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: 27%
no more tag found, sorry
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