“The Spread,” Speed, and Activist Judges (Part 2)
…. PREVIOUSLY ON SO-CAL-LD.net**:
A. This is the second – and concluding – Post on the issue of the alleged “Anti-Spread/Anti-Speed Rule” in NFA-LD debate. If you have not read Part 1 (which I posted on 8/2/10, and which bears the same title), please do so before reading this Post.
B. This is NOT a Post arguing either FOR or AGAINST “Rapid-fire delivery, commonly called ‘spread delivery’” as being either GOOD or BAD for debate. It is, instead, a careful (I hope) analysis of the current NFA-LD Rules regarding speed/the spread.
C. My thesis is a simple one: THE CURRENT RULE, WHICH HAS BEEN COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE “ANTI-SPREAD/ANTI-SPEED RULE,” IS A BAD, BAD, BAD RULE! IT SHOULD EITHER BE AMENDED – OR ABOLISHED!
D. As you may recall, I concluded Part 1 of this Post with ten (10) independent lines of attack on the Rule, any one of which, at least in my opinion, is a “warrant” for my thesis.
But wait… there’s more!
And so, in the words of the Joker: “Here… we… GO!”
(11) “…[J]udges who encourage students to speak rapidly…” This language is so badly chosen that it truly boggles my mind!
(a) What does “encourage” mean in this context?
(i) Suppose a judge says nothing – is simply noncommital and silent – while a debater spews out arguments at 500+ words a minute – is that “encouragement?”
(ii) Suppose – at the beginning of the debate – one or both of the debaters asks the Judge,
“Do you have a problem with speed?” And the Judge says, “No. I take a good flow. And I can probably follow whatever you folks want to dish out.” Is that “encouragement?”
But let’s leave “encouragement” aside, and move on to…
(b) What about this “…to speak rapidly…” language?
(i) It’s completely undefined! Is “speaking rapidly” 250 words-per-minute? 300? 350? 400?
(ii) “rapidly” – ACCORDING TO WHOM? And this is anything but nit-picking! In any given round, the judge may think the speaker is doing a truly boffo job of “communicating,” BUT the opposing debater EARNESTLY BELIEVES the speaker is talking MUCH too “rapidly,” and is, in fact, “spreading,” which “is… ANTITHETICAL (emphasis added) to the purpose and intent of this event.” (I hope you recognize that language.)
What is this well-intentioned opposing debater supposed to do? Just give up? Not bloody likely! And guess what? That segways right into line of attack…
(12) “… [Judges violating the Rule] should be REPORTED TO THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR (emphasis added).”
This is a family Message Board, so instead of my writing out what I think of this language, permit me to use initials: OMFG!
And I don’t need to elaborate much here, because most – if not all – of you reading this Post have been to tournaments. Some of probably have been, or soon will be, “tournament directors.”
Suffice it to say that reporting (complaining about) a judge to an overworked, overstressed tournament director (who is probably tasked with overseeing 10-12 different events) for “encouraging a student (in NFA-LD debate) to speak rapidly,” is likely to be about as effective and/or beneficial as tossing an IED into the tabroom!
‘Nuf said on that. Now… last – but not least – we come to line of attack
(13) “Local tournament directors are encouraged to develop their own responses to such judges.”
(a) Here we go again. “Encouraged” does not mean “required!”
(b) I’ve been judging NFA-LD debate for two years, both on the local circuit and on the national circuit. In those two years, EVERY “tournament director” I have come into contact with – WITHOUT EXCEPTION – has been an intelligent, hard-working (classic understatement), highly-ethical, fair-minded professional who has wanted nothing but the best for each school and every student competing in the tournament. Nevertheless, I do not know of one tournament director who has – at least to date – developed any kind of planned “response” to the problem of judges who allegedly encourage “spreading” in NFA-LD debate.
Note: I intend to raise the issue at the PSCFA Coaches Meeting on September 10-12.
III. OKAY, MILLER*** – MAYBE YOU’RE RIGHT ABOUT THIS TECHNICAL TRIVIA, BUT AREN’T YOU JUST BEING ANAL… AGAIN?!?!
With the greatest respect and love for the activity all all who care enough to write about it, my answer is a firm “NO.” And here’s why.
(1) I can assure you, based upon my background both as a lawyer and a teacher of American History – BAD LAWS (RULES) ARE WORSE THAN NO RULES AT ALL. I reserve the right to elaborate on this general principle as the discussion progresses. However, just in overview, a bad rule – such as this one – inevitably leads to unnecessary discrimination, anger, frustration and waste of precious resources within the “NFA-LD debate community.”
(2) (a) We all want the NFA-LD debate to grow and to prosper (at least I hope we do). (b) Growth and prosperity of the event requires the addition of new students and new coaches. (c) When new students and new coaches try to “start up” a NFA-LD debate program, the first thing they will probably do is look up the NFA-LD Rules.
(Indeed, the Rules are directly quoted in F.R.E.D., the certifying document for all PSCFA judges.) (d) If the Rules aren’t followed, and/or are applied arbitrarily and unpredictably, new students and/or new coaches will become frustrated and/or confused and leave the event. I can attest to this from personal experience with my own students. Last year Glendale College had no NFA-LD program because, at least in part, our students didn’t want to get involved in this civil war upon what the damn rules REALLY are. If you want signed affidavits to that effect, I can get them – relatively quickly.
IV. OKAY! OKAY!! SO WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO ABOUT IT, HUH?
For openers, I’m asking that we – at “the Southern California NFA-LD debate community” bring this situation to the attention of NFA. One coach is a “lunatic.” Six coaches are a “faction.” Ten coaches and all their debaters are a “Movement.”
And PLEASE recall – this lousy rule hurts everbody – both the people who like the spread and the people who hate the spread. We -all of us – NEED NFA to write rules we can agree to follow. A FUBAR rules situation like this wouldn’t have lasted two months if we had been talking about Extemp, or Oral Interp, or Persuasive Speaking. NFA-LD debate serves just as much unity of purpose as those events have. :)
* [sic] means “it appears thus,” and implies that the quoted language is flawed.
** Sorry to break this up into two Posts, Danny, but I couldn’t finish it all in one sitting.
*** I prefer to be called “Michael,” not “Miller.” I would take it as a courtesy if everyone would call me that. Thanks!
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
I have some problems with the position you take in that it seems to push this as a problem that will persist without new rules being formulated. And that just isn’t the case.
I came to NFA-LD from a policy background some 10 years ago. While it’s true that I can flow as fast as these debaters can go, I acknowledge that the rule does not tell me to encourage such behavior. The spirit of the law is clarified as one that seeks to preserve “communication principles” in the event. If it is the case that two debaters each read 400 words per minute, and all three of us understand what is communicated, then I see that communication is preserved. When giving my judging preferences, I tell debaters, “My threshold for speed is your opponent’s threshold for speed. If speed is preventing clear communication and preventing debatability, let it be known so I can slow things down.” This approach seems to allow the rules to function while still accounting for the subjective nature of determining what is/isn’t too fast.
I don’t understand how you interpret a judge’s passivity to be interpreted as “encouraging.” I doubt that any tournament director would tell me that listening to a rapid speech is the same as encouraging one. If, when assigning speaker points, a judge specifically articulates that higher points and lower points were assigned on the basis of speed, then I would believe that such an act might be interpreted as “encouragement”. When a judge asks debaters to make the call on pace so that he/she can enforce the rule, I believe that a judge is pretty well protected.
If debaters are looking for a standard to differentiate between rapid fire delivery and the “pleasant, comprehensible, and persuasive” tone that the rules reference, I should recount a tactic used by a debater from Ohio University for the past several years. Hassan would, if he felt he was being intentionally spread out of a round, ask his opponent to read a card to him in cross examination. If the pace was demonstrably lower, Hassaan would ask why they were reading so incredibly slow in CX. I know that there can be answers that a debater can give to this little demonstration, but it is a tool that can be used in round to at least propose a mutual standard for what is/isn’t intentionally fast delivery.
I personally don’t care if a round is fast or slow. I just want to see a good debate and allow both debaters access to the round. I think that if judges are straightforward with their speed standards and if debaters know to ask the judge to enforce rules, we can sort this out without new rules at all.