If Mike or Danny are the new dictators, then I’ll start working on a sculpture in their honor.

Just as clarification, the original post by Danny says nothing about students outside So. Cal. being eligible for any award. If Danny said something to me personally, it is entirely possible I missed it. I was simply going by the “letter” as written in Danny’s post.

As you can see from that post (at least in my reading of it), both students in the final round would receive a 7-0 adjusted record for the tournament. As it reads now to me, any final round in which a student participates gets a 3-0 for them on the yearlong tally. This is to avoid a situation where a student who goes 4-0 in prelims, and then 0-3 in finals, gets ranked lower than someone who goes 3-1 in prelims.

While I’m truly sorry for any insult that the update might have caused, let me suggest that it is not wise to “imagine the rationale” in any case. Assuming that our weeks old and rough set of rules were designed to punish people from outside of Southern California seems counter-intuitive since we publish free evidence and encourage people from outside Southern California to come to our tournaments.

Perhaps part of the problem is a perceived bias that I might have, given who is the Top Debater on the list (at least until Sunday). Let me say again that 1) the points in the update are transparently available to anyone and 2) I’d happily give the job to anyone who would rather do it.

I’m sure that if the website/group grows we could end up with more rigid bylaws, etc. For now, I think we can agree that the Top Debater award can come from any school, though only tournaments that take place in So. Cal. will count toward that award.

Since we never stated a number to be eligible at the end of the year, but I’ve seen the mention of 5 tournaments, can we make the number of ballots 22? That way, a debater who goes to three tournaments and makes it to the first out round, would be just ineligible. Four tournaments with an out round, or (more likely) 5 tournaments with one out round, or six tournaments seems about right to me for eligibility.

Since this group/website is a friendly dictatorship at this point with Danny in charge, I will defer to him. I know, however, that he is more than willing to take all types of discussion. What do we think of these two ideas?

Since only tournaments in SoCal count it made sense to us that a debater would have had to been debating in SoCal to meet the minimum rounds threshold. As such, they were the best SoCal debater. However, the schools award is designed to recognize the schools from Southern California so we were going to keep that award restricted.

Does that seem more fair? This is the first year and I have no illusions I know how to setup this award better than anyone else. I just want to recognize excellence in NFA-LD and fulfill the mission of the website to grow NFA-LD debate in Southern California.

I would open eligibility to schools outside of the designated SoCal counties as long as they attend a minimum of 5 SoCal tournaments. That would seem to be a prudent solution because the WKUs and Uops of the world generally don’t come to town more than 2-3 times a year.

2. Shame on those who have made the decision to exclude Travis from this award. he is in a district with limited NFA-LD participation; has supported the so-cal ld project; sees the debaters there as his peers and community; has had sucess; and looks up to each and every instructor who has helped him to improve. I can only imagine the rationale employed and will tell you that no matter what the reason, you have hurt a young man’s feelings and feeling of acceptance. Travis is driven to succeed. He did not debate in high School. He is only a sophomore and he broke at NPDA last year. Despite my unorthodox coaching technique, he has stuck it out and risen to every challenge I have given him. He debates LD by choice and insistence, paying his own expenses for camp and to drive to Riverside. Perhaps we have differing pedagogical approaches, perhaps I am missing some part of the equation. I guess all of these years advocating for inclusiveness and an environment which fosters goodwill and community was one-sided.

Phil
UNR