The At-Large Process Begins
posted by Jon Cruz on March 3rd, 2008
LEXINGTON, Ky. — The dust has settled. The final bids have been awarded. Now, the at-large application process for the Tournament of Champions has begun.
The at-large application can be downloaded from the official web site of the TOC.
Are you applying for an at-large bid? (Or, are you applying your debaters for at-large bids?) Are any debaters who have qualified to the TOC not attending?
Popularity: 12% [?]
no more tag found, sorry
272 Responses to “The At-Large Process Begins”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- The At-Large Process Begins
- Chris Catterton is Harker Champion
- NFL Districts Report
- David Donatti Wins TFA State
- Field Report: TFA State
- Chris Theis Defends Iowa Round Robin Title
- Good Evening Mr. and Mrs. North and South America and All Ships At Sea, Let's Go to Press!
- Missing: Nicholas Garza
- Matt Thomas Wins Westchester Classic
- Becca Traber, Madeline Vuong Win Lone Star Round Robin Titles
Posted from: 68.175.61.157
March 3rd, 2008 11:08
Bronx Science has a fully-qualified LD debater (Matt Dunay), a fully-qualified policy team (Kristina Gunnarsdottir & Francisco Bencosme), and a fully-qualified Public Forum team (Daniel Wilkofsky & Tina Ritter). All of them are attending.
We’re also applying for at-large bids for:
– Seth Teleky, Saboor Sheerazi, Bobby Esnard, and Vineet Singal in LD
– Andrew Markoff & Regan Bozman, Saieed Hasnoo & Paula Cajdler, and Lisa Ha & Dylan Gorman in policy
– Lev Raslin & Rohan Jotwani, Stefan Kazmi & Laura Maschler in PF
Posted from: 169.229.81.189
March 3rd, 2008 12:01
Lily Sadaat is applying for the At-Large from CPS
Posted from: 71.88.39.29
March 3rd, 2008 12:24
I’ll be applying for an at large.
Posted from: 128.192.223.134
March 3rd, 2008 12:35
Will Simoneaux from Jesuit New Orleans is applying for an at-large bid.
Andrew Marquis, T.C. Wicker, and Ian Jorgensen all received bids but will not be applying for at-larges bids.
Posted from: 209.122.160.124
March 3rd, 2008 12:54
Lexington will be applying for at larges for myself (Gabe Schonfeld), and Jason Zhou
Posted from: 66.240.48.106
March 3rd, 2008 13:03
Harker will have the following debaters attending TOC/applying for at-large bids:
LD:
Deepa Ramakrishnan (Attending)
Vikram Nathan (At-Large Applicant)
PF:
Kelsey Hilbrich/Kaavya Gowda (At-Large Applicant)
Mohit Bansal/Raghav Aggarwal (At-Large Applicant)
Congress:
Stephanie Benedict (Attending)
Posted from: 38.118.12.10
March 3rd, 2008 13:30
Following Adam’s model, here’s the story for Whitman.
LD:
Ellen Noble (Attending)
Jane Kessner (At-Large Applicant)
Ben Lewis (At-Large Applicant)
Emily Massey (At-Large Applicant)
Caroline Sherrard (At-Large Applicant)
PF:
Alex Edelman/Aaron Schifrin (Attending)
Ben Wolcott/Rachel Umans (At-Large Applicant)
Congress:
Drew Vollmer (Attending)
Jessica Sheehan (At-Large Applicant)
We also had another LDer, 3 different PF combos, and 2 other Congressors with bids who will not be applying. So many at-larges! :-/
Also, on the Torrey Pines front, Vivian Feig WILL be applying for the at-large in LD.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
March 3rd, 2008 13:57
John Scoggin is already qualed
Matt Aizpuru and Julia Hawkins are applying for an at large in PF from Blake.
Posted from: 169.204.230.202
March 3rd, 2008 14:01
ben schifberg and I wouldn’t miss it for the world.
my dear teammate billy ray is not applying for an at large, and the other two qualified washington debaters (lulu danzig and greg bigelow) are not attending, or so i’ve been led to believe.
Posted from: 71.190.113.224
March 3rd, 2008 14:23
It will be interesting to see if any sophomores will make it. Any thoughts?
Posted from: 66.56.33.211
March 3rd, 2008 14:27
i’m applying
Posted from: 24.45.15.243
March 3rd, 2008 15:19
I will be attending. Peter Damrosch will not be applying for an at large.
Posted from: 68.175.61.157
March 3rd, 2008 15:27
Sophomores have made it before. Lindsay Dolan and Jake Nebel are both excellent examples of what sophomore at-large recipients are capable of!
Posted from: 67.159.47.170
March 3rd, 2008 15:54
lucky draws?
Posted from: 72.73.169.218
March 3rd, 2008 16:05
I’m applying, and praying, and hoping, and wishing.
Oh, and Walt Whitman JK definitely deserves an at-large. Just my two cents.
Posted from: 207.172.73.3
March 3rd, 2008 16:16
Yeah, Lex also has a qualled policy team (Townzen/Zendeh) and one applying for an at large (Lempesis/Sterman)
Our PF at large situation remains ambiguous.
Posted from: 68.104.4.9
March 3rd, 2008 16:35
From The Meadows School
in LD:
Adrienne Keamy (Attending)
Amanda Signorelli (Attending)
Nick Bratton (At Large Applicant)
in Policy
Kim/Selesner (Attending)
Blau/Saxe (At Large Applicant)
Posted from: 208.105.17.62
March 3rd, 2008 16:37
CENSORSHIP CRUZ.
Posted from: 71.247.173.249
March 3rd, 2008 16:43
could someone tell us when the rankings are coming out (it says march 2nd, but seeing as they are still not up im kinda skeptical of that release date)?
this is for my sanity and so i dont have to check the site every two hours :)
Posted from: 76.17.236.195
March 3rd, 2008 18:04
Hopkins:
Conor Doherty (attending)
Gauri Subramani (at-large applicant)
Posted from: 99.231.230.85
March 3rd, 2008 18:13
Cherian Koshy and Seth Halvorson will be applying for an at large bid in PF
Posted from: 24.175.192.109
March 3rd, 2008 18:22
to the esteemed author of post 14:
don’t be a punk-ass.
love,
J-Mo Nebs aka the Worm
Posted from: 68.175.61.157
March 3rd, 2008 18:26
It’s hater season today! To the author of comment #14: That kind of cowardly post makes me think you’re the kind of lucky draw Jake and Lindsay pray for.
Posted from: 70.138.96.26
March 3rd, 2008 18:26
haters…
Posted from: 66.108.131.237
March 3rd, 2008 18:31
addendum to cruz: it is ignorant and foolish to consider the highest ranked debater in the country (by 400 points) the recipient of lucky draws :)
Posted from: 76.102.128.144
March 3rd, 2008 18:37
Anna Ward from Monte Vista will be applying for an at-large
Posted from: 68.115.80.148
March 3rd, 2008 18:50
“Cherian Koshy and Seth Halvorson will be applying for an at large bid in PF”
Given the ideas those two come up with together that would be the most frightening debate combination possible (not in a good way).
Posted from: 165.123.230.54
March 3rd, 2008 18:56
Pennsylvania will be making a triumphant return to debate at this year’s TOC; I’ll be accompanying Upper St. Clair’s J.P. Gooderham, and Alexander McCobin will be judging for him.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 3rd, 2008 19:13
From Mountain View/Los Altos (MVLA):
Los Altos JW (applying)
Los Altos DM (attending)
Mountain View JM (applying)
Mountain View NP (attending)
Mountain View DK (attending)
Mountain View DG (attending)
Posted from: 216.24.241.226
March 3rd, 2008 19:22
adding to ali’s post, i’ll be attending; and for those policy debaters who know ankur sarodia, he’ll be accompanying me.
Posted from: 71.190.113.224
March 3rd, 2008 19:27
JANE KESSNER DESERVES A BID MORE THAN ANY OTHER APPLICANT, myself included.
Posted from: 68.126.6.208
March 3rd, 2008 19:32
yeah broski, jake nebel totally sucks!!!!
like for sure dude!!!!!
jk jake dominates my face.
he and i go way back… we’re bathroom buddies… if you know what i mean….
… i mean our rooms were connected by a bathroom at vbi
anyway, it’ll be becca traber vs jake nebel in the finals, with a 6-3 decision for the negative.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
March 3rd, 2008 19:37
hating is the gateway into swag.
everyone had to start out fronting like they knew.
still, nebel rocks a fly jersey in the summertime.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
March 3rd, 2008 19:38
oh, and what was jake’s draw at TOC last year?
from vague recollection, it was not easy.
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
March 3rd, 2008 19:44
Valley will be sending Maeshal Abid, Ross Brown, and Matt Kawahara; I’m assuming, as per usual, that Dave and I will be judging.
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
March 3rd, 2008 20:10
to mezzatesta- hopefully becca gets to the finals and jake loses in semis. no hate for jake, just in their past meetings it hasn’t gone so well for her…
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
March 3rd, 2008 20:11
additionally, one thing i would like to see is someone flip aff in outrounds
Posted from: 66.41.241.136
March 3rd, 2008 20:35
Ben Holguin will
Posted from: 128.101.49.37
March 3rd, 2008 20:42
check the sick shit explicit
the worm crystallize the rhyme so you can sniff it
Posted from: 128.101.49.37
March 3rd, 2008 20:45
the round*
Posted from: 71.90.27.171
March 3rd, 2008 20:59
Sheboygan North KM (policy) is applying for an at large. If they get in, I’m coming along.
Posted from: 69.119.93.209
March 3rd, 2008 21:13
matt ross stop kissing butt
<3
BUT WORD JAKE NEBEL IS PWN
Posted from: 205.188.116.76
March 3rd, 2008 21:25
I (Great Neck South JK) am applying for the at large and will be praying to be end up being part of someone’s lucky draw.
Posted from: 71.91.1.67
March 3rd, 2008 21:26
Mountain Brook’s Claire Herren will be applying for an at-large
Posted from: 71.214.198.150
March 3rd, 2008 21:29
the snake will be applying for an at-large
beware
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
March 4th, 2008 11:29
The midwest will be bringing home the gold this year. Guaranteed.
Posted from: 71.205.169.123
March 4th, 2008 15:06
Groves BG (Bhardwaj and Goren) will be attending in policy and Groves GM is applying for an at-large.
Posted from: 71.139.10.115
March 4th, 2008 16:27
did it occur to anyone that comment #14 might be directed at the at large applicants, rather than jon’s post?
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
March 4th, 2008 16:45
I dont think so, since at large applicant + lucky draws dont really make sense..
Anyway, East Chapel Hill
LD:
East Chapel Hill MS (Mohit Sahoo) AL App
CONGRESS:
Amit Rao
William Terry
PF:
Aaron Rogoff is fully qualled, he wont be going
EXTEMP:
William Terry
Jon, Has anyone ever qualled to every post season tournement? I know Will from our school, provided he quals to nats, will go to every postseason tourney. If so, how many?
Posted from: 97.113.10.235
March 4th, 2008 17:53
an uncountably large number of people attend both TOC and Nats. not sure how many attend cat nats too. is state a “post season tournament?”
Posted from: 68.175.61.157
March 4th, 2008 18:57
“did it occur to anyone that comment #14 might be directed at the at large applicants, rather than jon’s post?”
Even if that were the case, and I doubt that it is, wouldn’t that still be hate? Like, people who receive at-larges will be others’ lucky draws? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying comment #14 meant?
Posted from: 68.175.61.157
March 4th, 2008 18:58
Mo: in 2001 and 2004, Ben Rothstein and Tara Tedrow, respectively, attended the NCFL, the TOC, and Nationals, and both cleared at all three. (Tara was the NCFL & National Champion. She was an octafinalist at the TOC. Ben won the NCFL, was third at Nationals, and was also an octafinalist at the TOC.)
Posted from: 75.71.25.178
March 4th, 2008 19:18
I assume you mean 2001 and 2002?
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
March 4th, 2008 20:08
I was including Extemp Nationals as well. So I guess for me it was Extemp TOC, Debate TOC, Nats, CatNats?
I assume Alex Stephenson of Eagan did this as well, since he was qualed to the LD TOC
Posted from: 68.115.80.148
March 4th, 2008 20:42
I dont think alex went to LD TOC even though he was qualed. Tim greenfield competed in all of those tournaments though. He went to extemp Toc, LD Toc,NCFL in extemp and NFL in extemp.
Posted from: 71.123.192.89
March 4th, 2008 21:56
Grapevine is going to have some at large bid applications:
Policy – Tonia Beglari and Shelby Pryor
LD – Will Hix
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
March 5th, 2008 16:39
Let’s all be honest here post 14 is spot on if s/he’s suggesting Jake Nebel’s an easy draw. I mean, he barely beat Ben Holguin that one time.
Posted from: 75.73.219.166
March 5th, 2008 19:28
Jake is mediocre, AT BEST
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
March 5th, 2008 19:30
right…keep telling yourself that
Posted from: 24.175.192.109
March 5th, 2008 19:45
BEN HOLGUIN IS THE AUTHOR OF POST 58
you’re going down, Number Three…
Posted from: 128.135.190.43
March 5th, 2008 19:47
new trier will be sending brian mcdonald, maybe one or two at larges will get thrown at us. at max, we’ll have three.
john scoggin deserves an at large more than anyone.
Posted from: 68.115.80.148
March 5th, 2008 20:07
“john scoggin deserves an at large more than anyone.”
I am pretty sure John has 4 bids, he has no need for an at-large.
Also, if #58 was Ben, lets see what you have to say after the epic PF round this summer.
Posted from: 24.155.229.81
March 5th, 2008 20:23
yeah jake nebel TOTALLY had a lucky draw. obv nick tourville was not one of the winningest debaters of last year and was a blowover prelim draw.
Posted from: 24.155.229.81
March 5th, 2008 20:36
jeff merrill from mountain view will be applying for an at-large and is one of the most deserving candidates in the pool.
jeff attended four tournaments this year. his finishes:
1. apple valley – double-octafinals (bid round)
2. vbt – did not clear
3. stanford – quarterfinals (round after the bid)
4. berkeley – triple-octafinals (two rounds before bid)
given that he attended four of the most difficult tournaments in the country, and cleared at three octafinals bids, i think jeff has proven that he can roll with the best.
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
March 5th, 2008 21:05
yeah jeff, i hope you get your bid man
Posted from: 68.48.175.11
March 5th, 2008 21:24
It probably makes the most sense here just to list attending/not attending and who is applying for the at-large.
I know there are going to be a lot of deserving at-large applicants this year, including ones with records similar to the ones listed above. And we don’t need this forum to either be an endorsement arms race, particularly as those tend to turn comparative, which then tends to turn negative against other debaters. Just trying to head off the flame war before it starts.
Posted from: 71.202.108.208
March 5th, 2008 21:37
Rahul from Palo Alto Highschool will be attending
Posted from: 209.122.160.124
March 6th, 2008 07:20
Lexington
Policy:
Townzen/Zendeh (Attending)
Sternman/Lempesis (Applying)
LD:
Gabe Schoenfeld (Applying)
Jason Zhou (Applying)
PFD:
Bernitz/Karr-Kaitin (Applying)
Posted from: 72.193.59.38
March 6th, 2008 23:35
Foothill CF will be applying.
Posted from: 63.138.40.98
March 13th, 2008 05:57
There you go again, Anjan, being all reasonable ‘n stuff….
Mike Calavano will be applying at-large status from ALJ.
BC
Posted from: 98.200.184.143
March 17th, 2008 22:02
I’ll be applying for an at large.
in LD and Extemp
Posted from: 65.100.178.101
March 17th, 2008 23:33
guess who’s back?…
don’t forget to strike me. if you thought i was worth a strike before, i won’t have judged a single round for an entire year by the time of toc. i don’t even know what the topic is.
Posted from: 74.137.28.222
March 22nd, 2008 15:45
Hello All-
Just an FYI. If anyone needs a judge there are several members of the Western Kentucky University debate team are willing and able to judge the TOC since it is about 2 hours away from us. Our team members constantly judge and coach ld, congress, policy, pf, and extemp. If you would like more info or need a judge. Email me at furgie77@hotmail.com.
Thanks and Good Luck!
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
March 22nd, 2008 15:58
Those on the committee/those who are in the know–
strikes or mjp this year?
also, just as a general plea, please everyone make your best attempt to bring experienced judges to toc. I know how hard it is to find judges, but we’re all better off if we make a genuine attempt to hire people familiar with the workings of national circuit ld. i’ve noticed there are several qualified people with ads on the exchange thing here on victory briefs.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
March 22nd, 2008 18:39
Word to what Ernie said.
Posted from: 65.100.178.101
March 23rd, 2008 01:19
I heard JB’s gun collection and JW’s whiskey collection are collectively applying for an at large in Public Forum debate.
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
March 23rd, 2008 17:28
Lynbrook
PoFo
Trisha Parikh & Sonya Aggarwal: 1 bid, 1 bid round
Tejas Navaratna & Ritik Malhotra: 1 bid
LD
Rohit Ramkumar: 1 bid round
Gaurav Gupta: 1 bid round
Applying for an at-large: Tejas Navaratna & Ritik Malhotra
Posted from: 76.95.164.213
March 24th, 2008 11:52
Ernie is such a whiner, maybe if ur nags went slower they wouldnt lose so many rounds. Me and Navot will be there with Om and the homie Tarun is applyin.
Posted from: 68.175.98.39
March 24th, 2008 12:12
Last I spoke with JW, my understanding was that it was still strikes this year, with a set final round panel to be announced before the tournament.
Posted from: 205.221.1.162
March 24th, 2008 14:29
Can someone explain to me what the rationale is for having MJP in policy but only strikes in ld? I know people argue about this often, but I can’t recall if this question was ever really dealt with.
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
March 29th, 2008 06:11
Has anyone heard anything re: TOC at-large bid announcements? If not, does anyone know when the committee’s decisions are revealed?
Posted from: 69.119.154.118
March 29th, 2008 06:56
I’ve heard that the first decisions will start to be announced next week, although I could be wrong.
While I’m here,
Scarsdale High School:
Ken Hershey (Attending)
Matt Hershey (Attending)
Marcus Moretti (Attending)
Nikita Lalwani (Attending)
Daniel Daks (Attending)
Eric Thurm (Applying)
Matt Salant is not applying.
Posted from: 65.125.82.250
April 4th, 2008 09:16
Vivian Ho from Marcus just got in at-large to the TOC.
Huge congrats from all of us at Southlake!!!!
Posted from: 128.135.208.187
April 4th, 2008 09:20
nick bratton did also
Posted from: 38.118.12.10
April 4th, 2008 09:28
In LD, Vivian Feig from Torrey Pines and Ben Lewis and Caroline Sherrard from Walt Whitman received at-large invitations. I could not be happier for them.
Posted from: 76.102.128.144
April 4th, 2008 09:49
anna ward from monte vista received an at-large as well
Posted from: 151.198.226.199
April 4th, 2008 10:06
Where is this posted? Or were acceptances emailed individually to schools/debaters?
Posted from: 169.226.70.133
April 4th, 2008 10:25
From what I have heard Sohail is not going and Alex Williams is not applying. Both of those could turn out to be wrong though.
Posted from: 66.41.255.202
April 4th, 2008 11:01
does anyone know where to send judge philosophies, as the old sites seems currently defunct.
thanks
Posted from: 66.202.94.140
April 4th, 2008 11:02
From Bronx Science, me (Seth Teleky) and Vineet Singal received at-larges as well.
Re #87: my understanding is that the coaches were notified only of their own students
Posted from: 65.125.82.250
April 4th, 2008 11:14
Jenn Miller told me that 10 people got in. She had one student get in and one put on the waiting list (Will Hix).
So far it looks like 8 of those names have been posted on this thread.
Posted from: 24.151.115.208
April 4th, 2008 11:28
Were at large invitations only sent to coaches or also to debaters?
Posted from: 69.48.155.2
April 4th, 2008 11:33
Just coaches.
Posted from: 12.43.42.112
April 4th, 2008 11:36
Courtney Nunley from Northland Christian received an At-Large.
Posted from: 69.153.205.186
April 4th, 2008 12:52
where did courtney pick up a bid?
Posted from: 69.153.205.186
April 4th, 2008 12:54
also, from what i deciphered based on the scoreboard, and conversations with various people, there are 65 qualled debaters attending TOC (out of a total of 70).
Posted from: 169.229.32.136
April 4th, 2008 13:06
Lily Saadat (College-Prep) got an At-Large!
Posted from: 169.229.32.136
April 4th, 2008 13:13
Just compiling what was posted:
Nick Bratton (Meadows)
Vivian Feig (Torrey Pines)
Lily Saadat (College Prep)
Anna Ward (Monte Vista)
Vivian Ho(Marcus)
Courtney Nunley (Northland Christian)
Vineet Singal (Bronx Science)
Seth Teleky (Bronx Science)
Ben Lewis (Walt Whitman)
Caroline Sherrard (Walt Whitman)
If the 10 at-larges rumor is true, then this is the complete list.
Also, there were 38 applicants.
Congrats!
Posted from: 69.153.205.186
April 4th, 2008 13:21
congrats to those who have received at-larges. who is the one who said there were only going to be 10? i heard this weekend (lonestar rr) that there will be between 14 and 17 at-larges.
also, can someone explain how courtney got an at-large without receiving a bid? i thought the rules (on the TOC website) indicated that you have to have one non-ghost bid to apply for an at-large.
also, does anyone know if jason zhou from lex or jeff merrill from mv got at-larges?
Posted from: 24.6.237.64
April 4th, 2008 13:32
…wow, that compiled list is pretty impressive. congrats to all of you! a particular congrats to anna, who’s been gracious enough to let me ride her coattails all the way to kentucky. =)
to the other 28: chin up. getting waitlisted sucks, but you’ve still got plenty of time. i got in after being ranked in the bottom third of my at-large pool…so trust me, you’ve still got a chance. best of luck, and keep hoping!
Posted from: 71.236.67.195
April 4th, 2008 14:34
collegiate public forum ftw!
Posted from: 76.212.5.102
April 4th, 2008 16:35
Nadia Arid (Presentation) received an at large Congrats!
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
April 4th, 2008 18:13
I’d hesitate to predict how many at larges there will be, or to listen to any such predictions. There are some centralized lists of “fully qualified” debaters, but there is no way of knowing who on that list is actually attending (unless you’re Linda Barker or Dr. Patterson). Clearly, the “10 at large” prediction is invalidated by Nadia’s bid (congrats, btw).
Posted from: 71.174.108.109
April 4th, 2008 18:45
I recieved an at large
Posted from: 76.95.164.213
April 4th, 2008 19:18
yo congrats to: nadia, nick, anna, and vivian. see ya at the talk tim
Posted from: 66.56.33.211
April 4th, 2008 21:10
i received one
Posted from: 76.95.164.213
April 4th, 2008 22:52
thats what i like to hear, see u and matt in a month
Posted from: 69.253.230.13
April 5th, 2008 08:02
congrats jason, vivian, courtney, vineet, and seth!
Posted from: 24.232.15.135
April 5th, 2008 13:27
to echo quinn, i am very confused about ms. nunley’s at large.
i’m not trying to stir up trouble, but is it true that she was able to gain an at large w/o a bid? is this a new precedent? does this mean people without bids can attend the TOC over people with bids?
i just don’t get it. if it is a new precedent, it seems like a bad one, no offense to courtney, who definitely is a very capable debater.
Posted from: 169.229.81.61
April 5th, 2008 13:50
Nick Bratton (Meadows)
Vivian Feig (Torrey Pines)
Lily Saadat (College Prep)
Anna Ward (Monte Vista)
Vivian Ho(Marcus)
Courtney Nunley (Northland Christian)
Vineet Singal (Bronx Science)
Seth Teleky (Bronx Science)
Ben Lewis (Walt Whitman)
Caroline Sherrard (Walt Whitman)
Nadia Arid (Presentation)
Jason Zhou (Lexington)
Alex Zhang (Can’t Remember-Sorry)
Posted from: 24.6.237.64
April 5th, 2008 14:37
jay – alex zhang is from pace academy.
on another note, add my voice to those who’d like an explanation of courtney’s at-large. i’m very glad that courtney is getting a chance to compete at the TOC – she’s competent enough to deserve it. that said, i am worried by the precedent this sets. i really don’t see why it’s okay to ignore applicants with one bid in favor of an applicant with no bids…it seems like this makes the whole “getting a bid” thing useless. while there are definite flaws with the bid system, this is a cure worse than the disease.
next year, if i have a student who i feel deserves a chance at the TOC, should i send in an application for her even if she has no bids? if not, i’d love to know why…
again, my congratulations to all at-large recipients, and i’ll see you all in kentucky.
Posted from: 67.101.145.192
April 5th, 2008 15:46
Courtney’s app. was submitted w/ a letter from Minh Luong explaining that she was eliminated due to a tab error at Harvard. As a result, I believe many committee members ranked her as if she had a bid.
Posted from: 24.6.237.64
April 5th, 2008 16:18
lexy,
thank you for the explanation. i have my doubts as to whether the reason you provided is good enough for the move the committee decided to make, but the speed and clarity of your reply is deeply appreciated.
Posted from: 71.236.67.195
April 5th, 2008 16:47
ankur’s post is very polite, so im gonna come off looking like a bad guy here, but i think it needs to be said:
if lexy’s comment is true, i think that is seriously messed up. i mean no offense to courtney, who i have not judged or met. i have no reason to object to her in particular being at toc. but as a matter of principle, i think this decision is unacceptable.
my understanding of the facts: courtney did not have any bids. according to duby on the harvard thread, she went 5-1 with 113 speaks at harvard, but was recorded at 4-2 113 which was not good enough to clear.
charitably, this means that she rightfully deserved to be in the triples. but that is not a guarantee – her 1 loss came in round 2. her only other loss according to the packet was in round 5, and i believe this was the mis-reported round (duby said round 4 on the thread but she got a W30 according to the packet so i assume thats not true). that means even if shed gotten a win, shedve had another power-paired debate – in a higher bracket – and, had she lost, couldve very well have not cleared. let’s assume that she had won round 6 anyway and gotten to triples. but harvard is not a triples bid, or a doubles bid, its an octas bid. she needed to win 2 debates to earn a bid. she wouldve been the 33rd seed (5, 113, 19). she wouldve debated whitman’s ben lewis, who made it to the semis so obviously he knows how to win elims at harvard (he also got an at large). had she won, she wouldve faced lexington ks (moving the seeds down bc the person who incorrectly was recorded as beating courtney didnt clear either) or usha sahay – a toc qualifier last year. only if she had won that debate would she have earned a bid. im sorry folks, that is not plausible enough to earn a debater an at-large bid to the toc. what about the stanford debacle that hurt some people? surely there have been other tab errors this year too. if courtney had already had 1 bid, this wouldve been a perfectly good case for an at large. but with no bids, its just too far fetched for my tastes. in a world where every at large got accepted, this kind of thing would be ok. but thats not usually the case, and it doesnt appear to be this year. a lot of kids paid $80 to submit at large bids, and the rules say “The at-large applicant(s) must have earned at least one leg to apply. Applications submitted without one leg will not be considered and refunds will not be made.” the committee owes it to every at large applicant not to bend the rules when it comes to an issue that’s so important to a lot of kids.
tab errors suck. i wish they didnt happen, and when they do happen we should try to correct them. but i would be a little concerned if the committee even gave an at large to a student w/ no bid who feel victim to a tab error occurred in a bid round; in my opinion, this clearly crosses the line. if the committee starts making exceptions to the rules, there wont really be rules any more. anybody remember that ophuls card i always read? “where there is no principle, power decides.” when we start giving people special exemptions, we have to decide which people are special and that invites some shady political decisions. im not saying that duby rigged the toc committee – sorry sam, you arent quite that charming – i’m just saying its a bad precedent.
congratulations to courtney and all the other at large recipients nonetheless.
Posted from: 74.73.42.3
April 5th, 2008 16:48
I’m confused – did they correctly rank her as if she had a bid? Or was it an oversight that occured because of a mixup with the letter?
If it’s the former, that sets a dangerous precedent that is incredibly harmful to the tournament. While it is egregious that she was unable to clear due to the error, it assumes she would have won her triples AND doubles round at a tournament with a very competitive field. I guess ultimately this makes me think about the following:
1. I can recount NUMEROUS occurances in which debaters (mine and ones I had no affiliation with) were unable to clear because of tab error. Further, I doubt any of them had any idea they would be able to still apply for an at-large under those conditions. Unless directly specified in the rules, this seems to serve as totally new and somewhat arbitrary.
2. Qualifying to the TOC without having the the requisitite rounds – the committee (or letter, whatever) essentially allowed her to fiat winning the two rounds she would have needed. That seems unfair and horrendous, especially to those that lost in triples and doubles.
Should we give bids to students that were a higher seed than Courtney at Harvard but lost in triples or doubles? The only difference between them is one did not have the chance to compete, and that seems an incredibly underwhelming reason to prioritize someone over another person.
Ultimately, I’m not sure how transparent the committee is allowed to be, but I’d be very interested how they could place someone who had never won a bid round above someone who had. I love Sam, I dont know Courtney, I respect the committee, but I feel for those kids that are left out of the process because of something that seems really ridiculous.
Posted from: 74.73.42.3
April 5th, 2008 16:49
fyi – although mangus/myself both coach Collegiate, and our posts were at the exact same time, that is all coincdence :)
Posted from: 74.73.42.3
April 5th, 2008 16:50
Also
Will Marc, who did not clear because of tab error at Wake, be receiving a sixth bid to the TOC? And will Vineet, who cleared because of such error, be having his bid taken away?
Not that I’d ever want that scenario to happen, but it seems like thats the precedent this situation sets, and it just seems undefensable.
Posted from: 128.135.208.187
April 5th, 2008 17:12
strange happenings…
i agree with ankur and “bad guy” mangus
this sets a really bad precedent even if it was a tab error. i guess the whole gotta get a bid thing is now irrelevant.
Posted from: 64.91.217.43
April 5th, 2008 17:12
+1 to mangus:
i like courtney a lot, i’ve seen her around for about 2 years now, but the fact that she is being ranked above kids with bids, and the fact that it wasn’t told to ANYONE ELSE in the country that they could apply bc of tab errors is pretty messed up. personally, i feel like this decision is nothing beyond pure politics because otherwise, there would have been an announcement that tab errors mean free bids. a ton of kids are deserving in this activity of going to the TOC, but just like golden state or denver, not everyone gets to go to the big one. you have to merit it, and while having the ability to merit it being taken away (which it wasn’t, i’ll explain in a sec), it shouldn’t mean that the rules get to be broken unless they are broken for all in the same boat.
also, courtney didn’t clear at harvard as a 4-2, even with tab error, her speaks could’ve been better, 24 4-2s cleared at that tournament. is the advisory committee giving out not only free wins, but better speaks too? just wondering.
Posted from: 67.119.2.194
April 5th, 2008 17:22
Courtney’s a G. Tear it up at the TOC, ma’am.
Posted from: 67.41.147.181
April 5th, 2008 17:40
Just for some history… Kelly Boerman from Colleyville rolled into the TOC with 0 bids but ended up having a pretty good tournament with a 4-3 record. There are others. I have no idea how well they did.
As for this controversy… I just think it’s funny that people believe a debater from a small christian school from houston with one debater who travels and SAMUEL LEON DUBY as her coach has some elite political sway.
By the way, congratulations to all students who did receive at-large consideration. History is on your side to have at least 1-2 of you in the elims.
But anyway, back to gettin’ fired up on the injustices of the world.
michelin massey
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
April 5th, 2008 17:48
I’ll leave it to Dr. Patterson or someone from the TOC staff to address questions about the internal process.
As far as the arguments made here, I don’t think the slope is quite as slippery as you all suggest.
First, there is no remedy for a student who is prevented from clearing at a tournament. The tab staff at Harvard followed all procedures to prevent errors, but no system can be perfect and at the end of the day Ms. Nunley, who had compiled an impressive season record and was looking for the one bid that would have given her a very good shot at an at-large, was prevented from competing in an elimination bracket despite the fact that she had earned her way into that bracket.
Under the circumstances, the only possible remedy would be to allow her to apply at-large. Anything else would amount essentially to “tough luck.”
I don’t think the slope is all that slippery. Even if you grant that every student who is prevented from clearing by tab error now gets a bid by default: (1) This circumstance is very rare at TOC bidded tournaments, and (2) there is still discretion on the part of the LD committee. Ms. Nunley’s application was very good, which is why she got the at-large. If her record, aside from Harvard, had been mediocre, she would probably not have gotten it.
So there is no danger that coaches will begin applying students just because they had good seasons aside from not bidding. The brightline here is a clear set of very rare circumstances.
The only example of tab error offered on the thread so far to indicate the deep problems that would have arisen has no impact: it is irrelevant whether a debater is awarded a 7th bid because the maximum number of bids that can matter in terms of TOC application is 3. In any case, I have a hard time envisioning a world in which tab errors become an overwhelmingly common problem in the TOC application process.
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
April 5th, 2008 17:58
If you give alex williams JUST TWO ballots, he basically has 2 bids.
Posted from: 216.235.148.194
April 5th, 2008 17:58
Courtney received a bid because the tab error would have meant that every single other bid at the tournament would have been invalidated, as per TOC policy. As a result, it seems reasonable to grant her a bid in the interests of the other 16 people who bid there.
p.s. quinn, this doesn’t affect you. so stop bitching.
Posted from: 64.91.217.43
April 5th, 2008 18:01
regardless of the slippery slope, it seems illegitimate, regardless of past accomplishments, to essentially fiat wins for a student, both of the prelim and elim variety. had she earned her way into that bracket? that can never be proven true because the mis-tabbed round wasn’t the last round, she could’ve very easily lost round 6 due to the shift in who her opponent would have been.
aside from the fact that there is no clear problem with “tough luck” as the response, is that not the same tough luck that kids face at every tournament they go to in terms of the skills of their opponenents, incompetence of the judges, bad scheduling, etc? people go to tournaments knowing that things can go wrong. moreover, harvard did not become a tournament this year. tournaments earn reputations, be it good or bad, and choosing to go to one (or any tournament) that contains the possibility of tab error means you should spend your money elsewhere.
the fact that there is discretion in terms of the committee is exactly what makes this political. bids are not taken from students who cleared on tab errors, and bids weren’t given to students who didn’t clear on tab errors earlier this year. regardless of what it effects (the app, etc), that condition changes the results of the tournament, or at least contains the possibility of doing so.
one of the last things said about how ‘there is no danger that good seasons mean at-large apps’ seems like you don’t get what mangus, mumper, ankur and i are complaining about. it’s not about a slippery slope or the probability of this policy’s continuation, it’s about mistreatment of a system established prior to the season that kids follow in order to get to the TOC.
for those who fought their way to the 1 bid (and there are some people on the waitlist with comparatively good records alongside courtney) and didn’t get an at-large, i guess you’re the one who gets ‘tough-lucked’ this year. that sucks.
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
April 5th, 2008 18:02
Why?
Posted from: 74.73.42.3
April 5th, 2008 18:06
What on earth does it matter who it effects, especially on an open forum anyone should be able to express themselves. Ad hominem at it’s greatest/dumbest.
While I understand that her record over the year is impressive, everyone so forth has just ignored Mangus’ post, specifically in terms of what would happen had the result be entered correctly. She would have debated different people, outrounds would have been totally different, so I’m not sure why the tournament screw-up equates to “pass directly to the octofinals.”
It is a very slippery slope, because it bypasses a very specific rule and roughly translates into “if the tournament was at fault…” I saw a bid round this year where the debate had two struck judges and a TD that functionally did not care so as to keep the tournament running. Should the loser be awarded a bid since the tournament screwed up? It is these types of ambigious situations that make me think this exception is harmful for the coummunity.
Posted from: 67.101.145.192
April 5th, 2008 18:08
I’ll try to shed a little light on a process that is generally shrouded in secrecy.
Members of the TOC committee serve in an advisory role to Dr. Patterson. At our meeting at the TOC we discuss rules and policies for future tournaments. As rankers of the at-large pool, however, we work in isolation. Each of us receives a packet of applications. We are asked, within a week, to rank them and state whether we think that they are qualified. We do not get together and discuss the applicants or any anomalies in their applications. We would not have an opportunity to do so, even if we wanted to. This year, with 38 applications for what I assumed would be a handful of spots, it was very tough (I have to admit to being a bit startled by the number who have been admitted through the at-large process this year).
I believe that this is not the only time that a debater with no bids has had an application forwarded to the committee. I’m pretty sure that it happened reasonably recently in policy, but that the committee did not rank the team high enough to be admitted.
Now put yourself in the position of the committee members. Dr. Patterson (via Linda Barker) sends you a packet of applications to rank. You know that the rule is that one can only apply w/ a bid, but you also know that Dr. Patterson could have had Linda not include any improper applications. Then, a few days later, they forward you a letter from the LD Director at Harvard asking you not to penalize Courtney for the tournament’s error. What are you to do? I think many committee members, with good reason, interpreted this as official endorsement of the appropriateness of treating this application as if it had a bid. I also think that it is possible that some committee members misinterpreted Minh’s letter and did not realize that Courtney did not clear to triples, rather than failing to advance from doubles. I did not make that mistake, but I can see how it might have happened.
Without telling you how I ranked the debaters, I can tell you that I have great sympathy for the arguments you have marshaled. I think there would be little harm in changing the rules to accept applications without bids (a bidless debater would almost never get in), though it would make the ranking much more difficult due to increased numbers. Without such a change, I agree that admitting bidless debaters is unfair to others (both those with a bid who are passed over, and those who lack a bid and do not know that they can apply). I am certain that there are others on the committee who agree, or will agree, once we have a chance to discuss this issue. Yes, I am also certain that this will be a hot topic in our meeting at the TOC.
My suggestion is that rather than treating this as an abuse of power by committee members, you try to understand that many committee members probably felt that they were receiving mixed messages regarding this application. With no chance to consult others, committee members did their best. If you know committee members and have an opinion on how similar cases should be dealt with in the future, share your views with them. If you do not, you can be confident that I will share the opinions that have been aired on this forum. I’ll also be happy to report back after the TOC with any conclusions reached by the committee.
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
April 5th, 2008 18:08
I don’t think her record, though strong indicates that she definitely would have gotten a bid. Especially since Harvard is a different ball game from the other tournaments she has been at.
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
April 5th, 2008 18:14
I think Mangus has clearly said what he would have done in that position. Ranked her at the bottom because she didn’t have a bid. Not clearing would be the result of Harvard’s tab error, getting a bid is a little beyond that.
Posted from: 71.236.67.195
April 5th, 2008 18:42
“cool it” doesnt sound like the kind of person im willing to trust, and as far as i know there is no rule that ways ‘1 tab error = no bids count’ (if there is, i have never seen it enforced in the past 6 years and im confident there have been errors). so that doesnt seem like a plausible explanation.
i appreciate lexy’s reply. i know most of the people on the committee and i like a lot of them. i realize the time-pressure for ranking at larges is tremendous (i was coached by committee member for a few years, ive seen it done, it doesnt look pretty). but there should be someone somewhere in the chain that takes the time to fact-check entries. i dont think there was any malicious intent here on the part of courtney or duby, but what if one of our less respectable bretheren decides to forge an app with bids from obscure tournaments? does anyone validate results? i dont expect each committee member to have to do it all herself – that’s inefficient and a lot of work for a group of people who provide a service for the community. there’s got to be a better way to filter applications.
of course, just complaining doesnt do anything. so, if no such mechanism for validating results exists (and lexy’s post suggests that it doesnt) here’s my suggestion for how to fix it:
(1) require all bid tournaments to submit full documentation (the whole packet) and note any errors or irregularities *when the tournament results are submitted to dr patterson*. we have the internet and every bid tournament i know of is run on computers. this isnt hard to do.
(2) find a volunteer from the existing committee or create a new position within the toc administrative hierarchy. that person will get the list of at large applicants at the same time as the committee, fact-check the applications, and notify the committee of any irregularities. might as well have them fact-check fully qualified entries too.
(3) admit 1 more at-large applicant than previously planned this year so that no one loses out.
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
April 5th, 2008 20:56
while, in the past I’ve disagreed with michael, and in the past i’ve disagreed with michael just for the sake of disagreement, i couldn’t agree with him more on this issue.
while admitting an additional at large would ensure that no eligible applicant is denied because of this error, it does nothing to remedy the fact that there are probably an infinite number of people with no bids who are disappointed to find out that they should probably have sent in an application.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
April 5th, 2008 21:04
Mangus, Mumper, Quinn, etc. are right. The only circumstance that could justify giving this at-large would be if Harvard were a triples bid, which, of course, it’s not. It’s extremely unfortunate that Courtney did not get the opportunity to bid that she sought at this tournament, but it’s not the right of the at-large committee or anyone else to speculate that she definitely would’ve gotten a bid had she broken. It’s extremely unfair to at-large applicants who actually have bids who are going to be turned down. It’s also unfair to people who have 0 bids and don’t even have a shot at applying for at-larges. This is clear enough. Courtney is a nice girl and an excellent debater, but we cannot make exceptions to the rules. Furthermore, although I’m not going to suggest that Duby has any particular sway in the debate community, had it been a less well-known debater (Courtney seems pretty well-liked and has been invited to several round robins, etc.), that person may not have gotten an at-large at all, even if s/he was in the same circumstance. Ultimately, with no offense to Courtney or Duby, it’s simply unfair to make such an exception.
I think also that this discussion should call the entire notion of at-larges into question. To me, the process seems intrinsically unfair: Two debaters have 1 bid each. They both apply for an at-large. A committee then gets to subjectively decide who goes to TOC. How is this decision made? They say it’s based on record, but everyone knows that it can’t be. It’s not like they list out the applicants in order of season record or number of bid-rounds lost and just go from the top to bottom. And, even if they did do that, where would they stop? They accept the top 10 kids but not the 11th? Ultimately, the whole at large process, exemplified by Courtney’s experience, invites a huge amount of subjectivity which simply is not fair to 1) debaters who worked really hard to get 2 bids and 2) debaters with 1 bid who don’t get at-larges.
I think there are two ways to eliminate this subjectivity:
1) Make the requirement for TOC only 1 bid (to me, doesn’t seem so desirable, but the argument could probably be made), or
2) Get rid of at-larges altogether. I know people are going to start listing all of these good debaters who really really deserved to qual and just got “screwed” but before anyone does, just think about how incredibly subjective it is to say that someone deserves to go to TOC when they haven’t met the requirements. Let’s not leave this up to a committee – just make a 2 bid requirement and the whole process will be much more fair.
Posted from: 71.236.67.195
April 5th, 2008 21:16
i disagree w/ the idea that the at large system is intrinsically flawed. i think its good to have that extra step between ‘no chance at toc’ and ‘definitely in at toc.’ i believe that debate is a subjective activity, and results should be evaluated subjectively as well. not everyone with 1 bid is the same – some people come close a lot but never quite get over the hump, some people dont get to travel much, some people just compete at extremely competitive tournaments, etc. stats alone dont make the kinds of judgment calls necessary to produce a fair ranking.
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
April 5th, 2008 21:27
I think that Lexy’s description of what happened with Courtney’s application is spot on. Being that her name was on my list, I assumed it was there for a reason and ranked the list with the given information. The issues of fairness this situation raises are important and should be discussed but understand, as Lexy explained, why things fell out as they did.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
April 5th, 2008 21:27
of course debate is extremely subjective, but results are the most objective thing we have. they are way more objective than a committee speculating and deciding who gets to go and who doesn’t. If we want to evaluate results subjectively, why not randomly choose who gets at-larges?
All I know is that if I got 1 bid and didn’t get an at-large I would be really pissed off. I would ask myself, “what did those other kids who got the opportunity to go to TOC do that I didn’t?” And, ultimately, the answer to that question most of the time would be “nothing.” They got 1 bid, just like you, they got screwed over plenty of times, just like you, and ultimately the sole difference is that a committee decided that, for some reason, they were more entitled to go to TOC than you, even though you both had the same number of bids. It’s simply unfair. As I said before, if it’s such a crime to exclude kids who seem to get “screwed over” time and time again, just make the requirement for TOC 1 bid only. At least that would be consistent and fair.
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
April 5th, 2008 21:30
By the way, one thing I know that Dr. Patterson is interested in discussing with the committee this year is how to better obtain information from qualifying tournaments and look into moving some of the aspects of administering and registering the tournament through electronic means. Hopefully out of this discussion, some of the issues that Michael very rightly points out can be resolved.
Posted from: 76.95.164.213
April 5th, 2008 21:54
Heres some cents for you foolios. I’m beyond trippin at the situations cuz i have also have a kid applying for an at large, having gotten one bid, also because (not knock courtney and her new found fame) that there are some homies (MVLA) that are more qualified (than a lot of at large applicants). Obviously qualification is subjective and not for me to determines, its for the homies on the committee and obviously they thought different. That being said…
I perused through the TOC website and the only mention of needing a bid to apply is on the instructions, not on the application, but further down the website on applying. But the instruction in no way denotes 1 bid is a necessary condition of applying, it may or may not be sufficient. I’m not even sure theres a rule in a “rulebook” that requires a bid.
I think the real issue, obviously, is the abuse that not following the “rules” can create. The national circuit is afraid of the politics thats being played by the committee. But what do u expect with members that are active coaches? We are only human, and its impossible for us to divorce ourselves from our biases (though we get close as adjudicators). Truthfully, if you have to invite ppl to a party, offcourse your going to invite the homies. Politics isnt necessary to doing well but it can be sufficient.
If you have a problem with politics, remember what your doing. Your competing to be a part of a group of elite debaters “sanctioned” by a committee and an elitist system. If you want to play this game, then you have to be prepared to lose.
If anything the at large process provides a means of escaping politics, that may or may not be abused. Courtneys invitation can be seen as a political play or recognition of her skill.
Finallly, this is JW’s party, juss like the greenhill RR is AT’s party (and not a bad party i might add). If JW wants to procedurally (give a bid) or just out of the blue, invite Courtney, then who the hell is gonna stop him? Likewise If the committee is like, man this girl is baller, why would they be constrained from ranking her high? I think bids just tend to give us a standard of how good a debater is, but once again a bid is sufficient for greatness, not necessary.
I think the only real problems is the slippery slope, which i think may be better for the community. Giving people without one bid a chance to compete entirely equalizes the playing field and its selection process. Furthermore, I think the committee as a group of active coaches, ensures that at best these are isolated cases, if this has occurred before, it was obviously rare enough to have dropped from our collective memory.
The only real issue i think is the secrecy, which seems to have been a theme with JW this year, after having conferred bids on the GDI literally at the tournament. But it has obviously occured in the past, and the fact that it was forgotten from our collective memory (mine too, shit i didnt even know) I dont think is the TOC’s fault.
So while Im sad that some homies may or may not be at TOC, its not our party and you can guys cry if you want to.
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
April 5th, 2008 21:57
I should have applied… :D
Congrats to all who recieved at-larges.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
April 5th, 2008 22:07
ok, Ashan, homie, you’re right – it’s JW’s party and we can cry can cry if we want to. Congrats on writing a hilarious post while avoiding the substance of the discussion completely.
Here’s a question – if it’s JW’s party, it’s cool if he just decides that certain people can’t go to TOC, right? Like if your debater qualified and JW just didn’t allow him to go, that would be ok, right? I mean, it’s technically his tournament so he can do whatever he wants. Invite someone out of the blue, reject someone out of the blue – whatever.
Get real. The community as a whole should just set some standards and maintain consistency.
Posted from: 76.95.164.213
April 5th, 2008 23:22
(I love gettin flamed by anons, I could ask bietz to trace… maybe at nat quals)
(I also want to make an edit, the 1 bid question is clearly denoted at the top of the app, i have poor vision :-( )
The only guaranteed rule of TOC attendance is that 2 bids gets u to the dance. Being an at large doesnt guarantee u admission. And yea if he wanted to point out my kid and be like you, i dont like you then yea, wtf am i gonna do? yea lets all post on vbd and make ourselves feel better.
I also think your logic is backwards. I am saying that his right to include is justified, but theres no link between that and a right to exclude. (Only insofar as there are a limited amount of inclusions and to include one excludes another, which is also within JW’s power to change. Navot’s solution of either rescinding or auto-inviting the next person on the list, is most applicable)
I totally agree with mangus that in no way should she have been considered as having a bid, considering that her at large app probably showed otherwise. Even more so, the app could not have indicated that she was in doubles of Harvard, so while there may have been tab-error it couldnt have possibly vaulted her into the position of bid.
The one part of my arg that is most important here is that while a bid is sufficient to confer greatness it is not necessary. Its entirely possible that she could be better than not just one, but all one bidders. Why a bid suddenly vaults one debater to another level i have no idea.
It is likely that there was retardedness on the part of the committee. My cuzin mumper tells me that when he applied his PF teams for an at large, he forgot to indicate the 1 bid and recieved a call from Linda Barker. What Minh’s letter said, I have no idea, but either it was ballin outta control, or Linda just was not paying attention. And truthfully, Mihn A Luong has the kinda sway that could get anyone into the dance(running tab can do that for ya).
And if its not politics, of which duby is purported to have little, then it must have been that app. And if her app was considered better than the app’s of ppls with bids, then she must have done something extraordinary.
And like mangus points out that the at large system is not intrinsically unfair. Unfair would be not considering people who do not have bids or just one bid, for that reason alone. i think that both in the past and in the future the at large system can be extreeeeemely fair. It gives an opportunity for debaters who dont get guaranteed admission to recieve recognition and potentially get that invite.
This is just the nature of the bid system. In college there are points, and there are abuses of that power (for example holding small local tourneys and racking up lots of points). But the point system escapes the all or nothing bid system. The Committee recognizes that there could be people who are better than qualified debaters and should have consideration in attendance. They also recognize, structural (glass ceiling), financial, and regional constraints to attaining two bids.
I wont get mad at ur sarcasm, cuz ur probably just a waitlisted at large whos venting. If this is true I’m not sure who think you are (literally) but there are way more deserving ppl who should be disappointed.
Like I said with the prior post. The TOC isnt a democracy, in fact its entirely the opposite. Its a tournament meant for the upper echelons and to be invite only. The TOC isnt nationals, it doesnt operate with equal consideration to everyone, though it tries to. The regional distribution of bids tries to be equitable, while being focused on the areas with the best debaters. It would be better to think of the TOC as a large round robin, rather than a nationals style qualifying tournament. The bid system is focused on getting the best debaters, whereas districts are meant for national representation.
And just like a round robin or any tournament (emory), the tournament director can be as exclusive as they please. If you dont like it focus on league debate and go to nats. You want to play the game, but not abide by the rules when it doesnt go your way.
The TOC is literally JW’s Party, he can invite whoever he wants. The fact that he will always invite ppl with two bids should be recognized as gracious. The fact that he invites people with one or no bids, should be recognized as gracious. I dont even know why the TOC has to have an at large system.
I personally am grateful for at larges, for both the first debater I at larged, and this possible second one.
Posted from: 12.43.42.121
April 5th, 2008 23:31
If the people on this thread really think that Courtney is cool, a baller, et al they should have thought about what writing such vitriol might do to the psyche of Ms. Nunley who might be directed to read the messages on the thread.
A few things are worth pointing out:
1. McGinnis and I agree on something debate related. Enough said.
2. After a tabulation error (an error which seems clear by the way after reviewing what was sent to the committee), instead of complaining on VBD about the error, her coaches apparently did something proactive and wrote a letter or email to J.W. to address what they believed to be an injustice to their student. The only recourse was to then give one bid to the student in fairness to said student. Perhaps other coaches should learn a lesson to be an advocate for their kids by voicing concerns to people that can resolve those concerns rather than mere whines on VBD.
3. A very diverse group of individuals reviewed the application, and verification that an error did in fact occur at Harvard. As a result of viewing the information, enough people on the committee did rankings that would allow Ms. Nunley to get an at large. The educators on the advisory committee erred on the side of a student who had been in a few bid rounds. If the application was not strong she would not have gotten in. Period. The diverse individuals on the committee will stop the “slippery slope”. If you don’t like the decision of the committee you should ask JW to be on the committee. Suggestions to improve the process is fine. Lets make sure we are sensitive to the student in question.
Being on the TOC advisory committee necessitates judgment calls. One was made in this case that seemed by many to be in the best interest of the student in question in the opinion of the majority of the committee.
By the way, can someone tell me what a “pre-standard argument” is?
Posted from: 128.135.108.47
April 6th, 2008 00:26
This doesn’t seem to be the huge deal that people are making it. This was something “the rules” didn’t cover… and now they almost certainly will. If the number of debaters given at-larges was increased by one to accommodate this situation, who exactly is losing out? The only people with a legitimate beef (again, assuming that the field size was increased appropriately) is someone with no bids who was screwed by the tab-room at a bid tournament BUT who otherwise still has a convincing resume to justify an at-large. They would be aggrieved because they had no way of knowing that such an application was permissible, but if there’s more than one debater with that circumstance, I’d be stunned. I agree with Michael Mangus that this could set a bad precedent but nothing that an official codification “Nunley Rule” wouldn’t solve.
Posted from: 67.101.145.192
April 6th, 2008 07:05
Thank you, Aaron, for reminding everyone that while we may think that we are simply addressing an issue of policy, we are also discussing a living, breathing human being who is likely to feel singled out and unwelcome as a result of this discussion. Please remember, all of you, that Courtney cannot be faulted for the error made in tab at Harvard, the pro-active actions of her coach, or the decision of the committee. The committee ranked Courtney high enough to be admitted to the TOC and she should be welcomed like very other qualifier. Courtney–Congrats and have a great tournament!
Posted from: 67.41.147.181
April 6th, 2008 07:36
What’s funny to me is that there’s a bunch of indignance on this thread about Ms. Nunley’s application because of “no bid”. Yet, home girl was rated to be better than at least 2/3 of the applicants by coaches who’ve put up consistent numbers on the scoreboard in this activity during the past 20+ years.
I think the lesson here is that not all bids (or students with bids) are created equally. I, more than anybody, know that a blow to the ego is a tough pill to swallow. Nonetheless, the bottom line reality of the matter remains: Northland Christian CN is going to the TOC. Handle it.
Oh, and by the way, if you’re one of those Anons who happen to get in and you debate her, don’t lose. That’d make you the all-time wanksta… or, maybe you’re already there.
michelinmassey.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
April 6th, 2008 07:49
to answer a few things:
1) From my interactions with Courtney, she seems mature and intelligent enough (understatement, obviously) to realize that this conversation is NOT ABOUT HER; it’s about the principle of letting someone go to TOC who didn’t have bids based on a tab error. I myself have debated Courtney and I think she’s probably better than a lot of people going to TOC this year. (Pre-empt: That doesn’t mean that she necessarily deserves to go – I still believe in a fair application of rules).
2) Ashan, go ahead and try to trace me. I have not said anything that I am ashamed of. The only reason I post anonymously (here and ever) is because I am still debating and I fear political backlash. I think people in this community really underplay politics and don’t realize the extent to which people vote for the people they like and know without even looking at the flow. Furthermore, I think every person in almost all contexts has the right to voice a concern without attaching their name to it, and I think that if you tried to get Bietz to find out who I am that would say something very bad about you as a person.
3) I will say one thing about my identity, which is that I am not a wait-listed at-large applicant. I am fully qualified to TOC. However, if I were an at-large applicant, it would make my arguments no less valid.
4) You ditch all of the hilarious rhetoric in your last post which makes me sad. Honestly I crack up whenever someone says “homie”, especially when having an intense discussion on a debate website. Nevertheless, your post is still full of contradictions. At the top you say “he only has the right to include, not exclude”, and at the bottom you say “he can be as exclusive as he wants”. So which one is it? Care to pick? You say “wtf am I gonna do [if he doesn't allow my debater to come]” but the truth is that if this actually happened, you would do a lot of things. You would protest it, you may try to get others to boycott TOC, you may try to appeal to a higher authority, you would attempt to defame JW, etc. You wouldn’t sit down and be like “oh well, I guess it’s his tournament after all. Too bad my perfectly legitimately qualified debater doesn’t get to go…”
Lastly, saying that it’s just JW’s party is absurd. Everyone has a stake in TOC, and everyone who is fairly qualified should go. Conversely, people who are not fairly qualified should not get to go. It’s as simple as that. If you accept that it’s JW’s party so he can do whatever he wants, then don’t complain if tomorrow he decides he doesn’t want to allow debaters with 5 bids or more attend. You know that this is unacceptable.
Posted from: 74.73.42.3
April 6th, 2008 09:19
Michelin, your posts are just borderline comical. Is there any chance you could write something intelligent (and your posts are, which is why the next thing bothers me) without inserting “deal with it,” “too bad,” or “see her at the TOC?” This discussion seems more apt to fracture along political lines with silly rhetoric that just inflames people rather than provide for a real discussion of anything.
And I guess this comment is directed at a few people: we’re going to “handle it,” because just about everyone likes Courtney and has tried to make this discussion as far away from being centered on her as possible. Start replacing her name with Cyborg, it doesn’t matter. The dissenting comments in this thread are directed at a perceived unfairness that hopefully will be controlled through better information in the future. If it helps, we can have this discussion after the TOC, then discuss possible reforms [and I think Mangus' are 100% correct] to minimize this from occuring in the future.
Just really discouraging when anyone thats not 100% in favor of the situation is called a whiner :/
Posted from: 74.73.42.3
April 6th, 2008 09:21
Also, I for one hope Courtney clears at TOC (and wouldn’t be suprised at all if she does) so that it would give good reason to have TOC be a bit more inclusive of remarkable people/debaters that for whatever reason didn’t get two bids. Just have that elucidated on the form.
Posted from: 74.73.42.3
April 6th, 2008 09:24
By the way, can someone tell me what a “pre-standard argument” is?
A really obtuse and confusing way of attempting to prioritize one of your case impacts above the other debaters framework arguments?
Posted from: 66.41.255.202
April 6th, 2008 09:39
why dont we make the bid committee publish their rankings? it seems like structurally a lot of the way that HS debate is setup doesnt provide for much(read: any) accountability. The NDT publishes all first round rankings and year in and year out there are call outs about just objectively unfair rankings(see edebate for a few that happened this week). Where frank discussions occur between different community members. I mean honestly if the argument is that Duby is her coach which is why she got the treatment she did thats kind of a joke, and probably not a justification for why she was more deserving than someone with a bid. The only reason that things like these continue to happen is because there are structural barriers to accountability in the activity which allows for people to be like “its jw’s party get over it.” really? kids who spend tens of thousands of dollars should just get over it with no explanation? no publishing of rankings? especially in a circumstance where it seems to, at least, superficially violate communal rules about the at large process.
claiming that biases exist are fine but thats not a reason for why people shouldnt be held accountable for a legitimate explanation as to why she should get to go over others with no bid.
Posted from: 71.139.25.185
April 6th, 2008 10:02
1. Could someone post a complete list of the TOC advisory committee that decides at-larges?
2. Why is screwed out of triples = bid? Why not screwed out of triples = triples trophy?
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
April 6th, 2008 10:21
First of all, congrats to everyone who received at larges. This seems like an excellent pool. Good job!
With the “Courtney Nunley issue” aside, I agree w/ Daryl that there should be a published at-large ranking. The rankings could potentially help non-senior debaters who did not receive at-larges to see how they could enhance their application the next time around (should they need to apply for at-larges again). For instance, my good friend and teammate Jing Wang (who will hopefully qual next year anyhow) was in this position. He passionately devoted his time, money, and effort to excelling in the activity. He only traveled to bay area tournaments during the Jan/Feb season and peaked at Berkeley, where he defeated Wade Houston on a 3-0 decision in front of a legitimate panel. At Harker, he reached the bid round (Semis) and lost to Matt Dunay on a 2-1 decision. He was literally one ballot away from qualifying to the TOC & one could surely tell that he “peaked” at the right time. Yet we still don’t know why he did not receive at large. Mr. Wang is exceptional example out of the excellent pool of at-large applicants. Please keep in mind that I am not criticizing the process by which the attendees were chosen; I am criticizing the system’s lack of accommodation for debaters who did NOT receive at larges. Publishing a list of at-large applicant rankings could give debaters clues about how close they were to receiving an at-large and what further steps they should take in subsequent at large processes.
¡Hasta la vaya!
Posted from: 68.173.223.220
April 6th, 2008 11:00
I don’t think having the rankings published is a good idea. It would merely encourage the already highly political nature of debate. It puts a lot of pressure on the individuals of the committee to rank debaters a certain number of communal perception rather than personal belief. Although some rankers do articulate to the community which debaters are more deserving of an at large than others, there are some who feel that their kids might be targeted by the coach of a rejected at large applicant. People do discuss why certain debaters get the at large over others and question the reasoning of the committee as a whole but having the rankings published essentially focuses the blame on a few individuals or places the spotlight on one individual. When people question the committee they don’t question the individuals of the committee but with the rankings published, a favored debater who doesn’t receive his/her at large because one ranker may not have ranked him/her high will be questioned for having a personal agenda or whatever it maybe.
Having a transparent system is good but having the rankings published doesn’t accomplish anything except having the rankers be influenced by the scrutiny of the debate community.
Posted from: 76.95.164.213
April 6th, 2008 11:06
I dont understand, If your better than people at the TOC, ought you not be invited? Isnt that what the at large system was made for. I pretty much was the first person to point this out, but she got ranked higher than people with bids and people who have rounds past the bid, meaning that her app musta been pretty ballin. Like I said, it would be entirely unfair and antithetical to the at large process if qualified debaters who didnt qualify (or had no bids) were excluded for that premise alone, the system gave her consideration and obviously she deserved it.
And I dont really think I am contradicting myself. My justifications three posts ago were that he could include anyone he wanted, which logically doesnt equate to excluding anyone. I even go on to concede that if he were to exclude then it wouldnt be in my power to stop him, nor would i be able to derive justifications from outside of the system that he set up. Maybe you go to a school thats richer and more politically powerful than most, maybe your coach is on the TOC committee, but your average debater (and COACH) wouldnt be able to change the game.
Just like with the GDI incident, the only reason it was whack was not because more ppl qualled (holla at ya dmeyers) but because other people didnt have a chance at this same process. It would be ten times the whackness to suddenly take away bids from a tourney, which almost happened at emory a few years ago (luckily for one ljasmitty). Inclusion is way less harmful than exclusion.
Finally, Just because everyone wants to go, cuz its the place to be, doesnt mean they have any control over it. Your “stake” in the system is at best emotional or idiosyncratic, cuz its definitely not political, unless your coach happens to be on the committee. And just because the TOC has been longstanding doesnt mean it cant change, or should be forced to stay the same. Like I said, theres a difference between inclusion and exclusion and if he wants to include as many ppl as he wants, go for it. And if he wants to exclude as many people as he wants, whos gonna stop him. Like I said at the beginning of my last post, the only guarantee is 2 bids gets u an invite.
Anyway this discussion is pretty much beaten to death. And in the end all it will prove is that it is JW’s party and he can do as he pleases. If something actually changes due to this discussion, let me know, call me out, i might give you props.
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
April 6th, 2008 11:16
I’m one of those at large applicants and I have also been screwed at tournaments and not broken because of tab errors. Outside of that, at Harvard I hit Ravi and Ben Lewis as my only two losses. One was in semis, the other lost to Ben in the quarters. Both are very good, and competent, I was one speaker point from breaking, had the highest oppWR. Im not complaining, but different scenarious would have led me to breaking. Am I deserving of a bid at Harvard? No. I didnt get it, tough luck. I understand that Courtney is a very good debater, having seen her teammate Josh, I know that she is probably as good or better so I know exactly how good she is. Yet at the same time, I want to know why someone with no bid, even if two thirds of the committee thinks she is better than me, is still placed above me even when she has no bid. I am placing no blame on the committee, any person or Courtney, who honestly should get absolutely no blame at all, I just want to know the exact reasoning rather than some obtuse logic that borders post-modern type language.
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
April 6th, 2008 11:22
Im also confused by Ashan, who I dont know. With your logic should anyone be allowed to send an application? Because I know many debaters good enough to get a bid that for whatever circumstances havent but whose applications look pretty “ballin’”. They didnt get a bid, but should they have? I didnt break last year at Wake due to tab error, should I have got a bid?
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
April 6th, 2008 11:41
the topic is not beaten to death; you’re just losing the actual debate. You have a good strategy though – using idiotic rhetoric to hide the fact that you don’t actually have an argument. Let’s review a few topics of discussion:
1) Moerner phrased it well. Getting screwed out of clearing is NOT getting screwed out of a bid. To say that Courtney (no offense to her, again) definitely would’ve won those two rounds is absurd, and then to give her an at-large based on that assumption is even more absurd. Nobody has actually answered that with a real argument, people are just resorting to “deal with it” or “tough luck” (as Mumper pointed out).
2) Your post is still full of contradictions. You can’t say “it’s his party” AND “he can’t/shouldn’t exclude people”. Theoretically, if JW did decide that someone couldn’t go to TOC, there would be nothing that person could do, but they would fight it, no question. Nobody would accept random exclusion. Likewise, nobody should accept random inclusion, even if inclusion is “less harmful”. (Which, by the way, I don’t think it is. There are tons of debaters who applied for at-larges who are probably pissed off that they didn’t get them.)
3) The fact that the committee ranked her higher or that I may think that Courtney is better than a lot of TOC attendees does not mean anything. There are rules, and the committee should follow them. It’s totally unfair to speculate and say, “oh, Courtney MAY HAVE gotten a bid at this tournament if she didn’t get screwed so let’s give her the at-large” at the expense of other people who actually did have bids and did not get at larges.
4) Everyone who supports this decision is making debate more and more political. The only negative implication of politics in debate is that it skews results and increases subjectivity – i.e. people lose due to political reasons rather than legitimate ones. Therefore, let’s just establish and follow some rules so that politics doesn’t have as big of an influence.
By the way, I don’t want your props. Can you just try (that’s all I can ask) to respond to my (and others’) arguments coherently? By the way, which world is more fair? The world in which we make arbitrary exceptions to the rules to let people we like go to TOC or the world in which we judge everyone by the same standards?
Posted from: 76.95.164.213
April 6th, 2008 11:42
Uhh yea. I dont know why one or even two bids guarantees that a debater is better. Its quite an indication to have them, but a guarantee is unsure. If there are ballers who have 0 bids I have no idea why they should be excluded from the process. Its the committees job to figure out if there are worthy competitors who dont meet the guarantee. (How many times i gotta say this). But once again, not my game, Im juss playing to the best of my ability.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
April 6th, 2008 11:47
that would be fine if that actually was the rule of the committee, i.e. just determine which debaters who didn’t qualify deserve to go. Unfortunately, for your argument, the rules they established required that people who apply have a bid. So essentially, we’re all breaking the rules for the benefit of someone we like. Not fair to people who actually could’ve gotten at-larges, period.
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
April 6th, 2008 12:20
Ok so Ashan you will agree that under a perfect system with no rules good debaters that dont have bids should have the ability to get into the TOCs but because there are rules that dont allow for this then to “play by the game” they should be allowed to? Explain to me why the fact that a debater is better makes them go over someone who actually did go by the rules and got a bid. By your logic bids are then useless and the TOC’s should just be like Emory in that whoever JW thinks is good, should get in. People with two bids or more should worry cuz the committee might decide that someone with no bids is better than that person. Your logic circumvents the idea of a bid system completely and in the end doesnt even address the problem at hand
Posted from: 71.236.67.195
April 6th, 2008 12:21
anyone who argues ’she got ranked highly’ is missing the point entirely. THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER THIS DEBATER IN PARTICULAR DESERVED TO GO TO TOC. this is about an exemption made from the explicit rules that follows an absolutely absurd line of reasoning. i think its funny that those who say we shouldnt make this a personal issue also deploy arguments about courtney’s merits as a debater.
michelin, both your posts have missed the point entirely. people look up to you – why not actually engage the substance?
i have still yet to hear a defense of why not clearing to triples means you get a bid. my understanding of lexy’s post is that the committee was presented with confusing/contradictory information, so as far as i can tell this should be a debate over how to prevent the committee from being confused again in the future. every other arg being made is either silly or reactionary. we dont need to let everyone w/ 1 bid in. we dont need to start letting all 0 bid debaters apply. bid distribution might be broken, but the qualification structure isnt.
it may be jw’s party but its also a national championship tournament – not an rr – so we should have some standards. the fact that dr patterson has utimate control does not mean we should all keep our mouths shut. he is not a fascist dictator, hes a member of the debate community and so is the committee. if you think they wont listen to anything you say, maybe its because what youre saying is silly.
here is the ultimate reckoning. in this case the committee was worth 2 bids for a debater rather than just 1. i think that gives the committee far too much power. the committee rankings should be worth 1 bid only. it appears that some members of the committee may not have known exactly what decision they were making. that’s fine, but the ultimate decision was still unfair and so we need a way to fix it. all these other arguments are irrelevant.
Posted from: 71.236.67.195
April 6th, 2008 12:29
ps: im reiterating this bc no one seems to want to engage it. three part plan. 1) make every tournament submit full results and report any errors at the time theyre submitted, not during the at large process. 2) find someone who will take those results and compare them against the apps so that the committee knows for certain exactly how the debater did at each tournament. 3) add an extra at large this year.
Posted from: 24.215.130.4
April 6th, 2008 13:35
re: mangus plan. Points 1 and 2 seem logical, but are they really necessary? a) given the variety of the coaches on the at-large committee, and (at least among all the ones i know anyway) their statuses as very knowledgeable members of various circuits who often are involved with/make appearances at several bid tourneys, I would think that if there was a falsehood on an app one of them would feel suspicious and check it, and then notify the rest of the committee. In other words, the members are some pretty up-to-date, debate-savvy people with good memories, at least one would realize something’s up. b) do people actually falsify results on their app? I seem to recall hearing some doubts about a particular person’s claimed big wins, but actual performance? again, im not questioning the points’ validity as helpful mechanisms, just their necessity.
as for point 3, I wholeheartedly agree. I’m not going to voice my opinion about the matter because I’m still debating, but regardless, the sheer size of the controversy warrants this action. It should appease all those who feel slighted and doesn’t actually harm anybody.
congratz courtney. yur going to rock.
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
April 6th, 2008 13:46
This seems really straightforward to me. There wasn’t a problem with misidentification of a bid. The people who run the TOC clearly indicated that Courtney Nunley was to be treated as though she’d received a bid at Harvard. Obviously, this isn’t the norm, but the circumstances at Harvard were not the norm, at least in Ms. Nunley’s case, and sometimes you have to use discretion to address subprime circumstances. But in generaly, the rules for TOC qualificaiton are simple.
1. 3 bids guarantees you entry to the TOC.
2. 2 bids fully qualifies you and conditionally guarantees entry. (The conditions under which 2 bids would not guarantee entry are unlikely to occur, but 2 bids is not a guaranteed entry, and in my 9 years attending the TOC, no one with 2 bids has ever been turned away.)
3. If you get one bid, you are not fully qualified but may apply for entry.
Put another way, then, three bids (and conditionally, two bids) gives you a “right” to enter the tournament. A single bid does not, but – by Dr. Patterson’s discretion, and by extension, that of his committee – some debaters with a single bid may be granted the privilege of attending the tournament.
Michael is clearly correct that there is no guarantee that a debater who is excluded from an elim bracket by tab error would have gotten a bid. My point is that there is no way to know. Giving the student the benefit of the doubt is a kindness. It seems to me like the reasonable thing to do, and I’d argue in favor of it in any circumstance prior to this where a student was excluded due to tab error.
This is a circumstance that doesn’t arise very often, and it’s NOT the same as a student who missed a bid by one ballot or a student who feels they should have cleared but didn’t because of a bad judge. In these circumstances, the student was objectively and certifiably given a loss where they had earned a win.
I don’t know what the outcome will be in terms of establishing rules. Perhaps a rule will be created that every student who is prevented from clearing by tab error will be granted a bid. Perhaps a rule will be established that TOC bidded tournaments have to present the results to the coaches for review before posting the first elim – as they do at some Texas tournaments.
Whatever the case, I’m confident that the issue will be addressed to render these circumstances even less likely than they already are.
I guess there are two simple points:
1) No one has a claim on TOC attendance unless they have 2 bids. Whoever was the “next out” in terms of at large apps therefore has no kind of claim. And I say that as the coach of many students in the past who have requested and been denied TOC at large applications.
2) Whatever the prevalence of this problem, I’m sure it will be thoroughly addressed before the next season.
The only persons who potentially have a beef are those who were previously excluded from elims by tab error but who did not receive the same consideration as Ms. Nunley. And here I agree with Mr. Timmons – that only argues in favor of coach advocacy.
Posted from: 71.42.73.162
April 6th, 2008 13:59
there are debaters who were in quarterfinals of octas bid tournaments that didn’t get at-larges and there is a debater who got no bids and is now attending the toc. it just seems a little bit troublesome that a debater with no bids got prioritized over debaters with bids. and that the rules don’t indicate that it’s the case.
does courtney nunley deserve to be at the toc?
not my place to say; she’s had a good season and has probably managed to roll with some of the best. but, perhaps more concretely: do the kids who got bids and applied for at-larges deserve, at least according to the system, some preference (inasmuch as no ad hoc, opaque declarations can be made about what the rules ARE)? probably.
are there debaters who probably are victim to errors every year or have proven themselves of toc-caliber despite having bids? definitely. but they certainly haven’t proven themselves *more* deserving than the ones who made the results, and it’s a competitive process.
Posted from: 24.215.130.4
April 6th, 2008 14:02
Also, i don’t see the point of the whole opening up the process debate, the idea that “The rankings could potentially help non-senior debaters who did not receive at-larges to see how they could enhance their application the next time around.” (Not to single u out, Daniel, u just summed it up most eloquently.) There are two related problems.
First, at-large apps measure performances that have already occurred, its not like u can do anything about what yurs says when filling the application (except lie, of course). And beforehand, one doesn’t aim for an at-large when he or she debates; it’s not like someone goes into outrounds thinking “this’ll look good on my app.” You’re in it to win it. People don’t want to apply for an at-large during the season, they want the second bid So, the idea of a strategy for at-larges doesn’t really make sense.
Second, the only “strategy” that matters is winning. bids are ideally, if not in reality, a way to measure the nation’s best debaters, based on the idea that if u can attain multiple bids u must be consistently demonstrating excellence through reaching late outrounds at difficult tourneys. It’s pretty obvious then that the most compelling cases are the next-winningest debaters – the people who consistently gone the deepest but come up slightly short, who had won important rounds against big debaters, who had a high win-loss percentage, etc. What strategy could opening up the process teach students? Just win.
Posted from: 71.193.219.132
April 6th, 2008 14:18
oof.
i find the suggestion to publish the committee rankings intriguing (though terrifying). i’ve submitted my rankings for two years and it’s been an extraordinarily exhausting and difficult task. while it might seem appropriate because we are a community that publicly holds judges and coaches responsible for their decisions i.e. rfd’s (i certainly enjoyed that at last years toc :P) there are a number of reasons why making the rankings public would be counterproductive…but more importantly traumatize me emotionally and politically. I agonize over justifying those decisions to myself let alone discussing them with the debaters and coaches involved. i’m still willing to discuss my rankings with individual debaters and coaches…i just don’t feel like releasing them without the ability to explain myself!
oh and mangus, great, sweet, make it happen…i’m old and tired. But down nonetheless.
mangus wrote;
“it may be jw’s party but its also a national championship tournament – not an rr – so we should have some standards. the fact that dr patterson has utimate control does not mean we should all keep our mouths shut. he is not a fascist dictator, hes a member of the debate community and so is the committee.”
jw as fascist dictator-hilarious. mangus is right…it’s the input on this thread and others like it that will drive the discussions at toc. while i don’t have the willpower to contribute to all of the discussions i’m still reading every post…well, i skip cooper and spirtos :)
and really mr. timmons, how can you pretend to be such a prominent figure in the debate community if you don’t even know what a pre-standards argument is?!
from the dictionary of terms of art (hard to find);
“pre-standard argument”
1. an argument that exists pre-fiat, though due to the lack of fiat in ld it is simply an argument that exists before we pretend it exists…which is kinda deep.
2. a speech-disorder usually embodied by the habitual verbal-tick ‘this argument is pre-standards’ said at the conclusion of an impact. usually the result of brain damage and an unhealthy environment.
3. a logical structure of an argument that asks the judge to promise to vote for the argument before considering how to arrive at a decision. offers relief from having to coherently justify a decision…allowing substitution of ‘yeah, i voted on the apriori-thing.’
that’s all i’ve got for now, congratulations to all of the at-large candidates!
Posted from: 74.73.42.3
April 6th, 2008 14:40
“My point is that there is no way to know. Giving the student the benefit of the doubt is a kindness. It seems to me like the reasonable thing to do, and I’d argue in favor of it in any circumstance prior to this where a student was excluded due to tab error.”
And I think that is where the split occurs. While I’m often in favor of kindness, I think that assuming a debater would have won those rounds is much too kind.
Posted from: 160.39.190.184
April 6th, 2008 14:42
Instead of publishing the way people are ranked, how about publishing every at-large application? By this I mean make applications completely available to the public, recommendations excluded.
Debaters vying for an at-large bid would do the fact-checking. Patterns of acceptance would also be easier to observe, for whatever that’s worth.
Apologies if this has been mentioned already, I skimmed the thread.
Posted from: 216.9.250.44
April 6th, 2008 15:16
Congratulations to everyone earning an at-large!
It could just be my background, but giving a bid to those who fail to clear because of tab errors seems to me to be the most fair choice. It doesn’t take a bid from anyone else, and there’s no way to know how well someone would have done if they had been allowed to debate in elims. “Upsets” happen all the time. Indeed, if memory serves, in the college IE world, students who don’t clear because of tab errors are given the same status as the person who finished first at that tournament in the at-large qualifying process for AFA nationals for just those reasons.
Of course, if that policy is to be followed, it should be publicized so that everyone can take advantage of it equally.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
April 6th, 2008 15:26
TOC should just let in one additional at large to compensate for whoever feels cheated out of that final spot. That seems to redress a lot of the concerns here. Seriously, if you applied for an at large and didn’t get one, email someone on the TOC committee and explain the situation. Make sure they have viewed this thread if they haven’t already. I highly doubt that they would be unsympathetic to your cause.
Posted from: 165.123.229.8
April 6th, 2008 15:59
I agree with pretty much everything Mangus and Sean have said, so I’m not going to repeat that, but I just want to reiterate something that I don’t think a lot of people are dealing with.
Wade and many others say that the solution to this is to just admit an additional person. I agree with this wholeheartedly, but I don’t think it solves for the many debaters out there who have been victims of tab errors. They were NEVER told that they could apply for an at-large. They have now missed the deadline for submitting an application. I know some have said that coaches should take the initiative, but come on–coaches, especially those who are new the activity, shouldn’t be expected to magically *guess* that their debater should submit an application because of a tab error.
At the end of the day, I don’t actually agree that tab errors=bids, but if that’s the new rule we’re playing with, and it was thrown into the game WAY after applications were due, then I think someone should acknowledge that this year was seriously messed up, and that the “solution” being proposed doesn’t actually meet the mark for a lot of debaters out there.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
April 6th, 2008 16:07
Was Courtney informed by the TOC committee that she could apply for an at large or did her coaches and the Harvard tournament directors just take the initiative? If anyone knows the answer to this question, it could clear up a lot of the controversy about other people getting screwed over by tab errors. If the latter is true, you can’t say she’s getting special treatment, since other people not breaking on tab problems failed to reach out to the TOC committee about their situation. If the former is true, I can’t argue this point.
Posted from: 98.200.225.185
April 6th, 2008 16:14
Who knew Ms. Courtney Nunley was so popular. :)
Go get ‘em Court! The TOC is going to be fabulous with you!
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
April 6th, 2008 16:19
I’m trying to stay out of this discussion as I’m one of the debaters who did not get the at large and therefore clearly has a bias, but I don’t think the fact that her coaches contacted the committee makes the situation any better. Everyone makes the assumption that the rules are going to be followed just b/c one coach is politically connected enough or attempts to circumvent the rule that doesn’t meen that the other coaches that did not do the same didn’t do their job or that what happened is now ok. That’s like saying I did something wrong when I paid my speeding ticket when other people might pay off a police officer or a government official to get around the system. But w/e congratulations to all those who have been given the opportunity to compete.
Posted from: 64.91.202.39
April 6th, 2008 16:20
i think everyone else is drifting towards this discussion of ‘how good of a debater are you?’ if you look to my golden state example, THAT DOESN’T MATTER. there are tons of good debaters in the country. being a good debater doesn’t get you to TOC, getting bids is what gets you to TOC. there are rules to eliminate subjectivity in the activity. this ‘kindness’ everyone is talking about is nice and stuff, but the activity is not about kindness. if the activity were about kindness, stanford would’ve refunded trip expenses for people that had to miss rounds because of scheduling. hell, if the activity were kind, someone would give those who qual and don’t have the money a free trip to TOC (much love sohail, if you don’t know the kid, he is qualled and won the lex rr and can’t afford TOC). the activity, for national circuit debaters, is about going to the TOC. at least it is for many of them. and whil what happened to courtney sucks, she did not qualify to go to the TOC in the normal 3 bid sense, nor the at large sense. things happen, and it blows (trust me, i know, i had a student lose 3 bid rounds this year who invested a lot of money and time on debate), but breaking the rules everyone else follows, and then quasi-legitimizing it through a complaint, is not cool.
and to reiterate what mumper said, it’s definitely not cool and unnecessary to cite all who have an opinion on this topic as ‘whiners’.
Posted from: 98.197.211.14
April 6th, 2008 16:44
I think Courtney Nunley is a very talented debater and can easily roll with the best at the TOC, congratulations to her for her successes and i hope she tears it up at the toc.
That being said, the system was kind of wrong, so they should minimally implement Mangus’ number 3.
Posted from: 98.197.211.14
April 6th, 2008 16:45
That extra spot should go to Jesse Klinger, because he is a baller
Posted from: 67.101.145.192
April 6th, 2008 16:54
Oh please God, let us NOT publish the at-large rankings. I have sympathy for many on Mangus’s arguments, but I think this would be a TERRIBLE idea. It’s one thing to publish the NDT first round rankings, but something entirely different to publish high school at-large rankings.
First, the NDT first round picks are the top 16 college policy teams in the nation. Placing at the bottom of a ranking of top teams is very different from placing at the bottom of a ranking of the “runners up.” I hate it when tournament directors print all of the possible packet pages, including last place debater/team and last place speaker. While you might be able to come up with the same information by digging through the records, there’s just something terrible about finding one’s name listed as 148th speaker, or something like that. I don’t think that the 38th ranked at-large should have to face that publicly.
Second, college debaters are…adults. Or something like that. So I guess they can take their lumps publicly. As a high school coach, I would prefer that my students have a little privacy in their moments of greatest disappointment. You may find this condescension, but speaking as a mom of 13+ years and coach of 25+ years, I call it kindness.
Third, though the current system lacks full transparency, committee members’ rankings are not entirely secret. All committee members see each others’ rankings at the meeting at the TOC. None of us can favor our friends or our region without being answerable to the other committee members. I trust all of us to rank the applicants fairly, but even if I did not, I think that this disclosure at the meeting is enough to check any possible temptation to be less than fair. And I’m pretty sure that a committee member whose rankings seemed consistently biased would find him or herself off of the committee.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
April 6th, 2008 16:58
i understand that a decision has been made, and frankly, i don’t agree with what way the decision was made. i agree with pretty much everyone (quinn, mumper, mangus, wesley… i guess?), but i completely understand that whining about it is not going to make things better. in lieu of that, i would like to whine:
1. giving Cyborg a bid effectively took away the bid from people with one bid, so i disagree with Adam Nelson (i never thought i would type those words). this also applies to the “JW’s party” argument, since by making that decision the committee/JW effectively denied at least 20 people rightful consideration.
2. it seems like this does lapse into what quinn is talking about, which is “she deserves to be there.” Cyborg may be a great debater, and maybe she’ll win the whole thing. who knows. but i will tell you one thing, which is that even if Cyborg is “better” than 99.9% of people who are fully qualified, the TOC has always operated on a tough luck principle, with presumption (so to speak), erring on the side of the larger group of people (aka, if there’s too many people with 2 bids, most of them get to go, not the minority group). i think this decision screws the other 28 some debaters pretty badly. that’s seriously not fair, not matter how good she is.
i completely respect the decisions of all who were on the committee, even if i don’t agree with it. but i have one request:
can all those on the committee pledge that either they will never again consider such an application, or that anyone with a “tab error” that prevented them from bidding can apply. seriously, i’m not so much irritated with the decision as to the fact that it was done in absolute secrecy. as soon as Cyborg’s app hit, there should have been public notification of some kind. i just really really really don’t lik this precedent, not because i disagree that plenty of awesome debaters get screwed by the at large process, but because this particular decision screws over a lot of deserving kids who did their time. can we go back and retro-actively give Naveen Jarayaman a TOC octas trophy at the expense of the bottom seed? i mean, he clearly deserved to go the TOC, and probably would’ve done awesome! can he attend this year? seriously, this decision does the same thing to me.
i love you all, don’t hate b/c i don’t love yer decisions… homies?
Posted from: 71.236.67.195
April 6th, 2008 17:00
lexy – i didnt advocate releasing the rankings. daryl brought up the ndt first round/second round rankings. i agree with you on this issue.
Posted from: 67.101.145.192
April 6th, 2008 17:08
Sorry Michael. Brain fart on my part.
Posted from: 69.253.230.13
April 6th, 2008 17:13
just to add to the list, if anyone’s keeping track anymore, ryan zehner got an at-large
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
April 6th, 2008 17:18
I think that the cookie has already, so to speak, been crumbled at this point when refering to Courtney and arguments that refer to her specifically are counterproductive.
The very important question that remains is, as Michael keeps reminding us, where do we go from here. I know that I will be raising this issue at the committee meeting in May and I think that Michael’s first two parts of his 3 part plan gives a good working framework for how to redress information issues. Clarity in rules are good so it makes sense to maybe discuss having a rule for the ‘tab-error’ issue. At this point in my career, I have had several students not clear based on tab errors and knowing a system of redress exists (or doesn’t) would provide clarity.
As to the “let in one more at-large,” there isn;t a set number of at-larges given. From what I understand there is some magic number of competitors that Dr. Patterson finds acceptable for each division (i think about 70) and that you take that number and subtract off the number of registered entrants and voila the number of at larges is revealed. For all we know, Dr. Patterson could already have added an extra at large to compensate. I don’t know though, i’m purely speculating.
To Matt (169), I would be VERY uncomforable releasing the at large applications because many coaches supply personal information about their students that, although compelling to the committee, would be a violation of that’s student’s privacy if publically offered (for example a student that does not get to travel that much do to money concerns and the application tells us they did well with extrememly limited opportunity. This can be compelling but potentially embarassing if the student didn’t want the entire community to know their financial situation.)
Posted from: 216.9.250.112
April 6th, 2008 17:30
To clarify: my argument is not about anyone’s situation this year. Mine is an argument in favor of a bid for tab error policy more generally, assuming such a policy is properly publicized. I’m not sure how such a policy could be said to take a bid from someone else. Even if a person got in on an at-large with such a bid, it would have been through the normal process; the only way that takes a bid from someone else is the same way the current process does from anyone who doesn’t get in. And that doesn’t seem to be objectionable.
Posted from: 24.6.177.101
April 6th, 2008 17:49
This was back in 04, but I remember being told that Lexy told mike wright after a tab error at Alta, that had bhe gotten a bid afterwards his at large would have been guaranteed.
If this is indeed the case, it would seem to be a reasonable historical precedent that can deal with such situations. If not, I apologize for having a terrible memory that likes to make things up.
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
April 6th, 2008 17:52
Mangus has been straight-up on this thread. FACT. However, I’d like to add to his 3-part plan. Since strug coaches like myself will obviously figure out a way to maximize their kids’ chances of getting tab errors next year, I think the process should prolly go like this: 3 tab errors guarantee you entry into the TOC; 2 tab errors pretty much get you in; 1 tab error and you have to apply for an at-large tab-error bid.
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
April 6th, 2008 18:07
Seriously though, would all contestants with a tab error at a bid tournament get a tab error bid–regardless of their record? Say, for instance, would a 2-5 debater at Apple Valley get a tab-error bid? Or, worse, a 1-6 or 0-7?
Posted from: 66.41.255.202
April 6th, 2008 18:09
The argument to not release still makes little sense to me, I mean honestly if the best reason not to is that it may hurt someone’s feelings I think thats somewhat non-unique in a world where they wouldn’t receive one anyway.
It also seems silly that students(or more importantly SCHOOLS) spend literally thousands of dollars a year travelling to tournaments trying to get to the toc, and additionally have to spend 80 dollars to apply for an at large and all they get is an email from linda barker saying “bummerz you werent awarded one.”
I understand that the TOC and the advisory committee is MUCH too tight lipped/cliqueish etc to ever have this happen, but something that I think realistically could happen is have individuals on the committee put out what they like to see on an application, a preference sheet if you will.
Does going to 10 tournaments and being in 8 bid rounds but only getting 1 bid make you more preferable than someone who only went to 1 tournament and got a bid there? Does getting a bid at the glenbrooks carry more weight than one at colleyville? Does having a well known coach or coming from a well known institution make you more preferable than a largely independent applicant?
Why we demand judges to put up preferences and not committee members is seemingly non-sensical in a world where you are asking students/schools to PAY MONEY to even have an application reviewed. Last year at Blake a student got a bid at Alta and figured it’d probably be a waste of money to send one in but did anyway because their is the financial leeway to do that at Blake. I’m sure at some schools this isn’t the case, and doing something to erode the shroud of secrecy that the at large process currently resides in would certainly help allow people to make a more educated guess about whether or not their 80 dollars is really going to good use.
Posted from: 67.101.145.192
April 6th, 2008 18:16
Navot–
To clarify, in ‘04 I said that if the debater got a bid the combination of that bid and the tab error would likely cause a favorable impression on the committee. It was not a case of the tab error equaling a bid for eligibility, but a case of the tab error being viewed as an argument in favor of an application by a debater who was clearly eligible to apply. I promised to document the error for the committee if needed.
Posted from: 160.39.190.184
April 6th, 2008 18:33
Joe (184) -
I agree with you that very private information shouldn’t be disclosed. I was counting that information as part of the recommendation, which should be kept secret. My suggestion is that information such as tournament records and “I beat this qualified debater x # of times” should be made public. Apologies for the ambiguity – my original post was quite unclear.
I think this system will check honest mistakes and deliberate omissions. It provides some of the information Daryl talks about (189) without the problems Lexy brings up (179).
-Matt
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
April 6th, 2008 19:09
As a debater, I have very mixed feelings about this. In short, I agree with whoever advocated they let in one more at large applicant to compensate.
First, I like knowing that if I have a good year and the only thing that keeps me out of the TOC is getting one bid, and at my best tournament of the year,I get screwed out of outrounds that the committee would take that into account. Debaters are human, and so is the tab staff. The TOC at-large committee recognized this, and I’m somewhat glad they did.
On the other hand, the fact of the matter is that the rules are pretty damn clear that if you don’t have like a 70% winning pct and at least 1 bid, they won’t consider your application. Yeah, it sucks that Courtney got screwed out of elims. But a similar thing happened to one of Blake’s PF teams. At Glenbrooks, there was a error on a ballot, and they were seeded 23 instead of 8 (or something similar), and dropped in doubles. One of them had a bid @ Stanford, and they as a team bid @ Nat Quals (it’s a bid in PF if you Qualify). Thankfully, they got in, but if it would have been a PF team with no bids that got in over them, I guarantee you that our team would be extremely pissed.
On the argument about publishing the rankings of the at large applicants, I think it should be necessary. Or at least, all applications are released. The debaters and the community should know what the committee was thinking when they made their decisions. I get that the committee members might be nervous about having it known how they ranked every applicant, but I think that if they have to answer to the community, it might make some decisions more fair.
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
April 6th, 2008 19:10
To Ali, or anyone else in the know – How common were tab errors **that resulted in students not clearing** this year? That seems a relevant question. If the ad hoc rule being followed in this case is “where a tabulation error causes a student to not clear, where their record would have allowed them to clear, a bid will be granted” — how many other students this year were in that position?
I personally attended maybe fifteen bid tournaments and didn’t hear a peep about such a situation.
In the Harvard case, there was, like, half a thread dedicated to the subject here on VBD.
So I don’t know, but I don’t think we’re precisely swimming in a sea of foregone bid opportunities here.
In any case, this is a simple problem to solve. A standard will be set which will guide decisionmaking going forward. We will hopefully never have to discuss the issue again.
To me the real take-home message is that tournaments need to give coaches an opportunity to review results before beginning the first elimination round. My understanding is that they do this in Texas to avoid lawsuits. Seems like a good idea to me.
Posted from: 71.38.162.25
April 6th, 2008 19:12
the “2-5″ tab error at apple valley would not warrant a bid because that error did not prevent the debater from clearing, it was the absence of a winning record.
Posted from: 71.38.162.25
April 6th, 2008 19:14
oops, i meant a 5-2 or better record, not winning record
Posted from: 24.242.139.162
April 6th, 2008 19:15
since this side discussion is occurring, i think it’s worth noting that i think pre-standards arguments are ones which just claim some form of explanatory primacy over others.
and i don’t know if that’s so illegitimate; i mean, is it really all that unfair/arbitrary for me to say, “this is more important than other things?” i understand that a lot of things are relevant, but i guess it just doesn’t seem that absurd to me that we have things like priorities.
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
April 6th, 2008 19:20
Yes, let this become a thread about the legitimacy of a prioris. That will be perfect.
Posted from: 66.168.73.229
April 6th, 2008 19:28
travis, apple valley doesn’t make tab room errors :)
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
April 6th, 2008 19:33
i’m mixed on whether or not i think the “tab error –> not clearing, you get a bid” policy is a good idea, probably leaning toward “bad idea”. but in any case, if that is the policy, then it is undeniable that there have to be repercussions for tournaments that either consistently make tabulation errors or lack procedures for verifying results before outrounds are posted.
it is very true that high-quality, national caliber tournaments will rarely make mistakes. but that does not seem to define every tournament which has a toc bid. if such a rule were adopted, then arguably, someone who missed clearing on an error at a finals bid would also have to receive a bid. moreover, some of these tournaments don’t even have disclosure policies, so debaters won’t even know mistakes were made until it’s far too late. the other argument people seem to be making is “for all tournaments, mistakes are low”. but how many mistake bids is too much? personally, i think even 3-4 is unacceptable, but within the realm of possibility. in short, if mistakes grant bids, that may be a necessary evil, but those mistakes need to be minimized as much as possible.
finally, if such a policy is adopted, it might actually provide a disincentive for tournaments to address mistakes. tournaments change policies because of a public outcry (read: stanford). if the response to a horrendous error is “oh, let’s give the person who got screwed a bid”, then a. that particular person will feel pretty good and they won’t feel it necessary to get mad at the tournament and b. the rest of the community will feel like the situation has been resolved adequately, since after all, nobody got hurt (except, you know, the activity). a policy acting against these sorts of mistakes is thus even more necessary.
so here’s what i’m in favor of. 1. michael’s plan that tournament errors be submitted to the bid committee. i think he’s been 100% correct for this whole discussion and i think this also creates transparency overall. if a tournament makes a mistake, everyone needs to know. 2. if you want to be a qualifying tournament, you have to implement a challenge procedure. we have it in texas and it works quite well. you lose maybe 30 minutes but everyone goes home happy. i know one debater who would have missed clearing at the UT tournament had they been unable to challenge, but luckily, that was fixed. it seems entirely within the toc’s authority to issue such a mandate, especially since tournaments MAKE MONEY off bid levels. they should be forced to live up to some standards.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
April 6th, 2008 19:33
Apple Valley is a machine. You show up, and before you know it, they’re handing out the trophies. There’s no time for them to make a mistake
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
April 6th, 2008 19:45
Cherian’s post straight-up. FACT #2.
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
April 6th, 2008 19:55
another note. if you’re the debater who’s about to not break because of a tab error, are you going to report it? no, you will probably just take your free bid. i’m mixed on whether or not this a problem that can be fixed within this new policy, because even within a challenge procedure someone might not report the error, but at the very least, this puts the onus on debaters and coaches to report errors. i think the argument would go that since you had the chance to report the error, the bid for an error policy wouldn’t be applicable.
Posted from: 70.250.119.249
April 6th, 2008 20:25
i agree with pretty much everything mangus has said and daryl’s post #189.
plan: abolish the toc at-large selection committee, reestablish a nationaldebaterankings.com system with criteria set by the TOC advisory committee (or some committee), and award at-larges in order of the ranking system.
sure it’s still not 100% fair in that there will be complaints about the criteria for the NDR, but there’s no more secrecy, no longer a need for $80 application fee, no political/friendship-based decisions at all, and everyone knows what is up because there is full disclosure.
regardless: congrats courtney. all rep is good rep.
Posted from: 71.193.219.132
April 6th, 2008 20:35
mjocon, my jab at prestandards was an old joke i thought i’d waste, not a real criticism, the brain damage and bad environment comment was self-deprecating humor…i’m no saint of argumentation (let’s not talk about it) and i agree priority of argumentation is important…mcginnis ftw!
i totally agree with daryl for a preference disclosure system for at-large candidates…i’d also be interested to find out how the community thinks at-large rankings should be evaluated. and i did not seriously mean the best reason for not disclosing rankings publicly was because of hurt feelings…i’ve been talking with at-large candidates and their coaches for months now and have been open and honest about my rankings…i just want those difficult, often personal interactions as opportunities to explain my decisions as opposed to people simply making assumptions.
and while i think i can understand the perception, i had to laugh when i thought of myself as included in ‘the TOC and the advisory committee is MUCH too tight lipped/cliqueish etc to ever have this happen’…that hasn’t been my experience (and what’s the etc?) as a member nor is it when i reread this thread. if anyone wants to discuss anything with me regarding the toc beyond the discussion on this thread (NOT about prestandards) catch me at a tournament, if i have any money i’ll buy you coffee…or if not you can buy me coffee.
and gary, i’d certainly be interested in that type of tournament selection process…the system already exists in many different forms…i really like what Jim Hanson has done with the npte (college parli) rankings.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
April 6th, 2008 20:50
wesley just invited all of you to buy him coffee. i know he ain’t got no chedda, cuz i haven’t paid him.
Posted from: 74.73.42.3
April 6th, 2008 20:50
Dave
At Wake, Marc Wallach was unable to clear based entirely on tab error.
Regardless, I’m not sure why the frequency of such occurances have anything to do with it. I think what…EVERYONE is ignoring is Mangus original post. If Courtney had won that round the rest of her prelims would have been totally different, so not only are we fiat’ing her winning the outrounds, but that she would have still cleared.
The problem with tab errors that do not occur in the last round is that there’s no certainty the outcome (4-2 instead of 5-1, etc) would be static.
Posted from: 68.80.244.233
April 6th, 2008 20:53
congrats courtney… you deserve to be at TOC
Posted from: 65.9.101.74
April 6th, 2008 20:58
Sounds DUBYous.
Anyway, on a lighter note… congratulations to everyone who received an At Large!
Posted from: 165.123.231.167
April 6th, 2008 21:03
As I said before, 100% agree with Sean and Mangus. The fact that we’re assuming Courtney won not only round 6, but also trips and dubs is problematic, but that’s been said.
To answer your question, Dave, I think tab-errors occur far more often that you’re assuming. Yeah, tournaments like AV don’t make tab errors because Cherian has some sort of God-given ability to run the most efficient tournament ever, but at tournaments like Wake, Yale, and Harvard, where there’s tons of debaters in two different divisions, mistakes happen.
So, even if those errors haven’t been publicly acknowledged, I think it’s silly to say that there’s a low likelihood they’ll happen. The only way people would know if they truly had a tab error is if they check their ballot with the results packet…and a WHOLE lot of tournaments don’t post results packets, and don’t give you a copy of every single ballot.
At any rate, though, I agree with Sean that even if these errors don’t occur frequently, it’s not a reason to ignore what I said. My argument was theoretical, anyway, which is why I didn’t name names of specific debaters who got screwed and then didn’t apply.
Posted from: 76.186.218.222
April 6th, 2008 21:18
A bid is given
con(argue)
(dissent)fl
ict
po(?able)ten
tial
WINNING but who
can pre
d(outcome)ict
stay {safer}
Posted from: 66.41.255.202
April 6th, 2008 21:41
epalm,
interpret pomo poem in 210 please.
much love,
dp
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
April 6th, 2008 21:45
I checked with Duby – in post 173, I was correct in assuming that this was not some sort of special opportunity afforded to Courtney for whatever reason, be it political or not. The distinction between her and other people who were screwed out of breaking by tab errors, then, is that she and her coaching staff took the necessary steps to make sure the TOC committee knew about this problem. Other people who deserve to break but don’t due to tab problems are not being arbitrarily excluded; they are just not reaching out to the relevant authorities. If nothing else, this just demonstrates the TOC committee is receptive to hearing people’s plights. If you don’t try to work with them, they can’t help you. Specifically, this addresses the problem Ali raises in the second paragraph of post 172. If this problem is as widespread as she claims, other victims of it should learn from this example. Minimally, large scale reporting of incidents like these to the TOC committee would at least do something towards establishing precedent on how this issue is supposed to be dealt with in the future.
Posted from: 76.186.218.222
April 6th, 2008 21:54
daryl, you could just ask me what it means.
Posted from: 76.95.164.213
April 6th, 2008 23:24
Anyone know how to find out what place someone is on the waitlist? Anyone got jdubs digits?
I think the issue is pretty much dead so, why dont we get back to keeping track and congratulating everyone whos gonna be at the Party? Preparty in my room 8-)
Posted from: 65.26.122.86
April 6th, 2008 23:35
The problem with the “proactive coaches” argument is that it is not made clear that you have the option to send in the application if you don’t have a bid.
So it’s a pretty silly point to make–I’ve had students who got tab errored out of touranemtns who otherwise could have gotten a bid. (I’ll resist giving examples). I’m sure other coaches too would have done that this same process if they knew this was a potential option.
This to me seems like an unrefutable argument–people see the rule that says you can’t submit without a bid–heck there are previous times when kids were told that if their tournament’s results weren’t confirmed, and that was their only bid, they cannot apply for an at-large. (yes this has happened before..)
So, for (former) coaches like myself, people understood the one-bid rule as absolute, and there’s been little or no community knowledge/understanding of there being potential exceptions–otherwise, way *more* coaches would have taken this effort, no?
Something as simple as like an additional “special consideration” form (for situations such as tab errors, touranment screwup, etc.) would at least make this process transparent, fair, etc. and would allow more coaches who would want to be “proactive” to know this is an option. That way, committee members could vote up or down on the bid consideration, and we would know there is some procedure in plac
But I think it is a fair argument to those people who dropped 80 dollars (which to many debaters is a non-minimal sacrifice), assuming they were only competing against people with one bid, I think they have a very legitimate claim to be upset, given that this is very much a zero-sum process (since at larges are a finite property), and given that it’s been communicated that the at-large process works one way, but then if one’s coach is “proactive” there are other options which were not made publicly available for everyone to use.
It’s not whining for people to expect future transparency on the issue–I don’t feel strongly on this since I have nothing on the line, but hopefully members on the committee will take the ’special consideration form’ option as a way to save themselves future headaches.
Posted from: 76.95.164.213
April 8th, 2008 01:18
dawg can u juss walk across that campus of urs and holler at mihn for us?
Posted from: 74.67.55.150
April 8th, 2008 12:36
I have no problem with letting people into the TOC without bids. In fact, I could write pages upon pages about what’s wrong with the TOC qualifying process right now. (some other people have already done so in this thread!) The salient point to me, however, becomes the fact that NO ONE KNEW ABOUT THIS BEFORE HAND.
The issue I have is not with the debater herself, who I have never met, judged, had coffee with, etc, or with he coach, who took the initiative to talk to the committee, but rather with the fact that the rules are not published. If you’re going to make a policy shift (and the fact that so many people are completely and utterly taken aback by it makes it a de facto policy shift, in the very least) you need to inform us! We need to know CONCRETELY when we can apply for at larges and when we can’t, what constitutes a bid worthy screw up, and what does not. Simple as that.
Frankly, I’d love to see Gary’s suggestion implemented. I also wholeheartedly support Mangus’s 3rd suggestion.
Posted from: 65.125.148.226
April 8th, 2008 13:20
The substance…
(1) The Kentucky tournament guidelines are ambiguous. My reading is that a student can apply for a Kentucky Tournament At-Large bid without earning a leg at a tournament. Yet, the application form asks where the student earned a leg. It seems to be a community norm that a student should not apply for a Kentucky Tournament At-Large bid sans a bid. Yet, some have in the past and have been admitted to varying degrees of success.
(2) The Kentucky Tournament (KT) is not about fairness. It is a tournament to celebrate national circuit debating at the end of the year. It is unfair that the KT has MPJ in policy, but not LD. It is unfair that the KT in policy has some of the best and brightest minds in their activity judging 4-2 break rounds and LD is not necessarily the same. My argument about these matters from the perspective of a now salesperson and former coach: if you don’t like something do not support that movement with your feet. Speak out to people who can do something to help your cause.
(3) One may say “but the KT is the shit. How could I miss it”? There’s a tournament that’s attempting to gain credibility right now. It’s called the NDCA National Championship. It has a qualification system that is about as simple as the Google algorithm. I think that system, much like the NPTE system for college parliamentary debating, is far more “fair” because it factors in the hard numbers from every tournament that chooses to submit results.
(4) Would Cyborg have earned a bid if it were not for a tabulation error? The world may never know. It doesn’t matter anyway because Cyborg was given a bid under a provision that is not very well known. That person had to still apply and was granted admittance into the KT by several coaches who’ve posted numerous championships in recent memory.
(5) The “deal with it” argument is one to which I’ve become sympathetic lately because that’s what gets us by without doing too much work. To argue by analogy… sometimes our favorite restaurants hand us a big plate of shit, whether it be in their customer service, decor, or the food itself is awful.
If we want to continue eating there, we can either eat what we’re given (deal with it) or give it back to the kitchen (i.e. change the rules). Alternately, you can leave that restaurant and try another one. Complaining to a blog doesn’t constitute action; it’s just whining. The restaurant isn’t obligated to be “fair” to you by always serving you good food EVEN IF YOU PAY THEM. Why? Well, because they’re capitalists and will get away with as much or as little as you let them since this whole thing only has as much value as we give it.
The bottom line is that we agree as a community that the KT is the premier event for LD debating at the end of the year. Along with the KT comes a tournament host as well as an advisory committee of coaches and a tournament administration that follows the rules set ultimately by the tournament director. Once you choose to play their game on their playground, you have to follow their rules. Even if the rules are not well known, it’s a part of the package (i.e. the fine print).
michelin massey
Posted from: 169.229.81.189
April 8th, 2008 13:49
I personally think that Tab Errors = bids is a bad logic at all times. Tab errors don’t imply that you would have gotten the bid (as argued above in 13243234 places). I’d say that its not unreasonable to say that you have to get one bid at some point in the year to have a shot at the national tournament.
In any other competitive activity, if the referee screws up, the result doesn’t change. The NCAA might apologize for Referees’
mysterious fetish for UCLA, but nothing changes.
Look, there are always going to be very good debaters who never connect on the bid. There are also going to be very good debaters who had enough unfortunate matchups or judges that they ended up with records at tournaments that make their app look bad. In the end, the results stay the same because you can’t make up the rules as you go.
A hypothetical- A debater has a tab error that pushes them to 3-4 at the Glenbrooks instead of 4-3, and a tab error that makes them 2-4 at St. Marks instead of 3-3. Also, they get a second half bid, and clear at 3 second-half tournaments, losing first outround in each.
For this debater, the tab errors make their first half look BAD–not just neutral, not just a slow start. Should the committee just assume that they were 3-3 rather than 2-4 etc. I suppose they could, but this is a whole realm of judgment and unverifiable claims that I wouldn’t want the committee to have to wade through. As far as I’m concerned, what they post on the packet is what you did. Luck is part of the game, in ways much deeper than tab errors.
So, in sum, Courtney is going to the TOC, and I’m sure she’ll do just fine. The Committee, I think, should consider sticking to the 1 bid rule wholesale from now on. Mangus’ Suggestions should also be implemented.
Posted from: 65.125.148.226
April 8th, 2008 14:06
Oh, and about Mangus’ plan…
I agree with it. Accurate numbers and info are cool. But, it doesn’t solve back the true issue that most people have: that bids should not be granted to students by error.
As for Jay’s point about randomness being a part of the game (to which I agree, BTW)… it almost seems like it’s more unfair to say that a student should lay down and not care that an error has caused them harm. I actually think that this makes my “deal with it” arg in a different way. It just doesn’t analyze that the KT is a tournament whose rules and regulations are ultimately decided by one person. He has advisors to whom he listens quite frequently; but, they are merely people who provide (strong) suggestions.
Remember how the tournament in Vegas this year got higher bids that weren’t published in any forum? Remember how the Cal tournament got Octos bids even though the TOC information said that it was a quarters bid? Right. The KT is JW’s party. We don’t have an expectation of transparency, fairness, or any of that. What we can expect is that the tournament will be run by the people who JW respects and trusts. There are rules that are not well known and are sometimes enforced.
michelin massey
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
April 8th, 2008 14:10
From the TOC website: http://www.uky.edu/Provost/ChellgrenCenter/Debate/champions.htm
“The at-large applicant(s) must have earned at least one leg to apply. Applications submitted without one leg will not be considered and refunds will not be made.
The at-large applicant must specify at the top of the page on the at-large application where the qualifier was received.”
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
April 8th, 2008 14:28
Very ambiguous
Posted from: 65.125.148.226
April 8th, 2008 14:28
The TOC website also doesn’t list a bid tournament where students earned bids. Just because it’s in the rules doesn’t mean it’s the rules….
michelin masey
Posted from: 74.73.42.3
April 8th, 2008 14:34
Honestly, I think any attempt to defend what happened because the rules are ambigious is weak. There are numerous places, both on the website and the at-large application forms that are very specific in that the debater applying needs one leg to the TOC.
I am symphathetic to other defense of what happened, but that reason makes very little sense.
Probably should stick to the “deal with it” defense, since so far that seems the only one furthered that makes any sense.
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
April 8th, 2008 14:38
I think it does have a list of all the bid tournaments.
Posted from: 71.236.67.195
April 8th, 2008 14:42
+1 travis. i quoted that same line in my original post too. im not sure why people seem to think the rule is somehow ambiguous – its not.
dealing broadly w/ michelin’s arguments:
voting with your feet doesnt make sense in a world w/ no close substitutes. im hungry so i’ll use michelins restaurant analogy. there are lots of top-quality restaurants. there are not as many top-quality debate tournaments. the ndca tournament is not of the same caliber as the toc at this point. more importantly, your only options are NOT “eat it or eat elsewhere” – havent you ever sent an item back at a restaurant because of a simple error? the toc doesnt have rats in the kitchen, they just undercooked the steak. institutional inertia is good to an extent bc it facilitates planning and community structure. dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.
the fact that the committee is quite distinguished and voted this debater in to the tournament doesnt have any bearing on this argument. my dispute is one of procedure, not substance: the at large process should not be worth 2 bids. if the reanimated corpse of abe lincoln applied to the toc and a committee of moses, batman, and matt groenig gave him an at large, i would still be calling bullshit. im not sure why that’s so tough to understand.
one more thing: if vbd is not a way that large groups of people can make their voices collectively heard, what is? am i missing something here? this is not ‘whining on a blog,’ this is actually one of the main places that community discussion takes place. is that terrifying to me? yeah, but its a fact. is it true that a lot of these posts are pretty shallow and silly? yeah, but there are also several committee members commenting here too – im sure that they are capable of weeding out the real comments from the garbage.
maybe you shouldve read the rules before you concluded with such a bold comment. theyre pretty concrete. i am fine w/ jw having a little ‘lex regia’ action working in his favor, but privately transgressing the explicit rules isnt ok with me.
Posted from: 71.236.67.195
April 8th, 2008 14:45
ps: what does “The TOC website also doesn’t list a bid tournament where students earned bids.” mean? they dont list everyones bids? seems like my plan could fix that w/ a minor adaptation. the web site also includes a list of the qualifying tournaments and results are public information.
Posted from: 71.236.67.195
April 8th, 2008 14:51
pps: last i knew of, the “kentucky tournament” was the henry clay in october. they also host ohio valley. cant we just stick to calling the TOC by its real name?
Posted from: 65.125.148.226
April 8th, 2008 14:59
This will be my last post. It’s funny that Mumper calls my arguments weak when they’re not arguments (just observations). Then, I make arguments and he still calls them weak without any reasoning to counter them. Apparently, someone made Mumper the god of sensibility.
First, my reading came from a different and older set of rules. The newer ones posted by Travis Smith prove my previous point wrong. I admit that.
Second, the invitation as posted does not include the Golden Desert Invitational as a bid in Lincoln-Douglas debate. Yet, students in the QUARTERS of the policy division there got bids and students in the FINALS of LD got bids. Check the lists again. It does not say that students were to receive bids at those levels for that tournament. The LD event isn’t even listed. There’s a precedent for this event. It happened at Cal when it was bumped from a Quarters to an Octos by JWP at the tournament site.
Why do I bring this up? It shows that the KT is not a democracy concerned about how it treats you. It has unspecified and lesser known “rules” like the one where a student can be conferred a bid by Dr. Patterson or the advisory committee simply because of a tab error. Every single item in the invitation is up to the discretion of Dr. Patterson. If you don’t like that reality, you don’t have to like it. Yet, that doesn’t mean you have a voice other than to express your concern to people who can hopefully get some things done… OR you can just not deal with it.
If you believe this is controversial, then I don’t know what else to tell you. It is reality.
michelin massey
Posted from: 64.91.217.43
April 8th, 2008 15:12
i list everyone’s bids! fairly accurately, i might add.
ldscoreboard.blogspot.com
Posted from: 71.236.67.195
April 8th, 2008 15:17
apparently the point there was ’some tournaments gave out bids but werent on the list.’ for you aspiring young debaters out there, here is a useful tip: you can concede arguments with no impacts.
i agree. that was also unfair. those discussions have already been had. doesnt affect this at all.
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
April 8th, 2008 15:27
Mangus is just right and most of the opposing arguments are either missing his point or purposefully avoiding them.
1. No one is arguing that cyborg’s coaching staff did anything wrong (atleast I don’t think so). They acted to the best of their ability to help a student in an unfortunate situation, but to say that means other coaches did something wrong or that was sufficent justification for the AC’s decision doesn’t make sense. I understand that its JW’s party and there are always exceptions to rules, but either 1. the exception should have been publicized before other applicants decided to submit their application or 2.should have gone into effect the following season. Admitedly, I would have sent in my application anyway, but there are a lot of people who made a calculated decision to spend $80 to apply and it is clearly unfair to change the rules on them after they have already submitted their check. I agree its impossible for the AC to anticipate every potential exception, but either of my 2 suggestions above would have been more fair and professional ways of handeling the situation.
2. The rules are clear. It’s on the website in multiple places, on the application (I filled it out) and I’m pretty sure if you looked on past threads you’d find everyones’ description of the rules essentially the same. If there were past exceptions it only makes it worst that the website doesn’t notify the community of when they are applicable.
3. the argument that this doesn’t happen often doesn’t help us evaluate if this was an appropriate solution to the situation and coupled with the slippery slope arguments (which are true) it becomes meaningless. If you allow a tab-room error to become sufficent for a bid your opening the door to a lot of justifiable arguments. If the tournament messed up my speakerpoints in round 2 and therefore I hit a better debater in round 3 and my whole tournament changes from there… do I deserve a bid at an octos bid tournament with 6 rounds? Wouldn’t that be consistent with the argument that we will never know what would have happened and therefore I deserve the benefit of the doubt. I’m pretty sure this (miscalculation of a speaker point) happened to me at Princeton and I ended up a ballot away from what would be my second bid… do I deserve to be at TOC (ironically one of those ballots was Mangus’s). But I think the we will never know argument always has to default to no bid, with the possible exception of if the error happened in the bid round.
This may sound like someone on the waiting list just complaining, but I have never met courtney and I doubt I’m the first person on the waiting list, so that’s not what this is. Do I want to go to TOC? yes, that’s why I applied for the at large, but I think there’s a much more important discussion about how we make decisions in this community taking place on this thread that people need to think about. Sry for my awful spelling and grammar.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
April 8th, 2008 16:04
This may be off topic but I have a question for anyone who is planning to take the Spanish Lang Test and also go to TOC. The former conflicts with the latter. TOC is obviously infinitely times more important, so I’ll be there, but what steps are people taking to make up the Spanish Lang Test? Is making up AP tests even allowed?
Thanks for the help,
DK
Posted from: 134.84.75.102
April 8th, 2008 16:13
It is possible to take AP tests on different dates, but I’m pretty sure that you have to reschedule them a couple of weeks, if not months, in advance. Hopefully your school administration can think of something. Good luck on your test DFK!
Posted from: 24.7.127.124
April 8th, 2008 16:17
you can talk to your AP “coordinator” to schedule the late test. you have to shell out 40 more to collegeboard’s evil empire, and the schools around you take all the kids who have to take the late test too, and do it all at one school on a later date.
Posted from: 74.73.42.3
April 8th, 2008 16:25
Michelin – Mangus told me he was responding to you so I thought it silly and repetitive to just ghost his much better responses. If you’d like to engage the issue with me specifically, we can do that.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
April 8th, 2008 16:55
Thanks for the help Julian/Om!
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
April 8th, 2008 17:19
To the “JW party” arg.
It was legitimate for Dr. Patterson to give GDI a bid, because he notified the community beforehand that he reserves the right to add bids. Quoting from the TOC website, “The following tournaments/awards are INELIGIBLE as qualifiers:… Any tournament not on this approved tournament list unless added by the TOC Tournament Director.”
It would also be legitimate for him to add 0 bid debaters next year if he notifies the community about that before the season begins.
It is, however, not legitimate for Dr. Patterson to accept 0 bid debaters this year, because he never gave prior warning that this is possible. Changing the rules midway means that people have spent time and money on tournaments and applications based on an incorrect information, that they might not have spent if they had the correct information (not that many would, but the possibility remains). It’s JW’s party, but he has to run it in a way he promised he will (no offense to Dr. Patterson personally, whom I do not know, but the action itself is illegitimate).
The fact that some 0 bid debaters are better than some 1 or more bid debaters would, if true, mean that the rules should be changed, not broken.
Posted from: 74.68.137.118
April 8th, 2008 18:28
I’m not going to engage in the debate here right this moment, though I will contribute my thoughts shortly, but in the meantime….
To answer Daniel Khalessi’s question: your school’s AP test coordinator can schedule you for a make-up exam prior to Memorial Day Weekend. “Academic contests” are a College Board-approved reason for taking late examinations.
Posted from: 74.68.137.118
April 8th, 2008 18:28
Looks like I was repetitive. Sorry about that!
Posted from: 66.108.131.237
April 8th, 2008 19:21
for anon2: why would people go to/ spend money on tournaments only to qualify to the TOC, which is just another tournament?
Posted from: 71.33.139.167
April 8th, 2008 19:59
what kind of insane rationale was posited to fiat three rounds of victories after a tab error? is there a ‘what if’ at large form that special people get to send in? the pool of potentially qualified applicants that ought to be reviewed in the ‘what if’ category is infinite. the 1 bid criteria at leaves gives a sensible means by which to reduce the size of the candidate pool.
the decision appears really duplicitous, regardless of the intentions of the committee.
i’m not sure who to contact regarding the automation of submitting results for toc — i can offer my expertise in helping develop such a system. can someone point me in the right direction?
Posted from: 24.7.64.100
April 8th, 2008 20:19
As someone who debated at the TOC a few years ago…it’s not that tight. I mean, yes, it’s prestigious, and it’s a good tournament, but it is not the best-judged, most fun, best-located, etc. tournament. It is expensive, stressful, and kind of unpleasant for all but 16 or so people. I don’t mean to degrade the accomplishment for those who did qualify, but keep it in perspective.
If you were a sophomore or junior this year and did not get an at-large, congratulate yourself on getting a bid this early, study for APs, and think about how you can do better next year. If you were a senior, I can understand your frustration, but:
a) a few of you will get an at-large later this month.
b) many of you will have the opportunity to have a really successful career in college, if you want to go down that path.
c) for the others, this is it, but that doesn’t mean your debate career was worthless. you were presumably one of the top 150-200 competitors out of tens of thousands nationally. you probably learned a lot, met some cool people, and are better for the experience. make sure to do something fun the weekend of the TOC–the last thing you want to do is spend a weekend moping about what could have been.
PS. Independent of this specific issue, Michelin is spot-on about how the TOC works. If you haven’t figured it out by now, the “qualification rules” get bent all the time, every year (remember Emory 2005?) Is-ought fallacy? Maybe, but JW makes no secret of the fact that the TOC rules are guidelines that may or may not apply. Besides, I don’t know what the impact is if no one is being excluded. “It doesn’t respect the 1 bid candidates?” “It doesn’t follow the rules”. Please–these are just like the bad deontology arguments that I’m sure half of y’all are going to regurgitate at the TOC anyways. If there’s no harm, there’s no foul, so stop complaining.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
April 8th, 2008 21:31
i’m kind of curious what spurred Cyborg et al. to send in an at large in the first place?
was it a suggestion from Harvard’s tournament director?
Posted from: 128.135.226.197
April 8th, 2008 22:02
ro dfk i know juju said this but i rescheduled 3 aps lat year so you just have to tell them normally they will be end of may
Posted from: 199.74.71.206
April 8th, 2008 23:25
I also rescheduled all of my mine like 2 days before b/c I got a late at-large. So there shouldnt be a problem w/r to time.
Posted from: 169.229.81.189
April 9th, 2008 01:13
+1 to Smitty.
Only 1 person leaves the TOC satisfied. At least, it seemed that way to me.
Posted from: 74.68.137.118
April 9th, 2008 09:04
(Posted via Jon Cruz’s computer.)
I have a unique perspective on this issue. I have been involved with the TOC in every possible viewpoint. I have been a former debater trying to qualify. I have been a former coach working with students trying to qualify. I have been in over 100 tab rooms, including many TOC-bid tournaments as well as Nationals. I have been a member of the Advisory Committee. Currently, I am the tab room director for LD at the TOC. So, here is my recommendation to all interested about this issue:
First, trust the Advisory Committee to listen. At least five members of the current advisory committee (Green, Timmons, Cruz, Craven, and Vaughan) have commented at some point on this string. They hear you. It has been suggested that the TOC is run by a cliquish group of elitist folks. If I were one of them, I would take issue with this. The Adv Comm is a group of dedicated professionals who care a great deal about this activity and their recommendations and decisions are ALWAYS based on what is in the best interest of the tournament and the debate community at-large. Dr. Patterson certainly cares about the community. If it were not the case, he wouldn’t need an advisory committee. They do not act arbitrarily and capriously. Although people may disagree with their decision, please respect that these decisions are not made lightly and without care.
Second, contact them directly if you have a specific suggestion. Rely on this blog to be a way to speak your mind, but do not rely on this blog as a policy making forum, for it is not. Some of the suggestions made are reasonable – clarifying the rules for application (do you need a bid? If there was a tab room error, is there something that can be done in regards to your TOC application?). Some are less reasonble. “Coaches’ challenge” as a common practice in Texas, Louisiana and other states is great for small tournaments. Having worked in many tab rooms in both states, it works just fine. However, having been in the tab room at very large tournaments (St. Mark’s, Glenbrooks, NFL Nationals, TFA State), I know it is completely impossible to implement. You cannot have 75-100 coaches reading ballots and double checking the math all at once. It won’t be just 30 minutes; it’ll be much more than that. Every reputable tab room staff implements their own procedures to double- and triple-check results. It’s not infallible, but it’s as infallible as humanly possible. Some of Mr. Mangus’s suggestions, such as some independent audit process of the applications, are intriguing. I am also intrigued by other ideas such as publishing the rankings after they have been compiled. My gut is to agree with Ms. Green and conclude that it’s not a very good idea, but I am not convinced completely, yet. Bottom line: contact these people via email with your ideas to improve. They will discuss any serious proposals at their May meeting and make recommendations to Dr. Patterson, who listens very carefully to what they have to say. If you don’t know who they all are and not sure how to contact them, contact me at Glenbrook North and I’ll gladly get you their email addresses. Maybe Mr. Cruz or Mr. Bietz will gladly do this on the VBD site somewhere.
Posted from: 67.78.38.61
April 9th, 2008 09:08
i don’t know how “deal with it” applies, largely because i feel as though the position being held by most of us is not one of “kick her out” or anything like that.
yes, many people are bitter, whining, feeling slighted, etc. but it’s not without pretty good reason. there are a lot of debaters who played by the rules, did much but not all of what the rules asked of them, and then were deferred in favor of someone who didn’t meet the baseline requirements of the rules. and most of the kids agree that the rules aren’t great anyway! as such, the argument here is not “these are the rules, play by them, they are good” blah blah blah. it’s not an appeal to some deontological justification for sticking by the rules all the time (you know your argument is too generic, smitty; you’re glossing over a lot of particularly situated claims). it’s that in a system where there are, generally, a fairly unambiguous set of guidelines, it would at least be, i don’t know, courteous to provide a) some sort of clear cut method by which we can determine who does and doesn’t go to the toc and b) some attempts at fairness and educational opportunity to the students since they’re supposedly the bread and butter of debate. i really don’t think that these things are necessarily good in and of themselves (check out my facebook if you really think that i’m making appeals to some transcendent moral concern arguments) and i know that the toc isn’t a democracy, but i do know what it is supposed to be: a meeting of the most involved and talented debaters and educators in the country. the toc is a labour of love for many coaches and competitors alike, so if we ostensibly value things like fairness and education, it would just be nice to follow up on those promises. nobody’s really obligated contractually or systemically to be decent human beings or give a shit about the promises they’ve made – it’s just that it would, well, be something we expect of decent human beings who give a shit about the promises they’ve made.
no, i don’t have any legitimate claim to entitlement to my debater being able to compete at the toc; it is, after all, not my party, and the toc is certainly not a democracy, and there are no comparable alternatives so i’ll suck it up ’cause jw’s got a monopoly. but if a community doesn’t follow its own rules and live up to its promises, then i call bullshit. if that’s too vulgar for you, this practice is usually referred to by such names as “hypocrisy” and “demagoguery” and sometimes even “masquerading” but more than anything else, we all got lied to a little bit about how the 2008 tournament of champions would work. don’t make rules if they’re not going to be enforced or followed (and i don’t really buy that there’s discretion – travis et al posted it, it’s been noted, it just isn’t ambiguous at all) and don’t talk about caring about the lives of students and teaching them if it doesn’t matter to you.
i’ll agree with smitty to some extent here – there are some pretty terrible things about the toc. i left last year cursing some of the most prominent names in the activity, fuming about politics, and missing one of my favorite shirts which got left somewhere in kentucky (gags). but even then, i could say that i had the shot, and some of my most vindicating debates occurred at toc. i probably wouldn’t have stayed in debate this year if, i dunno, my app hadn’t gotten considered. we give kids a set of guidelines and then throw them into the game – so “toc isn’t that tight” isn’t really a good or helpful answer to the people who have had some pretty reasonable expectations of how to get to the dance that they’ve dedicated so much time to learning.
terminally: we should either make repairs to the system so as to establish some kind of clarity (michael’s proposals make pretty great sense) or abandon fairness and education as important issues – because we can’t say “deal with it” if we really think that this is supposed to be about a fair learning environment. we can’t both claim debate should be sensitive to those values and then tell people that the process doesn’t care about them.
and i would really rather that we repaired the system than resign debate to opacity, impenetrability, and aimless arbitration; an activity centered around thought and argument should probably be able to test ideas. i certainly don’t think that i have the clout, connections, what have you to get things done directly through the committee. i do have a computer and access to a forum that’s read by a lot of people on a daily basis, many of whom are much deeper in this community than i, so i’ll keep up my vbd bitching, because i’m sure that at least somebody important is listening.
finally, congratulations to courtney, again, who i saw debate at lone star two weekends ago, and with whom i was quite impressed. and thanks to michael mangus for saying more or less all of this before me.
Posted from: 67.78.38.61
April 9th, 2008 09:17
p.s. i am not particularly accusing anyone of intentionally subverting the rules, being a hypocrite, etc. i think it’s something that we’ll all fall victim to, though, as long as we’re willing to embrace ideas like “suck it up” as guiding in debate.
Posted from: 169.229.32.136
April 9th, 2008 11:13
I think that people are missing the fact that this is a question of eligibility not qualification. The qualification question, I believe, is reasonably settled- the committee read 38 apps, and chose a debater with no bids as having a more impressive resume than some with bids.
So, while I understand pleas on behalf of people of others who had no bids and didn’t apply based on the rule, I’m not as convinced by arguments on behalf of waitlisted at-larges.
Ultimately, the Committee picked the application they thought was most impressive. They saw Courtney’s application as more TOC-Worthy than the others. So yeah, if you didn’t get in, you got beaten out.
We should all be asking the TOC to have a stable set of rules, but it seems that some of the claims boil down to “even if she had the better app, it’s unfair because the rules say she can’t apply”.
I’m not sure I find that convincing.
Posted from: 205.221.2.129
April 9th, 2008 12:00
AT Greg – I think “Coach’s challenge” works fine, even at Mark’s, at least from a coach’s perspective. The idea – as I understand it – isn’t that the coaches all traipse through the tab room at the last minute, ferreting through ballots. Rather, coaches keep track of their students’ records throughout the tournament. When the elimination round is posted, coaches who think their students should be clearing can check that they have cleared. If, for example, I know that my student is 5-1 or 4-2, and they are not on the list of clearing students, I can bring this to the attention of the tab room. Presumably a small number of coaches would have to actually look at ballots to make this work.
AT MJ Ocon:
Sometimes in a system of rules a situation arises which is not considered by the rules. In these circumstances, since we can’t travel in time, a rule has to be adjusted ex post facto to resolve the situation.
In this case, it is true that there is an unambiguous rule that says: “You must have one bid to apply to the TOC at-large.”
There is also an unambiguous rule that says “If your record and points places you as the 30th seed in a tournament that breaks to triples, you must be in the triples round.”
Due to a simple human error, Rule #2 above was violated. That created an unfair situation for which the rules provided no redress.
In situations like these, it is legitimate for people with decisionmaking authority to create exceptions to the rule. Afterwards, it is desirable for the rules to be revisited so that they can be revised to include the previously unforeseen circumstance. That will undoubtedly happen this May.
IN this case I think the resolution was optimal because on the one hand, the student in question had a claim to participation in elims that was violated. Rectifying that by awarding a bid avoids (as much as possible) the unfairness to that student, while AT WORST taking away an opportunity from another student to which that hypothetical student had NO CLAIM. That is, it is clear from the TOC rules that at-larges are rewarded at the discretion of the tournament committee; not one has a “right” to one. So even if the hypothetical 76th debater doesn’t get to go to the TOC, when they otherwise would have, this violates no claim and is therefore not “wrong” in any meaningful sense. The impact comparison is simple: Solution 1 – ignore the problem at Harvard – violates a clear claim. Solution 2 – award a bid in compensation for the Harvard problem – violates no claim.
There is nothing capricious about this decisionmaking process. It seems really straightforward to me.
Posted from: 205.221.2.129
April 9th, 2008 12:03
One correction: TOC At-larges are awarded at the discretion of the tournament director. The committee advises.
Posted from: 76.95.164.213
April 9th, 2008 13:03
i see smittys gotten some of my “who gives a fuck” powers
big Mich, you gonna be at the dance? whos your date? =P
ocon u trippin, we all know merrill will be there, as will you.
can someone post a list of everyone at larged?
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
April 9th, 2008 13:41
This is I’ll I plan on adding to this discussion. If anyone wants to talk about my comments further please email me.
The TOC is political. The whole process is. How tournaments get/retain bids. What bid level they are at. Who gets at-larges is no different. The entire system has “rules” but every single one of those “rules” can be subverted or destroyed at the whim of JW.
Point being, this isn’t a system. It’s a process. That process isn’t a guarantee of anything.
If you want something more transparent or “fair” then look elsewhere. I doubt that JW or anyone from UK is all that interested in the moaning happening in thread 3425345 on VBD.
Some ideas: Don’t support the tournament. There are alternatives out there. There are four tournaments that claim to be a national championship.
danmeyers AT gmail DOT com
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
April 9th, 2008 18:19
I have to also add to Wade. How exactly did x debater decide to send the application? I mean the rules say dont. Think of it this way. You cant be elected in the United States unless you are of a certain age. People under that age dont run. This is like someone not that age or over it running.. There has to be some communication that only occurred between x debater and the committee that didnt occur with anyone else.
Finally, can the TOC committee just pay the 80 $ back to all the kids that applied at large? At this point, much like Stanford offered to pay back those kids screwed out of bids, the bid process was obviously not one that followed the rules that most debaters knew about. I wouldnt have paid money for a process that didnt follow the rules they outlined. I dont care if I didnt get the bid, actually I do, but I would be fine if I got my money back. I would also prefer my time back, but thats not likely to happen.
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
April 9th, 2008 18:21
Also that “no right to bid claim” doesnt make sense because that person (hypothetically) woul have gotten her spot.
Posted from: 69.253.230.13
April 9th, 2008 18:52
post 255 (dan meyers) is probably the most sensical post i’ve seen on this thread.
Posted from: 205.167.47.158
April 9th, 2008 19:54
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
WHHHYYYY
WWHHHHHHYYYYY
WHHHYYYYY
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
April 9th, 2008 20:19
so if JW were to decide to give the championship to whoever ended up getting the least votes in finals I guess no one would complain b/c the process is political and there are alternative national championships.
Posted from: 76.95.164.213
April 9th, 2008 21:10
The rules of LD are different than the process of entry. And even they can be broken, for example when one silly debater ran determinism and grabbed all the ballots in the room and signed them… or maybe it was few silly debaters.
Anyway, i brought up the party arg… cuz i party hard… so ill defend it to the death. People are confusing what JW has a right to do and what he ought to do. He ought not break the rules, but he sure as hell has a right.
For the second anon (flame on), I understand that changing midwy may confuse people is true, but ur warrant of spending money on tournaments doesnt make sense. People who want to go to TOC would obviously still travel and try to get 2 bids.
Juss to regurg, the tab error was rectified by granting bid status. If JW has the right to confer bids on tourneys, I dont know why that right doesnt extend to debaters. I mean come on, do u really think if JW wanted a non-bidded debater to be at TOC anyone could stop him? Yea sure it would be unfair, but… its his party. Dont like it? Boycott.
Back to Leftenant Soohoo, I dont think the at large process was “late” or broadly denied a group of people bids. In only the case where giving someone an at large denies another (which could have possibly been corrected already due to another at large or expansion of the TOC pool) would the charity of a bid be unfair to others who applied.
Finally, because i have the opinion this is JW’s party, I am led to a bit of annoyance on this thread. Why do so manny people feel like they are entitled to attend TOC, or have a right to the at large process? I think one bidders should be grateful that the at large process even exists. It literally exists for your benefit and like this rectification of tab error- is a form of charity.
Posted from: 76.95.164.213
April 9th, 2008 21:15
Actually if your an at large and your disatisfied, withdraw your application so that merril, jing, and tarun can qual. thank you.
Posted from: 199.74.105.26
April 9th, 2008 21:26
On a slightly less controversial note, if any of the recently notified at-large recipients is in need of a judge, please contact me at j-schifberg@northwestern.edu. I’ve already got housing and transportation taken care of. Congrats to all the at-larges.
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
April 10th, 2008 14:54
Mo Sahoo says that if someone had told him beforehand that one other debater’s at large would be considered due to a tab error, he wouldn’t have applied at large.
I don’t think that’s true.
Posted from: 69.153.200.55
April 11th, 2008 14:07
when is the meeting during TOC in which this/other issues will be discussed? is it open to the public / people at the tournament?
Posted from: 70.2.138.8
April 14th, 2008 21:03
Will Hix got in at-large today
Posted from: 24.6.237.64
April 14th, 2008 22:08
jeremy’s post reminded me that i have yet to do this, so here goes:
when i went to the TOC, perfect strangers were nice enough to judge for me and make the whole thing possible. i figure this is as good a time as any to pay it forward, so if you’d like to have me cover some of your obligation, please let me know (click on my name at the top of this post for my email ID) and we can work something out. i’m already committed for anna, but still have a few free rounds after that, so yeah. and yes, housing etc have all been taken care of…
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
April 15th, 2008 07:04
congrats will!!
Posted from: 66.240.48.106
April 15th, 2008 08:12
To second Ankur’s offer, unless Vikram gets off the wait-list, I have a few rounds to donate after fulfilling Deepa’s commitment. Just let me know if you’re interested. You can reach me at adamn AT harker DOT org.
Posted from: 166.102.136.112
April 15th, 2008 10:20
Congrats to Will Hix. Well deserved!
Posted from: 24.174.1.105
April 26th, 2008 18:04
Jane Kessner got one too! Congrats to Whitman!
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
April 28th, 2008 20:44
What happened to Bilal Malik? Did he not apply for one?