existence of this (partially pacified) criticism on VBD is just the sort of thing it needs to legitimize itself. If VBD lets the occasional critic speak, it becomes much easier for everyone else to say to themselves “Oh, I guess VBD isn’t so bad after all, they let Mangus post that thing”. Accusations against VBD are dead in the water; the people managing the site are so objective that they let their most virulent critics post about how bad VBD is once in a while. This is the auto-immunity of social institutions at its finest. Incorporate the critic to silence him.
My argument does not depend on any claim about the motivations of any VBD staff members. Maybe no one at VBD anticipated this kind of result at all. The outcome is just what happens when institutions incorporate critics, regardless of why the choice was made to include the opposition in the first place.
2) Why is “monopolies are bad” suddenly a controversial claim? Monopoly control over media outlets eliminates discussion which is truly contrary to the interests of the monopoly (again, my argument is that this thread is by no means contrary to the interests of VBD, so don’t call “empirically denied” on me). Here is a simple example. Aaron Timmons has repeatedly called for a critical comparison of LD camps. In the days of lddebate.org, this resulted in many heated debates between staff members of UNT, NSD, NDF, Iowa, and VBI. Are we really supposed to expect VBI to post a front page article on camp comparison which gives everyone equal billing time?
Monopolies are also bad for monopolists, not to mention community civility. If Jon Cruz doesn’t post results from some tournament, or doesn’t have pictures taken at tournaments that include a bunch of students and staff members of other camps, or accidentally posts results from a bunch of other events over LD results, one is immediately tempted to think that he is trying to spin the facts to favor VBI. Then you get accusations and counter-accusations about VBI plots. Then you get bitter and sustained internecine conflict.
Additionally, a VBD media monopoly might propel us towards a VBI camp monopoly. First, the existence of VBD effectively absolves VBI from having to compete in the camp market at all. If the only place for discussion about LD is also, incidentally, a gigantic advertising and promotional machine for VBI, a large number of people will go to VBI every year no matter what. Second, if VBI has sole control over community media outlets (which is increasingly the case) then other camps will have fewer and fewer opportunities to voice their positions or advertise at all. This condition tends to squeeze camps out of existence. Why is this bad? Camps play a central role in shaping debaters’ views about the activity. The quality of instruction offered at camps matters. Monopolies eliminate competition and with it the incentive to provide a better product. Thus far, we haven’t come close to the realization of this possibility, but that does not mean that it could not become a more realistic threat in the future.
Before people jump on me for being anti-VBI or something, note that I have said nothing in particular about the institute or its instructors. The exact same risks and costs would be associated with an NSD media monopoly. That’s part of why I have absolutely no interest in the creation of an NSD version of VBD. I think having open forums and a variety of perspectives is crucial, and when it comes to camps, I think the existence of a number of debate camps is the best possible situation for the activity. Competition between different firms spurs innovation and quality increases, encourages price reductions, places disincentives on cronyism and discrimination, and helps to ensure the existence of a variety of options distinctly tailored to suit divergent consumer tastes.
To be sure, VBD provides an important service to our community, and I am by no means trying to suggest that it should not exist. This does not mean, however, that we should resign ourselves to an acceptance of monopoly. There is another way.
3) Ryan Cooper says any alternative forum needs to be content-driven. I agree. Tom Defranco says that a forum associated with any other camp would be just as bad as VBDominance. I agree. John Lewis says VBD is important and should exist. As I’ve mentioned, I agree with that too. In light of these commitments, I think we need a content-driven, independent media outlet which does not overlap with the primary function of VBD (news). So here is my idea (which draws heavily on some earlier ideas I’ve seen pushed by Matt Scarola and Alex Smith, among others): an online journal of articles on LD debate coupled with a forum for discussion on the articles and other topics of interest. Camp lecture notes and videotaped rounds or lectures might also be posted. That takes care of the problem of making the new outlet content-driven and distinct in function from VBD, what now of independence? I suggest the site have a moderating board with representatives from a variety of perspectives. This could be done on camp/organizational lines (i.e. one rep each from VBI, NSD, Pinnacle, UNT, LDEP, whatever), regional lines, or something else.
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 8th, 2007 07:02
If I start a forum on http://www.miaskiewicz.com, can I have rotating statues of me rotating 24/7 in a circle to always face the sun?
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 8th, 2007 08:22
Nix the double “rotating” in that sentence.
I like Eric’s idea of an online journal devoted to discussion of debate issues. If anyone is interested in pursuing this idea further, I am willing to set-up the back-end / design. I also am fairly sure I have some free webhosting credits available to me through GoDaddy, we’d just need a domain.
- Greg
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 8th, 2007 08:34
michelin, youre still way off-base here. i am not trying to bring down vbd. i think ive said this around 8 times now. vbd’s continual existence does not bother me. my article is not a demand for us to not use vbd any more. its for us to recognize vbd as what it is – a news site, not a discussion forum – and try to find someplace else to do what vbd doesnt do well. there is no reason that this article has any marginal impact so to speak. i recognized upon writing the article that it would get the most attention if i put it on vbd, because, as no one has challenged throughout this discussion, right now other venues for LD dialog are pretty ineffective. its a suggestion that we try to either pick an existing forum or create a new one, and then use that in the future. thats all. just because i get angry at people and throw in some bad words doesnt make me reactionary.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
February 8th, 2007 09:31
Eric:
I think probably a lot (but not all) of your points do not turn on this – but a monopoly? Not to be hyper-technical, but only if we completely eviscerate the concept of a monopoly could VB even be distantly analogized to one. There is no exclusive control, there is no predatory pricing, there are competitors, albeit ones that are not as successful (yet), there is no unfair trade practices, etc.
While I agree with you that VB publishing an article by a critic of VB does not by itself demonstrate that VB does not silence criticism…but if we are really to take the fact that they do publish critics as affirmative evidence of silencing critics, you have really put them in a Catch-22 – don’t publish Magnus (or Baldwin or you or whoever), and they are silencing critics….do publish them, and they are actually performing a Jedi mind trick of silencing critics. This is not Fox news putting up a token (and unknown) liberal for the rest of the pundits to make fun of…this is giving substantial space to prominent critics.
Which is not to say that I disagree with you over whether there should be alternative forums for debate discussion – there should. Of course, wishing doesn’t make it so…I think that Cruz, Bietz et al have made solid attempts to create an open forum, but there are of course risks with discussion being concentrated in one venue…which is what I think you mean when you point to monopolies…my problem is just a monopoly means something very specific, it is not the same as a popular web-site….
Posted from: 160.39.247.181
February 8th, 2007 09:45
If Eric’s parenthetical note didn’t make it clear, I very strongly support the type of site outlined in his #3. To that end, if any instructor has either lecture or class notes they wouldn’t mind sharing with the community at large, please email them to either Eric or myself (my gmail.com account name is: mscarola). I agree with some of the arguments being made on this thread about the benefits of an additional place for online discussion, particularly one focused less on things like pictures and field reports. But I want to make it clear that my support for a website that focuses more on things like lecture notes existed prior to this conversation, and that I would hate for people to refuse to participate because they see it as a threat to VBD. The fact that going to debate camp can cost thousands of dollars represents a ridiculous financial barrier to the acquisition of largely communal knowledge. I hope that any efforts made to make this knowledge more widely available will be supported by everyone in the community, regardless of institute affiliation. Given Victory Briefs’ tremendous efforts to be inclusive I’m positive this won’t be a problem, but I just want to make sure people don’t just label any new sites as “anti-VBD” because they misread the pursuit of other goals as hostility to Victory Briefs.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 8th, 2007 10:31
i love the irony of bryce misspelling my last name after michelin’s allusion to the tyson quote. (this post not intended as being remotely confrontational – im gonna assume bryce typed it wrong)
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
February 8th, 2007 10:32
Apologies…my mistake.
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 8th, 2007 10:52
Matt,
[This is just a hypothetical, I actually have a bunch of lectures notes I can put up.]
I think you’d have trouble recruiting college student judges/coaches to participate. If we consider debate coaching a market, the only thing that makes me valuable in the debate community is that I have access to and understand lots of philosophy texts. If I give all my notes away, then I can’t make bank from selling materials to random rich kids.
Posted from: 160.39.210.183
February 8th, 2007 11:23
Greg,
I think there are a lot of things that make people valuable to debate camps besides the fact that they have good reading comprehension :-)
Aside from things like name recognition’s effect on attendance, presumably the people who would be hired by debate camps are also good teachers within lab as well as within lectures. They can help people with cases, blocks, skills drills and so on. One of the best things about NDF is office hours, the 1-on-1 time you get with the faculty member of your choice. That’s an experience you can’t give away on the internet.
But even if the people we’re talking about are terrible teachers in lab, suck in office hours and can only lecture on philosophy, you’d still want them giving those lectures so that they can field questions and clarify more confusing issues. If you’re (a hypothetical you’re, not you specifically) great at philosophy and would be hired because of it, it seems like posting your notes wouldn’t significantly interfere with getting hired.
But lets imagine a world in which you’d only be hired for your notes. You give the lecture, someone else jots down what your saying, and then you don’t get hired back the next year. It seems like if this is the basis for hiring, you’re pretty screwed anyway so you might as well try to acquire good will in the hopes of getting hired back.
Moreover, I don’t think most debaters have a signature skill, something they can do that no one else can. Insofar as hiring decisions aren’t based on exclusive access to what is largely communal knowledge, making that information more accessible to members in the community who have yet to access it seems like a nearly unqualified good. No one’s take on the 2AR is that revolutionary that it’s the only reason they can get a job. So again, it’s not the information that gets you hired.
Finally, even if I’m completely wrong and it IS the information that gets you hired, just post lectures that you’re not uniquely qualified to give. It’s still possible to give back even if you’re afraid to give as much as you can. If you’re hired because of your philosophy lectures, share your notes about the 1AR.
And so it’s clear, the “you” in that post is not Greg. He’s speaking hypothetically, and so am I.
Posted from: 160.39.210.183
February 8th, 2007 11:32
Whoops, you weren’t just talking about debate camps. Sorry for misreading your post and beginning my reply with a discussion of reading comprehension :-) Name recognition aside, I think what I said still applies to having an individual hire you.
Posted from: 134.173.91.53
February 8th, 2007 13:05
Bryce -
1. You are conflating effects of monopoly or legal tests for the presence of monopoly with monopoly itself, understood as the condition in which there is only one provider of a product or service. In this case, it is obvious that VBD has (or is fast approaching having) a monopoly over debate media. There is no other major website. This is not true of VBI the camp. Clearly there are competitors; I manage one. One of my outlying effects was the possibility that the first type of monopoly could translate into the second.
2. On the double-bind issue: clearly VBD is not going to continually give equal billing to its critics, nor should it do so. That means, though, that the inclusion of occasional criticism will tend to have the effect I pointed out. Just read the posts on this thread if you don’t believe me. My point was that people would react by dismissing critics of VBD as dominating the discussion, and thats exactly what happened. My argument was NOT that Bietz and Cruz have an evil plot.
Posted from: 68.109.250.194
February 8th, 2007 13:56
I don’t have much to add. I just think that if everybody referred to me by my last name instead of my first, I’d probably get a bit annoyed.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 8th, 2007 14:17
ocon-to tell you the truth, i fucking hate it. i always introduce myself as michael, call myself michael when i have occassion to speak in the 3rd person, etc. its been an uphill battle to avoid people at pitt calling me by my last name; i try to avoid telling it to people because once i do it seems like ‘michael’ just sortof disappears.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 8th, 2007 14:23
building off michelin’s criticism: i have an idea for another article (this one sticks to debate in a substantive sense, rather than dealing w/ broad community issues). if anyone wants to launch a website, i would be happy to publish it there. failing that, ill put it on westman. look for this in the next few weeks hopefully.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
February 8th, 2007 14:31
Eric:
I don’t think I am conflating the actual definition of monopoly with a definition of a monopoly that doesn’t actually exist…what I am trying to do is point out that you are conflating a website that is the primary (or sole) forum for debate discussion with a monopoly….a monopoly is distinctly not that there is one provider of a service…it necessarily requires some element of exclusive control of that service. That is the colloquial definition. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly
Legally, there are layers of analysis that go beyond that that are not relevant here, except that they point to the firm with monopoly must be in some way capitalizing or exerting barriers of entry to maintain the monopoly. Monopolistic behavior could be predatory pricing (here, obviously not an issue), or forcing producers to not provide their services to other providers, etc.
Here, there is not exclusive control – there is a website where discussion happens. VB does not control blogging technology, it has not acquired competitors, it has not erected barriers of entry.
Now, I don’t think this mitigates your points – there is still a problem where there is a concentration in one outlet all of the discussion…but I think it drastically overstates your position to term VB a monopoly as a starting premise of your argument.
The reason to draw the distinction is that I don’t think your criticisms are intended to be directed at VB somehow failing to accomodate or blocking alternative websites and discussions…but when you label VB a monopoly, you are implicitly doing so…
On point 2, I am not sure I follow – I certainly did not take your position to be that there is an evil plot – but you do certainly seem to be criticizing (or questioning) both VB not giving equal billing to critics and VB giving billing to critics. While that is not necessarily incoherent (e.g., Fox news), here, I think VB has actually extended more space and discussion to critics of VB than anyone would have expected…if some people take that as evidence that VB does not just promote a singular viewpoint, well, good, because it is pretty good evidence of just that…
Now, again, I think your larger point is sound – there is a danger in having all discussion happen on one site…that danger can not just be an evil plot, but the necessary biases and market pressures…media consolidation is dangerous on all levels (even if it falls short of a monopoly).
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
February 8th, 2007 14:36
Ok, let me try to pre-empt Eric that the link I provided does say that a monopoly can be a market where there is only one seller…ouch. I could try to dodge that one for awhile, but I will just let it lie…
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
February 8th, 2007 14:43
Yeah, just reread Eric’s initial post…I concede, he was properly and consistently using (a) definition of monopoly as a market with one provider. I am humbled! Off to lick my wounds…teachs me to try to throw my law degree around…
Checking out to vacation – great discussion, all.
Posted from: 169.226.40.115
February 8th, 2007 14:52
Greg, I would be very interested in working to create something of that nature, and I have been considering doing it for a couple months. If you want my help in any way, my email is sstrausman@gmail.com, or if you have AIM mine is thesheamuffin (cutesy, I know.)
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 8th, 2007 17:04
Palmer’s piece:
“1) I’m perplexed by this continual rejoinder of “Well see here Jamer, VBD is so objective and inclusive that they let you write this article! Doesn’t that just show you how great VBD monopolization is?” Isn’t that the point? Doesn’t VBD silence criticism precisely by allowing Mangus to write this kind of thing?”
I LOVE this argument. It is, I think, one of the best arguments to be made against VBD’s inclusion of a piece like Michael’s. [I would note to Michael, though, that this is FAR closer to being ripped from the Zizek playbook than ANYTHING I've said.] There are two problems though:
1. VBD’s inclusion of criticism certainly does not silence it, pretty self-evidently. This article has generated agreement and disagreement with the criticism. It has been published, engaged, generated discussion. Given any remotely practical conception of healthy, critical dialogue.. the fact that this piece has appeared on VBD has proven nothing but beneficial for the piece. If there is more exposure to be found elsewhere, I am sure VBD did not claim exclusive rights to the piece.
2. The ONLY way in which inclusion of this piece would by its own act affect the criticism at all is with respect to only ONE element of the criticism: which is that VBD forecloses any room for criticism. There’s nothing wrong with engaging that element of the criticism through a performative proof to the contrary. But of course, there is a laundry-list of VBD criticism in previous threads on this site which suggest silencing does not take place. Point being: inclusion of the piece would in no way refute other objections regarding how the site functions, what VBs stands for, or whatever else.
3. This sort of argument is so effective precisely because its target (in this case VBD) can absolutely never win. If they don’t include the piece, they silence by exclusion. If they do include it, they apparently silence through inclusion. Which suggests…
4. If you want to question the efficacy of the article being here, fine. Massey has done the same thing. But that is ALL your argument can speak to. To that end, your last paragraph on this point which admits your point has absolutely nothing to do with what VBD SHOULD DO/SHOULD HAVE DONE is absolutely crucial. Your argument is NOT a good response to people saying, “See Jamer, VBD is inclusive.” It is simply a reason why Michael may be better off sending his article elsewhere. Given that it wasn’t, VBD absolutely has been inclusive.
“His argument is invariably muted because it is only able to occur thanks to VBDominance, and the existence of this (partially pacified) criticism on VBD is just the sort of thing it needs to legitimize itself.”
No, it simply suggests that whatever VBD is guilty of, it isn’t silencing opposition. To the extent this demonstrates the legitimacy of the organization, cool. I don’t think VBD NEEDED to publish the article to appear legitimate. But, to the extent VBD tries to include differing opinions, it’s probably a smart thing to do.
“If VBD lets the occasional critic speak, it becomes much easier for everyone else to say to themselves “Oh, I guess VBD isn’t so bad after all, they let Mangus post that thing”.”
I think it is telling that “occasional” modifies critic, here. It isn’t that VBD only occasionally accepts criticism; it is rather that there are only occasional critics. Again, what else should VBD do short of artificially drumming up criticism in some sort of perverse masochism?
“Accusations against VBD are dead in the water; the people managing the site are so objective that they let their most virulent critics post about how bad VBD is once in a while.”
I don’t know that the people managing the site are objective (who has made this claim?). We’ve only maintained they try to be pretty objective despite their interests. But, that certainly doesn’t make any objection ‘dead in the water’. The thrust of the dialogue pursuant to Michael’s post would seem to suggest that there are quite a few opinions out there concerning the criticism; but it has not at all been muted.
“This is the auto-immunity of social institutions at its finest. Incorporate the critic to silence him.”
Well, they aren’t incorporating you just yet, so your criticism should remain 100% effective. We will see where that goes.
“My argument does not depend on any claim about the motivations of any VBD staff members. Maybe no one at VBD anticipated this kind of result at all. The outcome is just what happens when institutions incorporate critics, regardless of why the choice was made to include the opposition in the first place.”
Exactly.
Two final points on this:
1. The problem with what you and Massey are saying (which is essentially the exact same thing, albeit with more fatalistic rhetoric on Michelin’s part and more hostile rhetoric on Eric’s) is that there is NO BETTER WAY to reach the people you want to persuade than by posting on the site they read. If you set up an alternative prior to posting the need for an alternative, the only people reading that alternative are going to be the ones who already thought one was needed. The best way to RELOCATE discussion AWAY from VBD and to somewhere else is OF COURSE to try and persuade VBD readers. To that end, VBD takes a much greater risk by allowing this than by actually muting the criticism by making it difficult for its readers to find it.
***2. The single biggest flaw in your argument is this: ANY REACTION ON VBD’S PART WHICH RESPONDS TO CRITICISM BY MODIFICATION IS READ AS MEANINGLESS. But, why can’t it simply be read as improvement stimulated by criticism? Isn’t that the point of criticism? To effect change? If people say: “VBD doesn’t include enough radical thought,” and VBD responds by saying… “you know what, you’re right: write away!” then VBD is guilty of nothing less than LISTENING TO ITS CRITICS. The only people who wouldn’t like that are people scared they might run out of things to crticize, people so investment in criticism of VBD for its OWN SAKE that they would call any improvement into question. If critics see change, but want more change, they can generate new criticism. But to the extent, real improvements are shaped by real criticism, what more do you want other than a perpetual axe to grind?
“2) Why is “monopolies are bad” suddenly a controversial claim? Monopoly control over media outlets eliminates discussion which is truly contrary to the interests of the monopoly (again, my argument is that this thread is by no means contrary to the interests of VBD, so don’t call “empirically denied” on me).”
I will agree with Bryce on this. A monopoly on media control is a ridiculous claim.
I would also claim, once again, that these arguments take things sooo far out of perspectiv. We are talking about high school LD debate, and a pretty limited subsection of those debaters and coaches at that. So the fact that alternative outlets don’t seem very strong is ridiculous… there just aren’t that many people interested in online debate forums in the first place. I would venture to guess, even, that the vast majority of HIGH SCHOOL LD DEBATERS do not regularly participate in online debate discussion.
“Here is a simple example. Aaron Timmons has repeatedly called for a critical comparison of LD camps. In the days of lddebate.org, this resulted in many heated debates between staff members of UNT, NSD, NDF, Iowa, and VBI. Are we really supposed to expect VBI to post a front page article on camp comparison which gives everyone equal billing time?”
Haha, well if VBD DID that, I’m pretty sure you would be like: “even though we have equal time, we’re being silenced because it’s on the VBD.” I think part of VBD’s attempt to remain somewhat neutral has included an effort to keep camp-discussion off the website. Any discussion here would clearly be seen as a promotional attempt, even if we did give equal time. But that isn’t a reason why all discussions should leave VBD. It is a reason to have that particular discussion on LDDebate.org still. I bet VBD would even be willing to post a link to that discussion, unless you are worried that a link will enable VBD to ‘incorporate’ whatever criticism is generated in that discussion.
“Monopolies are also bad for monopolists, not to mention community civility. If Jon Cruz doesn’t post results from some tournament, or doesn’t have pictures taken at tournaments that include a bunch of students and staff members of other camps, or accidentally posts results from a bunch of other events over LD results, one is immediately tempted to think that he is trying to spin the facts to favor VBI.”
I think this is true. But, I think the reality is that this is caused not so much by a “monopoly” as it is by VBD’s affiliation with a company. And the reality is: that’s a difficult position to be in… pursuing neutrality and one’s interests at the same time of course creates a balancing act, and some doubters. Personally, I would favor just biting the bullet, promoting VBs, and saying hey: the news and discussion here are no worse off because the people hosting the website have opinions. But, they do try to be inclusive and neutral to some degree, and yes that is difficult.
“Then you get accusations and counter-accusations about VBI plots. Then you get bitter and sustained internecine conflict.”
Yah, that sucks. Agreed.
“Additionally, a VBD media monopoly might propel us towards a VBI camp monopoly.”
Assumes a media monopoly link, but running with that…
“First, the existence of VBD effectively absolves VBI from having to compete in the camp market at all.”
You could say the same thing about our products, word of mouth from 250 kids each summer, our large staff, the fact VBI students have been since its inception performed with one or two other camps at the very top.. does VBD add to that? Sure, but I hardly think VBD is THE reason why VBI gets its numbers. We got pretty good numbers before VBD too.
“If the only place for discussion about LD is also, incidentally, a gigantic advertising and promotional machine for VBI, a large number of people will go to VBI every year no matter what.”
Other places people can discuss LD, and specifically camps:
1. LDDebate.org
2. OFFLINE… gasp.. at tournaments, etc.
3. through chat, facebook, phone, and the myriad of other means of communication available outside of the VBD, where people can discuss LD
Additionally, though, people dont HAVE to discuss LD to learn about camps and their advantages. That’s what advertising is for.
“Second, if VBI has sole control over community media outlets (which is increasingly the case) then other camps will have fewer and fewer opportunities to voice their positions or advertise at all.”
VBD doesn’t CONTROL media outlets. That is nuts. Here’s an idea: if you want an opportunity to reach a lot of people and advertise, put together a web experience people want. There is no reason whatsoever other camps can’t put the time and energy into something like the VBD. Failure to do so, I suspect, has very little to do with ‘control of media outlets’. But, it’s easier to be a victim of a corporate monopoly than to give a competitor props on their business model.
And then you end with a slippery-slope impact story, which appears empirically ludicrous given that the recent growth of VBD has not led to less camp competition. Stanford and Kentucky might be smaller, but NSD has grown, and a number of regional camps have grown or been started. There will be at least 4 in Texas this year alone.
“Before people jump on me for being anti-VBI or something, note that I have said nothing in particular about the institute or its instructors. The exact same risks and costs would be associated with an NSD media monopoly.”
So noted. You haven’t made anything personal or inflammatory. The comment is well-reasoned, avoid conspiracy theories, and assumptions about motives. To that end, this is a model post as criticism goes.
“That’s part of why I have absolutely no interest in the creation of an NSD version of VBD.”
Which is a very convenient way to remain victim to “the monopoly”.
“I think having open forums and a variety of perspectives is crucial, and when it comes to camps, I think the existence of a number of debate camps is the best possible situation for the activity.”
Agreed. But, VBI doesn’t have enough rooms to put every other camp out of business.
“Competition between different firms spurs innovation and quality increases, encourages price reductions, places disincentives on cronyism and discrimination, and helps to ensure the existence of a variety of options distinctly tailored to suit divergent consumer tastes.”
But aren’t all of these improvements based on the critical stimulant of competition just another way of coopting and incorporating that competition? :-)
All that said, I think your idea for an alternative is pretty good. I don’t think it’s needed or that the stakes are nearly what they’ve been made out to be. But, it does seem like a cool idea. And, props for actually thinking of something and giving it some legs.
Peace.
sb
Posted from: 152.17.127.41
February 8th, 2007 17:51
babb:
I think it’s difficult for you to jump on board with Bryce, seeing as he already abandoned his position/definition on monopolies as indefensible/just not true.
Nobody is saying there is a VB conspiracy or that you guys are intentionally plotting to take over the internet. However, VB running an open forum is a bad idea because instead of wanting to provide an open forum, you guys want to provide an open forum run by Victorybriefs (I know that sounds weird but I think you know what I mean). The fact that my opinion has been met with criticism from you and Ryan (I still haven’t heard a reason why VB running results and somebody else running a forum is a bad idea), which although appreciated, really just boils down to being a defense of VB good, which nobody here is really contesting (i dont think).
Others responded to my posts with open hostility (still not sure why). I guess I’m just asking for you to explain why we’re better off having VB run a forum than a forum run by somebody else.
If somebody doesn’t answer that (note: saying, people like VB is not a reason to prefer it. neither is saying people left Westman; I want somebody to give me reasons why this community is better off with VB running our primary online forum) then I’ll stop bothering with this discussion. Trying to reason with you is pointless if you won’t step up and tell me why VBD is better than the alt I proposed earlier (a forum hosted by an unbiased source (Shea Strausman is actually a great example of such a person) on which administrators from various debate “factions” would deal with handling different threads. Basically the same way Westman worked.
On an unrealted note: Jon, can you please email me (defrtp6@wfu.edu) I can’t seem to find your contact info on VBD (probably a result of my incompetance) and I had some questions about VBI. Thanks.
Posted from: 152.17.127.41
February 8th, 2007 17:52
*unrelated
Posted from: 71.218.243.251
February 8th, 2007 18:05
Babb,
I believe you have misinterpreted my postings.
In reference to your final two points:
First, my reply was a criticism of Michael’s decision to use this medium to decry it. I find his choice paradoxical and ineffective. I may be a business person now, but my nature is to still help young debaters to improve their arguments. Frankly, I think that I’ve defended the existence of VBD since the market has demanded its growth.
Second, after having worked for VB and in marketing for larger firms, I actually think the site *does not* do enough to promote VB’s interests, although it does do well. This was referenced in my discussion about the number of advertisements on the site and my would be preference to post more of them.
Three, I don’t think I was being a fatalist in my rhetoric. I don’t think the average VBD reader will see a need to move off of VBD because of a posted criticism. If the criticism is so ineffectual, then what’s the point?
Four, my solution says, in effect: if you really take the originally posted viewpoint seriously, you have to live up to it in ALL ways. Personally, I enjoy Jon taking my photos at tournaments to put on the site, so I hope he’ll continue. I’m still awaiting the interview we conducted nearly a year and a half ago to be posted, incidentally. :-)
In any case, much like I find gay conservatives to be a bit strange in their conflicting value structures, I think a person who attempts to water down their convictions by acting from within the system sends a confusing message. As a person who’s been involved with debate for a long time, I find confusing arguments antipersuasive. This is why I find it weird to allow your name, photographs, and essays to be freely perused in this medium if you have a problem with it.
Finally, I don’t think posting this article amounts to VB saying “you’re right, post away.” I think it means that VB is giving space to this particular criticism by this individual. I think you’d be dead-on if this were a regularly featured weekly or bi-weekly column where authors who have beef can say anything they want [in this case, I think that my original criticism would apply even more heavily]. Otherwise, this discussion will slowly evaporate and we’ll patiently await the results of Stanford and Scarsdale.
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 8th, 2007 18:26
Tom,
I think Bryce remains conceptually correct that a monopoly does not exist in any meaningful sense, regardless of what the link says. It’s a website that does well, affiliated with a camp that does well. There are no barriers to entering the market other than the lack of interest and lack of money to be made. Period.
As for the rest, I want to be brief.
If you read through everyone’s comments about relocating discussion, it’s like 95% VBD=bad with a disclosure somewhere like, “But still, I’m not saying VBD shouldn’t exist,” or, “Gee, by the way, thanks for letting me write this criticism about how you guys silence criticism.” Yah, no one wants to nuke VBD. No one wants call any ONE PERSON’s integrity into question.
But NOBODY has ever touched comments I have made with respect to the underlying implication, here: which is that readership be relocated AWAY from VBD. I think other websites are great, and if you read what I wrote to Palmer, I agree that some discussions may be more viable elsewhere (eg where to go to camp). But, that isn’t a reason for all dialogue to happen elsewhere, or a reason for an entite forum to be developed in order to escape the gaze of a monopoly. So sure, maybe no one is advocating VBD die.. but they are saying, “hey just stick to the goofy shit you’re good at like pictures and tournament results.” My claim is: hey, have a diverse marketplace, have lots of forums, I don’t care. If you build it, and if it doesn’t suck, people will come. But, to do that, it is not necessary to preclude VBD as a forum or even the preeminent forum.
ALSO.
People need to drop the “quit being so sensitive, over-defensive” junk. VBI has a huge staff. Very few of them… VERY few of them rush to its defense EVER. The critics are couching their comments very carefully, but you know what… of the three leading advocates for an alternative forum (Mangus, Miaskawitz, Palmer), all three of them teach at NSD. Is this a Cold War-style thing? No, don’t accuse me of blowing ANYTHING out of proportion. But, before anyone sheds a tear for being “attacked” by RYAN COOPER for Christ sake, you should understand this:
The administration of NSD (Eric) clearly feels like VBI success is a function of the VBD, and this is part of their explicit reasoning for discouraging the VBD as a locus of “media power”. In their view, competition is good. But of course, winning that competition is better. Bottom line: there’s going to be multiple camps and competition either way. The slippery slope scenario is just silly. VBI doesn’t have the resources or interest to put every camp out of business. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be a successful camp; we make a good product.
A few years back, Jason Baldwin wrote an article about how briefs company are awful and how all these trends in debate were ruining it. He didn’t name names. But he ran Kentucky’s debate institute, which at one point competed with VBI for some national circuit presence, much as NSD does now. And it did not take a Navajo translator to see thinly veiled attacks being made against VBs, always coupled with: “hey this isn’t directed at anyone in particular.” Now, things are very explcitly directed at VBs, but with: “Hey I’m not saying VBD shouldn’t exist, or hey this isn’t about Bietz and Cruz.”
I mean… OK, fine. But if Mangus wants an open discussion, unencumbered by pleasantries… he should be FIRST to note that a lot of the “critics” of VBD who think VBs as a company is “just fine and dandy, so long as they stick to what theyre good at” are the same people who have bashed VBI in many a private or pseudo-private conversation in the last couple of years. I have seen and heard it at tournaments. I saw some of it when I worked with NDF. There should be no confusion about the fact that some people have taken sides, and that no matter how many public pronouncements one makes about “just wanting to make the community a better place,” those pronouncements are coming from people with agendas.
I made this point subtly to Michael in one post, but I guess no one paid attention. If you think anyone at VBs is overreacting, then you just have no clue as to this discussion’s context and history. I’m not accusing Eric, Greg, or Michael of being dishonest or disinginuous. I think Eric was pretty straightforward in his last post, and I think in large part they’re just being polite and respectful. And hey, that’s how it should be. I think Michael and Eric really do care about this community, and I think they have a lot of brilliant things to say and contribute, many of which I completely agree with. So are they just doing their socially responsible part? Sure. But, it’s also competition telling people to read the VBD less and something else more. So, no one’s hands are entirely clean in this. And that has been my point… yah, I have an agenda. So do the “marginalized critics”. No one is “attacking” anyone. But the disagreements certainly have a political context.
Posted from: 150.212.2.192
February 8th, 2007 18:28
i like how babb agrees with bryce after bryce admitted defeat in an epic vbd seppuku.
Posted from: 150.212.2.192
February 8th, 2007 18:28
didnt see toms post, oops.
Posted from: 75.35.93.23
February 8th, 2007 18:31
Michelin,
I think we only really disagree on that first point, about venue.. but that’s fair. Otherwise, I think we agree 100%. And as for “fatalist”, I didn’t mean that negatively.. even though it certainly implies that, so my bad. Haha.
Interesting re: your final point. A regular piece wouldn’t be a bad idea. But I also think people can get away with saying a whole lot in these comments, too much in my opinion based on some recent threads.
Posted from: 150.212.2.192
February 8th, 2007 18:40
one more thing:
michelin, im actually offended at the condescension in your post.
“I may be a business person now, but my nature is to still help young debaters to improve their arguments.”
i have a lot of respect for you. you were one of my top-5 favorite judges when i was debating. but i am no longer a student. this summer you will be teaching alongside me. i am sure i have a lot to learn from you, but i dont appreciate the tone of that comment. i hope it was not intentional, but i think i am capable of defending my argument. if you respect me, engage me on that argument. dont posture it like youre offering me guidance.
Posted from: 71.218.243.251
February 8th, 2007 18:45
Babb,
I don’t think most people read the comments deeply enough to make them really meaningful as it relates to a huge expression of dissent. I think that they’re often overlooked, because much of what does come in the comment boxes is insignificant as it relates to “discussion”. As always, I do appreciate your perpsective.
Posted from: 150.212.2.192
February 8th, 2007 18:49
sorry im doing this in small chunks, my attention span is shot.
babb says:
“If you read through everyone’s comments about relocating discussion, it’s like 95% VBD=bad with a disclosure somewhere like, “But still, I’m not saying VBD shouldn’t exist,” or, “Gee, by the way, thanks for letting me write this criticism about how you guys silence criticism.” Yah, no one wants to nuke VBD. No one wants call any ONE PERSON’s integrity into question.”
this is honestly in every post ive made. i do not think vbd actively silences crticism. i do not think vbd is bad. this is why michelins arg has no link. vbd is good for news, results, etc. it is not good for community discussions. thats all ive ever said. do i believe there are broader problems? probably. but im not confident enough to defend that claim. i am merely claiming a set of structural flaws in vbd. not “VBD IS BAD KILL KILL KILL.” just ‘hey, maybe we shouldnt use vbd for everything any more and should find someplace to supplement what it cant do well.’ it disgusts me that you continue to portray my arguments in a false light given how many times ive explained this. your argument is wholly unsubstantiated and constitutes an interesting propaganda move – avoiding the issue by making false accusations and shifting the debate. no single fucking person has generated any reason why the central thesis of my article is wrong. its all horeshit about how i havent created an alternate forum and how vb is nice. let me take a line out of the james thomas playbook: VACUOUS.
Posted from: 150.212.2.192
February 8th, 2007 18:53
one last thing i find interesting. i understand not everyone shares my polish blood which allows me to easily spell miaskiewicz. but for gods sake babb, scroll up, look, and spell gregs name right.
Posted from: 152.17.127.41
February 8th, 2007 19:40
babb,
I thought I made it pretty clear that I appreciated the discussion I’ve had with you and ryan, both of your comments have attempted to be relevant, constructive, and insightful. If everything about “attacks” was somehow in reference to my post, I don’t get it.(?)
That being said, please scroll to the second post I made under this article. I don’t think reporting results as “silly shit” as you apparently do. In fact I think that’s the most important function VBD serves.
VBD should be something like this but a little more: http://www.debateresults.com
My desire is that another forum be created to do this: http://www.ndtceda.com
This set-up allows you guys to coexist with a forum on the internet that’s actually open, this one isn’t.
That being said, I don’t honestly expect Victorybriefs to “roll over and die” (since that’s what you seem to view having to give up your role as the host of the LD community’s main online forum). I’m confident a forum with no corporate affiliation would be a better alternative to the one Victorybriefs is attempting to provide.
I think the admin controlled content is a really important issue that’s sort of being addressed but ends up getting overlooked a lot.
How can anybody call what victorybriefs offers a “forum”?! The people who decide which topics are important and which ones aren’t are the site admins. Occasionally when one of you thinks some random Westman post is interesting, you post it up here.
The “new forums” are just a different format for what already exists, as long as I can’t create my own threads, this site offers nothing resembling an open forum.
Posted from: 75.35.92.74
February 8th, 2007 19:44
1. “i like how babb agrees with bryce after bryce admitted defeat in an epic vbd seppuku.”
I like how Mangus picks and chooses things he wants to respond to while accusing other people of being non-responsive. My comments on the monopoly argument were far broader than that.
2. “vbd is good for news, results, etc. it is not good for community discussions. thats all ive ever said. do i believe there are broader problems? probably.”
(a) Talk about non-responsive; I am agreeing in several places that some discussions may be better elsewhere. Eric makes a decent case, for example, for putting camp discussions elsewhere. But, this is a far cry from “it is not good for community discussions.” This is being answered left and right, pretty effectively. There is absolutely no reason VBD shouldn’t remain a prominent locus for community discussion. Should there be others? Sure, let’s see em!
(b) Regardless of how narrow Michael wants to make his explicit advocady, those Eric and Greg have (here and in other cases) made claims about VBD silencing, being a monopoly, and on other threads alluding to ‘state-run media.’
(c) But of course, the thrust of my last post (from which Michael cuts selectively) is precisely that explicit advocacy is not all that matters. There is a context and background to this discussion which makes claims like “[VBD] is not good for community discussions” impossible to separate from a wider criticism of VBD and VBs.
To the extent Michael’s advocacy is more narrow than Eric’s, for example, then my comments should be read more in resonse to Eric than Michael. That is easy enough.
(3) “one last thing i find interesting. i understand not everyone shares my polish blood which allows me to easily spell miaskiewicz. but for gods sake babb, scroll up, look, and spell gregs name right.”
For God’s sake Michael, pick your battles. I think I’ve made several gestures of agreement and appreciation for your contribution, but the constant jabs and moral policing of this thread absent the substantive engagement you command of everyone else loses you a lot of respect in my book. I don’t know Greg, and I was in a hurry. Give it a rest.
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 8th, 2007 19:46
I don’t want to regulate content in any way shape or form. I said I would provide free web space and my coding skills. I don’t plan on being involved in debate after this summer in any way shape or form for awhile. I probably won’t be on the continent for a very long time after this August. I don’t know what interests I could have in engaging in a Cold-War against VB. Frankly, I think VBI is a great camp for some students, and other students find NSD to be a camp suited for their interests. If you think I have some kind of vested interest in one party, I’m actually doing web design work for Pinnacle Debate Institute (in addition to NSD). I would even be open to throwing around some ideas to give VBD a face lift, a more clean, sanitized, perhaps German aesthetic if you will.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 8th, 2007 19:59
babb – youre right, i am not responding line by line to your posts any more. tried that, not my thing. why? because i am so frustrated by them that i honestly think i might have a coronary if i tried to go arg-by-arg. theyre long, convoluted, indirect, repetitive, and largely irrelevant.
if you agree that discussion should happen elsewhere, you and i are on the same side. i cant tell if that is true or not. its unclear.
if you want to arbitrarily ascribe to me what YOU think MY motivation is based on your PERCEPTION of the background of this article, youre pretty much being a dick. maybe you shouldve asked me why i wrote it?
erics criticism is admittedly broader than mine, but my complaints about what youre saying go back way before eric said anything. i will let eric handle his args.
you lost respect in my book bc you cant bother to figure out exactly who youre answering. i might be rude, crass, and arrogant, but i have enough respect to know the names of who im being rude crass and arrogant too. i dont posture myself as being so far your superior that your name is irrelevant to me.
Posted from: 75.35.92.74
February 8th, 2007 20:52
“if you want to arbitrarily ascribe to me what YOU think MY motivation is based on your PERCEPTION of the background of this article, youre pretty much being a dick. maybe you shouldve asked me why i wrote it?”
OR MAYBE I CAN READ WHAT YOU WROTE LAST MONTH:
“listen jon, if you want to distract from what im saying by talking about something else, thats fine. thats a very typical vbd tactic”
“perhaps youve forgotten the disparity between the toc and nfl last year? shess was off the page in less than a week; jeffers saturated the whole site for what seemed like an eternity. this is not the first time this issue has been brought up. straight censoring me would only make matters worse and cruz knows it. that just proves the organization has an agenda; using tricks like strategically positioning post order throws in enough doubt to make me sound like a conspiracy theorist. also, if you dont think cruz does everything he can to promote (1) himself (2) vbd (3) vbi (4) vbt or (5) bronx, you need to adopt a more critical lens when you read this site. this site is like state-run media. its sortof fascinating, but overall pretty scary.”
“(1) vbd makes highly political choices but refuses to defend them as such”
“you think that if i wrote something to put on vbd youd really publish it? i have been blacklisted by the vb crew for awhile now. remember when i offered to work for session 2 and you didnt even take the time to respond to my email?”
“i never claimed you have blacklisted me in a posting sense, but you know as well as i do that i am not a ‘friend of the company’ and if i sent you an article i dont think id see it on the front page. if i am wrong, let me know what my length limit is. and any dirty words i cant say, since thats what got me in so much trouble with your spam filter and jon cruz.”
AND GREG SAYS:
“I don’t know what interests I could have in engaging in a Cold-War against VB. Frankly, I think VBI is a great camp for some students, and other students find NSD to be a camp suited for their interests.”
SURE, GREG THINKS VBI IS GREAT FOR COMMUNIST STUDENTS :-) ; LAST MONTH HE WRITES:
“VBD reminds me of Communism in the 80s. Where democracy is the fiction of an open dialogue…
Sometimes, you might say the wrong thing, work with the wrong people, and you become a non-person. Remember when Tim Case decided to work at another camp (in addition to VBI) and his judging paradigm suddenly disappeared from the VBD paradigms list? My paradigm mysteriously does not appear, although it may be useful for it to appear, given that I judge many TOC qualifying tournaments and the TOC annually. It is a “debate resource”, right?
Props to you guys – you do a better job of image placement than even the Politburo. The way you manage that photo section, shucks….”
A FAR CRY, MICHAEL, FROM YOUR CLAIMS NOW:
“i do not think vbd actively silences crticism. i do not think vbd is bad. this is why michelins arg has no link. vbd is good for news, results, etc.”
So the “typical VBD tactics” causing it to resemble “[scary] state-run media” and the “blacklisting,” “agenda,” and “tricks”… I’m just supposed to read your article completely outside that context? Ha, right.
And these are the things you have said in public! And not even a month ago!
Interesting.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 8th, 2007 20:58
well babb, sometimes the craziest fucking shit about public discussion is PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR MINDS. maybe the fact that bietz actually DID answer my email this time made me think hes not so bad. maybe my opinion of bietz changed! perish the thought! i changed my mind! how dare i.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 8th, 2007 21:03
gonna go ahead and preempt the inevitable response: i didnt write the article until i had already had several discussions w/ bietz about vbd, what they do, and what his goal is. honestly i was not a huge bietz fan until about 2 weeks ago. i still dont think im on the good list for most of the vbi staff. but i credit bietz 100% with letting me publish this, and my respect for him grew immensely as i talked through the article with him. that influenced what i wrote. its not like i wrote the article and then changed my mind about vbd. i wrote the article w/ my changed opinion already formed. if that wasnt the case, it wouldve been a lot more inflammatory and included a lot of arguments eric is making.
Posted from: 129.116.45.213
February 8th, 2007 21:05
If only Babb could exude the same humility that you do Michael. Once he accidentally spelled my name Cuper. I didn’t talk to him for a week.
You are the only person in the world that thinks Babb is being arrogant by misspelling Greg’s name? It was a mistake. Really, your self-righteous temper tantrum has reached a comical extreme. While others are having a very productive conversation, you are mocking people, pointing out spelling errors, correcting people’s tone, and whining that you aren’t getting enough attention.
The unfortunate part being that people are going to stop partaking in this conversation because they are worried they are going to have to deal with you. So much for being the champion of discourse.
Posted from: 75.35.92.74
February 8th, 2007 21:09
That’s cool, and I think that’s an incredibly reasonable and mature reaction.
In either case, my point is not so much to catch you up in contradictions as to say that’s why I’ve seen this as part of a wider critical project. I think that was a fair reading on my part. But it is also fair to change minds, clearly.
I’m out for a while.
Peace,b
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 8th, 2007 21:11
ryan i couldnt finish reading your post, the pretension overwhelmed me
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 8th, 2007 22:00
I wonder when people will start to realize that only 1% of any of my communication via the interweb might be labeled as serious. Read my judging paradigm. I talk about dinosaurs.
Posted from: 129.116.47.100
February 8th, 2007 22:32
It’s funny how Ryan indicts pretension and Michael accuses him of being pretentious. It’s probably pretentious I think that’s funny. It’s incredibly pretentious to use that word incessantly. Sorry if this overly pretentious post offended anyone.
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 8th, 2007 22:42
And just so ye’ know, it is very much like the Communist authorities in the 1980s to allow the critics to have a voice, so long as it is in their forum, with the ability to control the selection of material. Avoiding outright censorship would be bad, so make the appearance of impropriety go away. Time-tested tactic. Not that I think y’all are commies, or that y’all are bad, I just think the parallels that could be drawn between the way information circulated in Communist countries in the 1980s and the way information circulates in a monopolistic forum are rather interesting. The fact that Mangus being allowed to post the article is cited as evidence for the openness of the forum is just further evidence of why the comparison is justifiable. I’m sure the commies readily turned to vacuous threat construction to defuse criticism, too. You’re making this too easy, Babb.
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 8th, 2007 22:43
Scratch “Avoiding” and make that “Outright censorship would be bad.”
Man, I wish I could edit my posts on here.
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 8th, 2007 22:56
What incentives do you project lie behind this supposed Cold War that we wage? Do you think we need more students? NSD meets its cap on students–we can’t take any more. At best, the two camps are competitive over the top caliber students, who they want to draw to their institute. But, I think we’re happy enough with the caliber of last year’s students.
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 8th, 2007 23:04
I am breaking all kinds of internet norms here about quadruple posting, but I’d like to add the following semantic note:
JUST BECAUSE I REFERENCE SOMETHING RELATED TO THE COLD WAR IN ONE OF MY POSTS DOES NOT MEAN I AM WAGING A COLD WAR. IF I REFERENCE A LINE OF SHAKESPEARE, DOES THAT MEAN I AM WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE? DO YOU UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE HAS TEXTS AND SUBTEXTS AND SOMETIMES YOU MIGHT NEED TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES INSTEAD OF MAKING A SUPERFICIAL, VACUOUS CONNECTION BETWEEN THE MENTION OF ‘COMMUNISM’ AND THE NOTION OF A ‘COLD WAR’?
Posted from: 128.62.219.26
February 8th, 2007 23:15
In soviet Russia, the forum debates you!
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 8th, 2007 23:19
“When you believe in something literally, you will turn it into an absurdity through your faith. Genuine adherents of a political philosophy never take its arguments seriously, but only its practical aims, which are concealed beneath these arguments. Political arguments do not exist, after all, for people to believe in them, rather they serve as a common, agreed-upon excuse. Foolish people who take them in earnest sooner or later discover inconsistencies in them, begin to protest and finish finally and infamously as heretics.”
Posted from: 134.173.91.53
February 8th, 2007 23:29
Aight Babb, I hate these line by line responses, but I guess I’ll just mirror your approach.
“I LOVE this argument. It is, I think, one of the best arguments to be made against VBD’s inclusion of a piece like Michael’s. [I would note to Michael, though, that this is FAR closer to being ripped from the Zizek playbook than ANYTHING I’ve said.]”
Believe it or not, I read sexy books by European philosophers too.
“1. VBD’s inclusion of criticism certainly does not silence it, pretty self-evidently. This article has generated agreement and disagreement with the criticism. It has been published, engaged, generated discussion. Given any remotely practical conception of healthy, critical dialogue.. the fact that this piece has appeared on VBD has proven nothing but beneficial for the piece. If there is more exposure to be found elsewhere, I am sure VBD did not claim exclusive rights to the piece.”
This reply is just myopic. Sure people will argue about it now, but say we get another “conspiracy” accusation situation or similar. From an external perspective, it would be incredibly hard to take the complainant seriously. After all, VBD lets critics post sometimes! I’m sure your reply to this will be “but Jon Cruz is a great guy and would never do anything wrong”. There are two issues with that. First, even if Cruz happens to be the nicest guy in the world, there is absolutely no reason why the rest of us are entitled to take that as a piece of basic data, known a priori and indubitably. Second, the fact that we can’t just assume that a priori means that a situation which makes us depend on Jon Cruz’s beneficence is structurally flawed in the same way a benevolent dictatorship is. Sure, nothing might ever go wrong, there may be no abuse of power ever, but that condition is utterly contingent. It’s good to have checks on power, even when the power is wielded by really really nice people who really really care, because even really really nice people can sometimes do bad things, and its stupid to base our decisions on the assumption that they never will.
”2. The ONLY way in which inclusion of this piece would by its own act affect the criticism at all is with respect to only ONE element of the criticism: which is that VBD forecloses any room for criticism. There’s nothing wrong with engaging that element of the criticism through a performative proof to the contrary. But of course, there is a laundry-list of VBD criticism in previous threads on this site which suggest silencing does not take place. Point being: inclusion of the piece would in no way refute other objections regarding how the site functions, what VBs stands for, or whatever else.”
Why is that true? My point is that the inclusion of this article effectively counts as evidence against ascribing malicious motives to VBD people at any point. Since the only check against misuse of the website is the fear that people will come to think that VBD is used to spin facts, the strategic management of criticism goes a long way towards effacing the only real check on the site.
”3. This sort of argument is so effective precisely because its target (in this case VBD) can absolutely never win. If they don’t include the piece, they silence by exclusion. If they do include it, they apparently silence through inclusion. Which suggests…”
My argument isn’t a claim about VBD’s motives; it’s a claim about how people will interpret their actions regardless of their motives. Yes, it is true that there are bad consequences for VBD no matter what it does. That does not mean my argument is false, that means they are in a double-bind. Situations happen in reality where one has to choose between two bad things. I don’t see why that’s a defect in my argument.
”4. If you want to question the efficacy of the article being here, fine. Massey has done the same thing. But that is ALL your argument can speak to. To that end, your last paragraph on this point which admits your point has absolutely nothing to do with what VBD SHOULD DO/SHOULD HAVE DONE is absolutely crucial. Your argument is NOT a good response to people saying, “See Jamer, VBD is inclusive.” It is simply a reason why Michael may be better off sending his article elsewhere. Given that it wasn’t, VBD absolutely has been inclusive.”
I mean, whether or not VBD has actually been inclusive depends on whether or not the people managing VBD thought that the kind of strategic management of criticism to disable future criticism which I have described would be in the interests of the institution. Having talked to Bietz, I think that this process of reasoning didn’t occur. Either way, you aren’t entitled to assert that. And yes, my argument does not speak to what VBD should have done. That is because it is purely descriptive. I am saying that this kind of interpretation will happen. If VBD wants that to happen, then “including” Michael was a probably good call for them, and probably (if my arguments about monopoly pull through) a bad thing for the community. If VBD really wants to be inclusive, they shouldn’t oppose the creation of an independent forum.
“No, it simply suggests that whatever VBD is guilty of, it isn’t silencing opposition. To the extent this demonstrates the legitimacy of the organization, cool. I don’t think VBD NEEDED to publish the article to appear legitimate. But, to the extent VBD tries to include differing opinions, it’s probably a smart thing to do.”
Repeating yourself doesn’t make your argument true.
“I think it is telling that “occasional” modifies critic, here. It isn’t that VBD only occasionally accepts criticism; it is rather that there are only occasional critics. Again, what else should VBD do short of artificially drumming up criticism in some sort of perverse masochism?”
I’d be lying if I told you the kind of line Mangus has argued is new to me. I’ve heard all of these arguments repeated ad nauseaum. If you haven’t, that’s probably because most people aren’t going to come up to you at the VBI table at NFL Nationals and say like “Hey Babb, VBD is a media monopoly that crushes discussion”. That’s is the point: you can’t really criticize VBD on VBD because you tend to get caught in a mirror double-bind (if you use an official VBD channel like Michael), or you have to run the risk of enduring political consequences or being made out as a fool when the crew of defenders rolls up and says “Eric how could you be so insane to worry about us being biased? We are all fantastic people! You are a CONSPIRACY THEORIST!”. I’m sure you’ll say everyone at VBD is great guys or whatever and that may be true, but again, that doesn’t mean the rest of us are entitled to take your word for it. And yeah, I mean, my point is that there is no solution for this problem for VBD given the current situation.
“I don’t know that the people managing the site are objective (who has made this claim?). We’ve only maintained they try to be pretty objective despite their interests. But, that certainly doesn’t make any objection ‘dead in the water’. The thrust of the dialogue pursuant to Michael’s post would seem to suggest that there are quite a few opinions out there concerning the criticism; but it has not at all been muted.”
Again, my answer is: myopia. Let me provide another illustration. Say VBD lets a critic come on and write some article about VBD killing discussion once per year. Every time this happens, Stephen Babb drowns all arguments with enormous line by line posts which, in spite of being read in their entirety by an average of 2.5 people, still generate the impression that at the very least the debate is indecisive. Better still, every year people get more and more tired of the ritual. Every time they say, “what the hell is this, of course VBD permits criticism, they let so and so write that one article, and Michael Mangus write that other one before”. The whole process is completely self-referential.
“Well, they aren’t incorporating you just yet, so your criticism should remain 100% effective. We will see where that goes.”
Yeah you will.
“Two final points on this:
1. The problem with what you and Massey are saying (which is essentially the exact same thing, albeit with more fatalistic rhetoric on Michelin’s part and more hostile rhetoric on Eric’s) is that there is NO BETTER WAY to reach the people you want to persuade than by posting on the site they read.”
That is a problem for Michelin’s argument. It is not for mine. Posting a comment doesn’t mean VBD put the gold stamp of approval on my content. That’s why, as you point out, I haven’t been co-opted.
“2. The single biggest flaw in your argument is this: ANY REACTION ON VBD’S PART WHICH RESPONDS TO CRITICISM BY MODIFICATION IS READ AS MEANINGLESS. But, why can’t it simply be read as improvement stimulated by criticism? Isn’t that the point of criticism? To effect change? If people say: “VBD doesn’t include enough radical thought,” and VBD responds by saying… “you know what, you’re right: write away!” then VBD is guilty of nothing less than LISTENING TO ITS CRITICS.”
No, the institution couldn’t change enough to escape the double bind except by ceasing to be VBD. Since the entire community will always have a stake in the objectivity and openness of the service provided by VBD (a centralized, public space to discuss what’s going on in the activity), and VBD is inextricably connected to a private interest, there will always be grounds for criticism of VBD as institutionally flawed since it is organized to build a bias into its very structure. We cannot undermine the grounds of this criticism, but we can sap the motivation to make it by reducing the probability that the dangers associated with the abuse of VBD will ever be realized, and by building in safeguards to mitigate the damage associated with such abuse. An independent media outlet does both of those things.
“The only people who wouldn’t like that are people scared they might run out of things to crticize, people so investment in criticism of VBD for its OWN SAKE that they would call any improvement into question. If critics see change, but want more change, they can generate new criticism. But to the extent, real improvements are shaped by real criticism, what more do you want other than a perpetual axe to grind?”
Why should I be held to a different standard than VBI people? Why is it that if I make a criticism, it’s because I’m in league with the forces of darkness, but everyone at VBD is a total saint who would never dream of abusing their power? I honestly don’t get these cosmologies where I am the Lex Luthor of debate, NSD is the Legion of Doom, and I’m out to get Superman because he made my hair fall out. Why is it so far-fetched to think that maybe, just MAYBE my views are motivated by the arguments I am presenting, and not a deep-seated, irrational hatred for VBI?
“I will agree with Bryce on this. A monopoly on media control is a ridiculous claim.”
So I guess your defense is: the monopoly isn’t doing anything bad now. This does absolutely nothing to answer the argument I’ve made about 4000 times.
“I would also claim, once again, that these arguments take things sooo far out of perspectiv. We are talking about high school LD debate, and a pretty limited subsection of those debaters and coaches at that. So the fact that alternative outlets don’t seem very strong is ridiculous… there just aren’t that many people interested in online debate forums in the first place. I would venture to guess, even, that the vast majority of HIGH SCHOOL LD DEBATERS do not regularly participate in online debate discussion.”
How does that answer my argument? Lddebate.org is totally dead. When I was a high school student it was incredibly vibrant. VBD existed then too, but it wasn’t like VBD was viewed as competition to lddebate.org. The two institutions just had different functions. Why can’t we go back to that instead of trying to completely assimilate every function to VBD?
“I think part of VBD’s attempt to remain somewhat neutral has included an effort to keep camp-discussion off the website. Any discussion here would clearly be seen as a promotional attempt, even if we did give equal time.”
Yeah, my point wasn’t that VBD should have an open discussion about camps; my point was that it couldn’t. The reason should be getting familiar by now: public discussion is a communal good; everyone has a stake in it. VBD represents a private interest. When a private interest has total control over a communal good, there is a problem, even if the private interest is totally unbiased.
“But that isn’t a reason why all discussions should leave VBD. It is a reason to have that particular discussion on LDDebate.org still. I bet VBD would even be willing to post a link to that discussion, unless you are worried that a link will enable VBD to ‘incorporate’ whatever criticism is generated in that discussion.”
Yeah that would be cool. So lddebate.org is dead. That means we need something else. I don’t care if there are discussions on VBD; it just shouldn’t be the only forum because VBD’s content is controlled by representatives of the Victory Briefs Corporation. Why should people have to wait for VBD to tell them they can write on some topic? Why would VBD want to publish a bunch of articles by say, me? There are obvious business incentives against doing so.
“Personally, I would favor just biting the bullet, promoting VBs, and saying hey: the news and discussion here are no worse off because the people hosting the website have opinions. But, they do try to be inclusive and neutral to some degree, and yes that is difficult.”
Again, “Jon Cruz is your buddy” is not a response to anything, and it isn’t a matter of opinions, it’s a matter of business interests.
“You could say the same thing about our products, word of mouth from 250 kids each summer, our large staff, the fact VBI students have been since its inception performed with one or two other camps at the very top..”
Word of mouth is not a competitive advantage because it is non-unique.
“does VBD add to that? Sure, but I hardly think VBD is THE reason why VBI gets its numbers. We got pretty good numbers before VBD too.”
This is a misinterpretation of numbing grossness. My argument here isn’t that VBD is the factor that explains VBI’s numbers, but that VBD is powerful enough that even if VBI fell off big time as an educational service, it would not matter. This is a bad situation because it obliterates the principle incentive to maintain or improve the product. Now I am not saying that VBI’s quality has actually declined or stagnated. I don’t know what VBI is actually like; I’ve never been there. My point is that in theory VBI could make the product a lot worse or fail to keep up with the competition and not be any worse off for it. This is particularly true outside of the top few labs of the camp, where students are typically new to the national circuit and lack access to insider information.
“Other places people can discuss LD, and specifically camps:
1. LDDebate.org
2. OFFLINE… gasp.. at tournaments, etc.
3. through chat, facebook, phone, and the myriad of other means of communication available outside of the VBD, where people can discuss LD”
1. LDdebate.org is dead. 2-3 are nice but are not centralized or public. There is no way to get out a message to basically everyone in the community by walking around a tournament or calling your friends.
“Additionally, though, people dont HAVE to discuss LD to learn about camps and their advantages. That’s what advertising is for.”
VBD is a big VBI ad. There is no other centralized public outlet. Do you think kids read Rostrum?
“VBD doesn’t CONTROL media outlets. That is nuts.”
The existing media outlet is http://www.victorybriefsdaily.com, a website owned and operated by the Victory Briefs Corporation. That is control.
“Here’s an idea: if you want an opportunity to reach a lot of people and advertise, put together a web experience people want. There is no reason whatsoever other camps can’t put the time and energy into something like the VBD. Failure to do so, I suspect, has very little to do with ‘control of media outlets’. But, it’s easier to be a victim of a corporate monopoly than to give a competitor props on their business model.”
I could launch a website with about a dozen videos from last years TOC and about a dozen articles written by the best staff in the country with about two weeks of work. I mean c’mon Babb, if there is one criticism of me which definitely does not apply it’s that I can’t get things done. I started a business at 19, coached a TOC champ at 20, all the while taking enough classes to finish college in 3 years. You might think I’m evil, but I’m probably not incompetent.
To be completely honest with you, I thought up a version of the alternative I am defending here at the beginning of last summer, but I did NOT want to create an NSD VBD. This is because *gasp* I really do think control of communal goods and services by private monopolies is generally undesirable. Sam Duby and others can attest to this: I’ve been bothering people about this for months. The main barrier I ran into was coordinating support from other groups in the community. That people at VBD would react positively to this kind of suggestion admittedly exceeded my hopes, but I was simply wrong.
As an aside, I find it really interesting that you are willing to openly describe VBD as playing a central role in the VBI business model. Usually the argument on here when people raise the specter of private interest against VBD is that VBI is really a quasi-public institution that only cares about the welfare of the community, and then we are usually treated to a longwinded account of how Victor Jih is the Big Daddy Warbucks of debate, and how all he cares about are the poor starving orphans, and how we are all idiots for supposing that anyone at VBI could possibly care about something as lowly as making money. I appreciate your candor, but how do you not see this as an enormous takeout to the “Jon Cruz is your homie” argument?
“And then you end with a slippery-slope impact story, which appears empirically ludicrous given that the recent growth of VBD has not led to less camp competition. Stanford and Kentucky might be smaller, but NSD has grown, and a number of regional camps have grown or been started. There will be at least 4 in Texas this year alone.”
NSD probably wouldn’t have been able to make it without a vibrant lddebate.org, or at the very least, it wouldn’t have had anything close to the success it’s had. Beyond that, though, I’m not sure why it’s incredibly far fetched to think that it isn’t conceivable that VBI could attain a monopoly. Draw in tons of kids through the website, subsidize all the good debaters in the country to come using some of the surplus from the inflated numbers afforded by the website, hire back all the top kids while working hard to buy up anyone else who coaches good debaters. Numbers aren’t really tough to translate into quality, and quality more or less drives the camp market. I think VBI actually could’ve become a monopoly around 2003-2005 when Iowa, Stanford and KNDI took big hits.
“Which is a very convenient way to remain victim to “the monopoly”.”
Honestly Babb this stuff is stupid. NSD has a cap. We’ve met the cap every year. NSD gets tons of good kids and has a great staff. NSD really doesn’t have much to gain. I seriously think the community would be better off with another forum.
Lastly, I want to address this “agenda” stuff.
1.Babb accuses me of lying when I say I’m not trying to hate on Cruz or Bietz and that VBD should still exist. I talked to Bietz about the alternative I’m proposing today. He is a very reasonable and nice guy. I called conspiracy on Jon Cruz last year, but I’m not sure why that means I have a big axe to grind with him or something. Babb is calling conspiracy on me right now. I don’t hate him over it or anything like that. Sometimes it’s good to call conspiracy on people. If there isn’t one, you make people more attentive to avoiding implying that there is one, and you make them explain the real reasons behind the problem in public view, which helps curb the spread of rumors. If there is one, then calling that to attention helps to check against it. This is pretty much the gist of Michael’s original argument – the fake veneer of politeness actually makes disputes fester. I’d rather call people out and hear the explanation of why I’m wrong than sit around and stew. If I had a problem with their actions specifically, I’d call them out like I called out Stacy Thomas last week. Simply put, I’m done with fake politeness.
2.As I’ve said, NSD in particular has very little to gain from VBI taking a hit. We are pretty much operating at full capacity as is. Other camps might gain more, but I don’t run them. More importantly, all of my arguments are anti-monopoly, not anti-VBI. It just doesn’t make any sense to read the agenda “overthrow VBI and take over debate” onto me. Every argument I’ve made cuts against that just as strongly. I’m not even saying VBD shouldn’t have discussions. I’m just saying it shouldn’t be the only place for those discussions. I have argued that there is always a structural flaw in VBD acting as a forum for discussion: that the existence of private interest opens the floor for accusations of bias, but I have also argued that we can take the sting out of that. And Babb, you are out of your mind if you think I want to destroy VBD. Do you really think I want to collect tournament results and take pictures of people at tournaments? I just want a way for people to start discussions of their own and not just depend on the VBD staff to happen to come up with the same idea.
So here is my agenda: let’s have multiple sources of information so people don’t have to get everything from one company with an agenda of its own.
Posted from: 69.220.187.133
February 8th, 2007 23:30
I’ve read this entire thread and have been entertained/interested by it. A vast majority isn’t worth responding to, but I’ll take a stab at being a solutions-oriented guy. It seems that all parties wouldn’t really object to the existance of an alternative forum with the following properties:
- minimal moderation and issue selection
- what moderation that exists is independent of camp or factional ties
- keeping relevant stories visible and easily accessible even after they die down
- the ability to start one’s own threads
- Miaskiewicz apparently would like to be able to edit posts
It seems strange to make an entirely new forum when all of those exist on the lddebate.org forums as constituted. Other things mentioned include:
- Bietz is interested in generating some kind of forum system, but doesn’t want to infringe on Mike West’s turf.
- Miaskiewicz is willing to code and spend at least some time maintaining a site
- Given that it took about a month for the forums to be fixed from the hack and the upgrade to a different login system to prevent porn-bots has been a slow one, it appears Mike West is a bit strapped for time in terms of mainting his site. I mean, Stephanie St. Amour is still tecnically the moderator for one or more of the forums?
All these seem to suggest a pretty simple solution. Without volunteering anyone against their will, it seems reasonable that Bietz, Miask and whoever else would be interested should just contact Mike West and offer to help spruce up/maintain/host or whatever lddebate.org. The result:
1) Bietz and Miask don’t have to reinvent the wheel and come up with another forum
2) neither Bietz’s nor Greg’s forums will be marred by the appearnce of bias (note: I say “appearnace” because I think it’s silly to think either would actually be biased, but haters will still hate). VB could include the link for the stories most likely to create serious discussion directly to Westman while still mainting all the content related to results, interviews, Crystallize!, what-have-you.
3) The historically significant forum for LD communication is restored.
I mean, I’m sure there are other advantages too, but it seems like a revitilization of lddebate.org wouldn’t be hard at all. Everyone and their brother still has an account. The topic forums and the regional forums will still be the wasteland they are (has there ever been good content there?) while the Tournaments section could have the real content it did as recently as a year ago. It seems a simple way to address a vast majority of the concerns raised in this thread with minimal politics.
Posted from: 66.108.88.37
February 9th, 2007 04:49
I haven’t really had a chance to follow up on this post, because the posts are getting very long, and I’ve had a lot of case corrections and grading to handle, as well as preparing for some upcoming tournaments, including the district tournament that we are hosting. So I apologize for being largely silent in this discussion.
A few things, since I keep getting mentioned directly in people’s posts. (Which is understandable.)
For all of the criticism (implied or otherwise) that is being heaped on me and on this web site for shutting down dissent, I don’t know that anyone actively involved with the maintenance of this site is against the creation or resurrection of an “alternate forum.”
In fact, when the idea was raised a few years ago to create a forum on VBD, I remember specifically objecting to it. I too thought the web sites had different functions, although I think there is the possibility for a lot of productive dialogue on VBD. (Though I agree that the dialogue would take on a fundamentally different shape, given that topics are started by the posting of VBD articles written by staffers or readers who submit them, not by readers at any given time.)
I actually spent quite a while volunteering to help Mike West manually clear out spam from LDDebate.org. For those who remember the hideous comment spam that was posted on VBD for a while, this is not a fun job. I used to have to do that manually as well. I’m not mentioning this to throw a pity party; I’m mentioning it because I care very much about LDDebate.org and wanted to see it survive. I still do. The issue now is getting some effective spam filters in place and appointing some current moderators. I did try to help Mike West do that, but as readership fell off — largely due, as has already been noted, to the “All Your Base are Belong to Us” hacks — I guess that seemed like a smaller priority. But I have a feeling if Mike knew there was tremendous interest, and — and this is key — people would encourage others to return to Westman, he would do it.
In the meantime, though, while I think aspects of Eric and Michael’s criticisms are fair and worth considering, I think it’s also important to stress that the rise of using VBD in the way that they criticize wasn’t “caused” by VBD. It was caused by the lack of an alternative forum. That is not the fault of VB. While this doesn’t shield this site from criticism, I think it’s important to remember that VB didn’t set out to take the market on all discussion. At least, I don’t think it did, and given that I post the majority of content on this site, and am in daily communication with a friend who also believes/believed pretty strongly in LDDebate.org and who is the only other regular contributor to the site, I am pretty confident making that claim.
That may have already been acknowledged, but like I said, I didn’t have a chance to read over the thread in huge detail.
I do wonder, though, if people are glazing over history, or looking at it through a sentimental lens. A lot of the posts in the last few months of the site’s activity seemed often dominated by sarcasm directed towards this activity’s younger members. I recall a number of novices asking questions, hoping to get advice from more experienced debaters, only to be shut down with one-sentence in-jokes and sarcasm. That’s not particularly effective discourse. I do hope that if a forum exists where people are free to post, that people will allow discussions that do not interest them to exist unimpeded by sarcastic distractions. That way everyone will feel comfortable posting.
I tend to agree with the substance of what Michael Arnold is saying in his last post. An alternative forum exists, and I think, given its URL and its historical significance, it can be resurrected. I think the idea of a web site with a “debate journal” feel is also a good idea, but in terms of a free-floating discussion area, LDDebate.org seems best equipped.
Ultimately, as someone who enjoys debate history, I could think of nothing cooler than getting the LD-L archives up and revitalizing LDDebate.org.
People have implied in the past that I’m the leader of a vast conspiracy on this site. I wish I had the time to even conceivably lead such a conspiracy. I am just trying to do my part to help distribute information, because inside I probably always wished I was a journalist, and because I enjoy this community and what it’s given to me. I don’t think there was a time where I ever wanted to be in a position where my desire to help distribute information and report on tournaments and start online threads off of articles would be in any way compared to a benevolent dictatorship. If that is the image people have of me and of VBD, though, it’s not through any personal intentions, and I hope we can work as a community to resurrect a site that will allow for the free, forum-based discussion people want, while still allowing people to use VBD for the services they have come to enjoy and expect. (And, given the virulent e-mails I receive every single week when results aren’t posted or posted fast enough, I get the impression a lot of people do expect things.)
After Victor published a response to Jason Baldwin’s Rostrum article, R.J. Pellicciotta and others had some well-reasoned criticisms about the way this site functioned, and I incorporated them. I have tried to incorporate some of the suggestions that came out from criticisms last January about a VBD conspiracy. I know people are still unhappy with certain aspects about this site, and I am still trying to adjust them. I do, for better or for worse, take this personally, in the sense that I consider many aspects of this particular web site a personal responsibility. There are suggestions people are making here that I am already trying to figure out how to incorporate. But in terms of a “totally neutral” forum, I think the best suggestion is to resurrect the one that has existed for some time, and use it for what it is best for.
I apologize for how much of this is a ramble; I have to leave for work in fewer than twenty minutes and I sort of rushed to get all of this out before I left. I will be at Scarsdale this weekend and will be unlikely to post again until after that. Again, there is a good deal of interesting discussion here. I think that, regardless of people’s opinion of me, Bietz, this web site, or other debate organizations, we should all be paying a lot of attention to Michael Arnold’s suggestion.
Posted from: 66.108.88.37
February 9th, 2007 04:56
Sorry, to add/clarify:
I guess a central point of what I am trying to say is that it’s important to keep in mind that the people who work on VBD are not necessarily trying to assimilate everything into this site. It is difficult enough to manage as-is, especially because, despite constant criticisms about the breadth of articles and whatnot, many people seem unwilling to submit content on a regular basis. The forums exist, as-is, to continue discussions that begin on articles.
The more likely scenario, and I believe it has been mentioned, is that people began to use VBD as both a blog-based discussion and a substitute for a forum-based discussion when service on LDDebate.org was disrupted. That doesn’t mean that VB is trying to assimilate all sites into VBD. I personally would like to see LDDebate.org come back. I’d be happy to continue to be a moderator. I had been offered the chance to take over the reins fully there, but declined (and Mike West agreed that I should) because I didn’t want to appear the “AOL Time Warner” of debate. (At the time this position was offered, it was still called that.)
Again, my apologies if this is repetitive. I haven’t had a chance to follow every post in detail.
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 9th, 2007 09:32
As a totally un-related side-note: does Michael Boyle still post on here? I’d like to get in touch with him, if possible.
Posted from: 128.36.86.175
February 9th, 2007 12:15
Disclaimer: I’ve only briefly skimmed through what has been said.
This discussion seems very vacuous – Mangus et all are advocating the creation of an alternative forum for dialogue and arguing that VBD is a bad forum because of it’s commercial interests. What is the conflict? How is the non-existence of an alternative forum in any way Victory Brief’s fault? I don’t recall Victory Briefs telling people they couldn’t create/ use an alternative forum… If somebbody wants to start an alternative forum, go ahead and start an alternative forum – no alternative forum exists and Victory Briefs doesn’t have any obligation to provide an alternative forum (indeed, there is no way Victory Briefs could possibly have any role in solving the problem its critics point out because if Victory Briefs were to assist in creating some alternative forum its critics would simply allege that it is continuing to seek to extend its monopolistic control), so where does Victory Briefs enter into the equation as part of the problem? If said alternative forum is created, Victory Briefs still has the right to continue to run VBD as it sees fit – NSD also has the right to run their website as they see fit and include whatever content they want; so does NDF; so does Pinnacle; so does Mean Green etc. Victory Briefs IS a commercial venture and has te right to market itself and do whatever it can within certain parameters obviously to capture as large of a share of the market as possible. It seems that critics of Victory Briefs are alleging that it has done too good of a job of marketing itself and whining over the fact that they can’t compete. That’s not Victory Brief’s fault and I doubt if some other camp were in the position of Victory Briefs they would feel an obligation to dismantle their company and assist compettitors. That’s just silly and not how bussiness works in the real world.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 9th, 2007 12:47
both jons seem to be missing a big issue:
can some one point out any point when i or anyone else claimed vbd is attempting to prevent other forums from existing? ever? not my claim. that claims indefensible. this is a REQUEST that people use other forums. why is that so hard to understand. this is NOT a vbd smear piece.
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 9th, 2007 15:28
Still no response from Babb. Has Babb been out-Babbed on the line-by-line?
Posted from: 161.253.49.1
February 9th, 2007 18:25
This debate seems pointless because right now VB has a monopoly on debate media simply because no one else is attempting to create content focused on debate.
If we saw lots of individuals starting blogs, news sites, forums, chat rooms, wikis, etc. catering to debate and VB took some sort of deliberate actions to prevent those sites from becoming successful, then perhaps this debate would have some relevance.
However, both Bietz and Jon seem to have actually encouraged competition. VB chose not to create a forum because such an act might force others out of the market. A company that deliberately chooses not to pursue profit channels for fear of excluding others, is acting outside of traditional economic parameters and thus all the harms that Eric asserts generally go along with being a monopoly can no longer be assumed.
There are innumerable facets of media and VB hasn’t pursued many of them. However, if the argument that VB’s “monopoly” on debate media excludes competition were valid, presumably we would see other companies entering the market to fill the gaps left by VB. That has not happened.
In other words:
Would the presence of multiple media entities within the debate community be beneficial? Absolutely.
Is VB doing anything to prevent such alternative sources from emerging? Not that I can see.
Posted from: 74.70.147.189
February 9th, 2007 23:46
WHY IS THIS THREAD ALREADY HARD TO ACCESS
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 10th, 2007 12:08
I predict that no one will respond to this post any further and it will fall off the charts in 4-5 days. That’s what usually happens here when someone posts a comprehensive, intelligent response (not me, Eric). C.f. the thread re: the new NFL rules.
Posted from: 208.54.14.32
February 10th, 2007 16:02
or, lets say, the majority of the people who do post on the threads are out judging or debating at tournaments.
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 10th, 2007 20:44
VBD when i started debate: http://web.archive.org/web/20010814072404/www.victorybriefs.net/current.htm
i read like everything linked from that page.
i dont really have a point, i just thought it was cool
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 10th, 2007 20:59
wait one more thing:
December 15, 2003
Introducing Jon Cruz
Wow, if — all those years ago — you had told 9th grade me that he would one day be an editor on VictoryBriefs.com, he would’ve wet his pants.
For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Jon Cruz. I’m the former president of Great Neck South Forensics (based in scenic Great Neck, New York) and I’m now in my third year at Vassar College. I founded and still direct the Vassar Invitational and Vassar Round Robin (and trust me, I’ll be directing them for the rest of my life). I judge very frequently on the national and state circuit. I admittedly post a lot on Westman (lddebate.org to the non-initiated). I plan to coach full-time as soon as I have the time.
Given that I’ve had a digital camera at my side at every tournament I’ve attended for as long as I can remember, I suppose it’s fitting (it’s definitely flattering) to be named photo editor for Victory Briefs Daily. After tourneys, check Photos @ VBD for immortalized visual memories. (You can find the collection down the column on the right side of page.) You’ll finally be able to put faces to the names you read about online. My first contribution is putting up photos from this year’s Princeton Classic and Bump Tournament at Hen Hud. I look forward to uploading both my numerous future photos and the photos that you submit to me! I can be reached via e-mail at jocruz@vassar.edu; my AIM name is Lapti Nek. Thanks for checking out the photos…you rock!
Posted by JCruz at 08:45 PM | Comments (7)
Posted from: 67.9.189.102
February 11th, 2007 15:22
Greg, etc:
I will post again on this, but I am out of town and also working on a couple articles to kick off a new blog. Bietz is correct that people are just busy, I think.
As far as the issue about the thread falling into oblivion… I mean, it got over 170 comments… I’m not sure what more someone wants really. The article was featured for what.. a week?
Posted from: 130.49.58.236
February 11th, 2007 16:47
it was featured for around 4 days. not complaining, just answering the question.
Posted from: 128.135.121.109
February 11th, 2007 21:47
marnold + 1.
Posted from: 71.195.77.97
February 12th, 2007 06:59
Just curious, how much time do you spend writing those posts, Babb?
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
February 12th, 2007 10:00
Ah, archive.org. :o) And everything I said is true, except about the poor Vassar Invitational. Though Chris Castillo and I still want to do a new challenge tournament….
So, will people be posting on LDDebate.org more for forums? I’m still not really sure why we wouldn’t have discussion there, since all we basically need to do is have new moderators. I’m one of the few active ones left there, though, as I admitted earlier, I haven’t done much moderating lately. Recently there have been some productive conversations. I am definitely willing to be an active mod again, and I know Mike West is looking for new mods. If there is community interest in a forum site in which users can create topics, I think the best available site for it exists. It just needs to be renovated a bit.