Sausage-making

I will not put this into the RSS feed, but if you're the sort of person who actually comes here to grab the episodes, you are either in for a treat or for the dumbest waste of 10 minutes in your life so far. Prior to starting episode 26 (and, by the way, as far as I'm concerned, any "very special episode" should include a wedding of Joanie and Chachi), Adam and I waited while Fred tried to get Skype to work. We could hear him, he couldn't hear us. We tried texting him, but that took a while to click. Anyhow, I mentioned this in 26, and here it is.

Episode 26 - Robertson Sells CatNats and Torson Sells DNA

In a very special episode—I know, you thought we were done for the year; so did I—Bietz and Menick interview Fred R on the plans for Omaha's CatNats this weekend, while Torson chimes in when we get to DNA and the NatNats topic. If you're going to either one, you should give it a listen.

And where's Cruz? I don't know. He wandered off somewhere...

Episode 25 (including show notes)

The three and only wind up the season (as Cruz insists it be called) with, mostly, discussion of TOC 2010 here. (Those who go the distance will, as occasionally in the past, get a special treat.)

As discussed on the show, first, the link to my news feed.

Second, the conflict material from TOC:

The Lincoln Douglas advisory committee has instituted a policy which requests directors, coaches, and judges of programs to provide information about potential conflicts. The document or statement below should help guide persons in determining whether or not they ought to be conflicted or blocked from judging certain debaters at the tournament. Please read the document carefully and then follow the instructions at the end of the document to provide the tabulation staff with accurate information so that these conflicts may be recorded. We thank you in advance for your cooperation.

We would ask that you enter your conflicts there even though they may have been entered on the Joy of Tournaments site or sent to Dave Huston. We will have verification of your conflicts and mutual preference sheets at registration.


TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS JUDGE CONFLICT DOCUMENT

Fair competition requires not merely the absence of impropriety but also AVOIDING the appearance of impropriety. A conflict of interest is a relationship that might reasonably be thought to bias a judge toward or against a competitor. Such relationships may themselves be quite innocent, but they could reasonably be thought to compromise a judge’s impartiality. The Lincoln Douglas TOC Advisory Committee has drafted these guidelines to be implemented at this year’s Tournament of Champions.


A judge can’t judge a school they attended.

A judge can’t judge a program (whether one school or a collection of schools) for which they coached, consulted, or judged until four years after they stopped. This applies even if the judge only worked with some (or one) of the program’s students. It applies whether or not the judge was paid for the work.

A judge can’t judge a program if there are plans for the judge to work with that program in the future as a coach, consultant, or judge.

A judge can’t judge a program if the judge has done exclusive pre-round prep for one or more of the students from that program, whether electronically, verbally, or through the transfer of resources. Judges can share information without creating a conflict, but if the judge engages in “coaching behavior” such as discussing strategies, arguments, evidence, etc., with a program for the purposes of helping them win a debate, then they shouldn’t judge that program. If a judge does this in the middle of a tournament, they should inform the tab room and recuse themselves.

A judge can’t judge a program if they attend practice rounds with students from that program prior to tournaments.

Judges can’t judge students who are members of their family, who they have dated or had a close physical or emotional relationship, who they regularly chat with either in person, over the phone, or over the computer, and judges can’t judge debaters with whom they socialize outside of the realm of debate.

A judge can’t judge a student if the judge thinks that they would be unable to fairly judge them for reasons not stated in other parts of this document, but for which the judge feels some personal bias.

A judge may choose to recuse him or herself from judging students if they regularly share transportation and/or lodging with the student’s team, if they have a close relationship with the student’s coach or a member of the student’s family, or if the judge works for a debate camp or other forensics business for which the student is planning to work.

NOTE: This doesn’t mean judges can’t judge students who were in their lab at camp, but if the judge maintains regular contact with those students or has a personal relationship with them, they shouldn't judge them.

NOTE: Any time these rules talk about a “program” that means any student from that program. If a judge is hired by one or two students from a program and never meets the other students, they are still a judge for the program.

NOTE: A program is any school or collection of schools that prepares together as a unit, even if they don’t always compete under the same name. If two or more schools share coaching, transportation, lodging, and practices, then they’re a single program.

Judges, coaches, and students all have the responsibility to reveal conflicts. If a coach or student fails to disclose a conflict, all students from that program will lose their mutual preferences. No decisions will be modified as a result of disclosed information. The TOC Advisory Committee or a quorum thereof will adjudicate any disputes and its decision will be final, with appeal to Dr. J.W. Patterson or his tournament staff at the discretion of Dr. Patterson.

THE HEAD COACH OF THE SCHOOL ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ALL OF THEIR JUDGES. IT IS A HEAD COACH'S AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO MAKE SURE THAT CONFLICT INFORMATION FOR ALL JUDGES IS ACCURATE. THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO STATE CONFLICTS OR OVERSTATING CONFLICTS WILL BE LOSS OF MJP FOR THE ENTIRE SCHOOL'S ENTRY.

Episode 24 - NDCA with a schmear of TOC

The three debate coaches behind theory, litotes and American Idol—not to mention Jersey Shore—present "The Cruz's Underwear Episode." This week we talk about the recent NDCA tournament, and the future of that group and its event. In and out, we hit on the TOC, but it refuses to go out with us. Get it here.

Thank you, Corey Vidal.

Episode 23 - Tricks and Psych-Outs

Menick, Bietz and Cruz—AKA Bietz, Cruz and Menick—look like they're going to discuss all sorts of evil ways to get ahead in debate rounds, but really don't. Or, more to the point, they only do a little bit. They also talk about the CatNats resolution (hint: they think it's the greatest thing since the Inquisition), while mostly concentrating on the aspects of rounds other than line-by-line that many debaters forget about. If you're too poor to afford iTunes, where the episode is automatically downloaded into your iPod/iPad/iPud/whatever, then click here, but maybe you might want to think about saving a few bucks and joining the new millennium.

Episode 22 - Public Forum, Pt 2

Having tossed Palmer onto the discard pile, TVFT goes all TOS with Cruz, Menick and Bietz talking mostly about how topics affect an activity, and then we take on the recent controversy over fiscally supported PF topics. Where do we stand? You may be surprised. Here's the audio (which has been optimized for the iPad by doing absolutely nothing different but charging twice as much—the good news being that since we weren't charging anything in the first place, you can still afford it).

Episode 21 - Public Forum, Pt. 1

What activity has so many names and so many nicknames? Controversy, Ted Turner, Puff, Pffft, etc. Maybe its lack of accepted nomenclature affects its lack of format? Whatever. Menick, Bietz, Cruz and Palmer begin their dissection of the beast in this this episode, with predictably confused and incoherent results. Have a listen.