I think this conversation is productive. David is right - not everyone has
Tuna's connections, and I think it would be great to have a large amount of
money one day to have a free national championship. The path is unclear and
difficult but I think we can start it whenever we are ready. There will
probably be other issues the membership will find more pressing and address
first - things we cannot foresee until we start operating.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM, D Register <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> That's exactly my point, Tuna. You, as the host, secured outside monies
> to help facilitate (an outstanding) USUDC. Not everyone has the
> connections, institutional support, and vision that you do. I highly doubt
> that had the USUDA existed at that time(s), you would have thrown up your
> hands and let others take care of things. You have never seemed like the
> type of guy to sit and wait for others to act. In fact, you would probably
> shine as development director, and you could bring your resources,
> experiences and connections to the table to assist any given host in ways
> they didn't even know existed. I understand, of course, that if UVM's
> legal team recommends you don't participate you must bow out.
>
> I too appreciate the lack of rude and insulting comments. I'm able to
> read plenty of them right now in the digital world of another American
> debate community :)
>
> David
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Alfred Snider <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> I applaud the lack of rude and insulting comments in recent threads.
>>
>> Both times Vermont hosted USU we got grants and donations. QatarDebate
>> was one donor and IDEA was another. Not large, but they made it possible to
>> offer a better tournament.
>>
>> T
>>
>>
>> On 11/22/13 6:18 PM, D Register wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I went back and read Josh's email (pasted below for reference). The
>> questions he raises about the problems with the unregulated (former) status
>> quo have been answered repeatedly in other threads both here and on the
>> forum, so I'm assuming when Tuna claims this post has been largely
>> unanswered he's referring to the use of insults instead of arguments. I'm
>> not at all sure what about the current conversation could be perceived as
>> insult. Steve seems a bit blunt in his most recent response, but I don't
>> think any of it is an insult. It seems like debate to me. Is this some
>> call for an apology? I'm not sure why this is relevant to the current
>> conversation. The USUDA exists. There are now 16 member institutions. The
>> NAUDC charter was passed at Hart House.
>>
>> I assume (call it an educated guess after so many years working with
>> Tuna) that Vermont will join the USUDA. But, as i said yesterday, I hope
>> that anyone who privately opposes the USUDA will step into the light and
>> let people know about potential problems they foresee (for the benefit of
>> everyone who has the intent to make the best USU possible). I hope that
>> this doesn't devolve into some kind of theatrical spectacle at Purdue, with
>> people claiming their principled opposition only at that time (or trying to
>> derail the process of voting). I think we are better than that, and I
>> agree with Josh's sentiment that we are often constructive in face-to-face
>> meetings even if some folks are rude behind the keyboard. The point of the
>> USUDA is to make transparent a process that before was not. I think Tuna
>> raises some valid concerns about the position(s) of development
>> director(s), so maybe we can continue that part of the conversation? If
>> there is a fear among the membership that there is a problem with this
>> position, we can always amend the constitution to eliminate that position.
>> I, however, think it's a good idea to make USU as free from cost as
>> possible. There hasn't seemed to be any effort(s) outside of the yearly
>> host to make that happen, but I've only been attending USUs since 2008 (so
>> maybe someone can fill me in on previous efforts?).
>>
>> Best,
>> David
>>
>>
>> ---------------------
>>
>> I have not made a response to any of the recent emails chains regarding
>> the USU constitution, NAUDC charter, or the CA/DCA, etc. issues stemming
>> from them.
>>
>> The main reason is that I have not been sure what to say. Some of the
>> emails have seemed ridiculous considering the current status of debate in
>> our region. However, they raise valid concerns if our activity moves
>> forward in the direction that we would hope it does. And if we are going
>> to set a "constitution" it should address those now. Some emails have seen
>> written just to insult, blurring the line between working out disagreements
>> on how debating should be done, and ad hoc attacks. Other people seem as
>> though they are genuinely attempting to find a real solution.
>>
>> What is interesting to me, (and this phenomenon is not unique to our
>> conversation, but rather seen in online interactions everywhere) is that
>> none of the discouraging aspects of this emails show up when we meet in
>> person to discuss issues. Typically, even though there are disagreements,
>> there is a constructive dialogue in which everyone maintains a certain
>> modicum of civility. Maybe everyone is thinking horrible things about each
>> other, but sitting face to face with them stops these personal thoughts
>> from coming out and poisoning the conversation. I suppose having the
>> computer screen in between everyone makes them all a lot more prone to
>> insults (and yes, this is ME complaining about people crossing a line). To
>> be perfectly blunt, on a personal level I could care less who insults who.
>> But, you all are the "coaches" that (at least in the US) are seen as the
>> people who should be running this activity, and has already been pointed
>> out by people considering joining us (and s!
>> ubsequently ignored or ridiculed) this makes our activity and community
>> look like garbage. Telling these people that they are wrong or just "dont
>> get it" is not going to make them want to join which defeats the purpose of
>> us having whatever sort of "organization" this is supposed to be resembling.
>>
>> Which leads me to my question, with a couple votes still needed for USU
>> constitution and the NAUDC charter proposal in its infancy. What was the
>> problem that we had with the previous system of an unregulated process?
>> And is it possible that trying to codify the process is creating more
>> problems than it is resolving? It would seem to me, to take a specific
>> concern like the inclusion of Mexico, that it would not be difficult at all
>> at a coach's meeting, were Mexico to want to bid to host, to vote on that
>> bid. If it makes sense, we do it. If not, we don't. But trying to set
>> into stone rules governing a future that is still evolving is OBVIOUSLY
>> posing some serious challenges here. As I go through all of the arguments
>> that are taking place, each one seems to me to fall into that same
>> category. The answers are all common sense if approached year by year,
>> tournament by tournament. They are all at the same time, impossible to
>> find if we try to standardize these tournaments!
>> as if they will be the same 10 years from now as they will be next
>> year.
>>
>> To be perfectly clear, although I realize this seems to be me pushing for
>> one answer to my question, that is not the case. Consider that I am just
>> playing devil's advocate here and pointing out some things that I feel are
>> missing from the discussion. If a coherent constitution, that can address
>> these concerns, comes into existence without the process turning into an
>> email chain of personal insults and driving away potential new schools,
>> then I am all for it. I just wonder, given the direction that things have
>> taken, if this is possible.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Alfred Snider <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure what to think of this.
>>>
>>> - I agree with some things but continue to discuss others and it is
>>> "line by line" argumentation, which is some sort of shameful activity.
>>> - I mention a thoughtful post by Josh Martin and I am chided for
>>> being in a weekend competition.
>>> - I mention a failed example of fundraising in the absence of any
>>> example of success and I am accused of poisoning the well and engaging in a
>>> "classical fallacy." But you at least you do admit that fundraising is an
>>> activity that will take a legal structure.
>>>
>>> No one has denied that we should be aware of legal issues and consult
>>> with our universities about this.
>>>
>>> I think that unless we learn from previous fundraising efforts that have
>>> failed your dream of a free USU may not happen.
>>>
>>> Brad Burns has a good comment about a waiver. I agree that it is a sad
>>> statement that we might need such things.
>>>
>>> My goal has been to raise awareness of legal issues that people had been
>>> largely ignoring. Having done that, I guess my purpose is met. I am not
>>> trying to score higher than you or defeat you. A legal false step by any of
>>> our precious debate programs would be a tragedy. I trust all of us will do
>>> what we think is best. I have tried very hard to be supportive of USU as an
>>> event, and have hosted it more than anyone except John Meany, who
>>> originated it.
>>>
>>> You obviously have done what you think is best on this and I thank you
>>> for your efforts at drafting the USUDA document and working on it as you
>>> have.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Tuna
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/22/13 3:20 AM, Stephen Llano wrote:
>>>
>>> Not sure why line by line argumentation is the way to go on an email
>>> list, nor do I understand what it means that an argument hasn't been
>>> "answered" outside of some weekend competition.
>>>
>>> I will say that I think lawyers and University policies disagree about
>>> indemnity and liability. If people bidding feel this will be a liability
>>> issue after consulting with their administration then they probably should
>>> not bid.
>>>
>>> I think people that want to participate in the decision making process
>>> but are worried about being sued can still do so and just not have the
>>> title, or a committee can be formed. Or if they are advised by their
>>> university not to be an officer, then they shouldn't do it. The officer
>>> positions are quite flexible.
>>>
>>> Not sure what WSDC's failures or the classical fallacy of poisoning
>>> the well/guilt by association are meant to persuade me to do. My position
>>> is that it would be nice to have some sort of coordinated fundraising
>>> effort to make USU free. This is, of course, where there are liability
>>> questions and legal questions are really acute, and must be wrangled with
>>> as an organization. The members will do this when the time is appropriate.
>>> If people wish to raise money for a purpose on their own they can do so,
>>> and I think it's pretty clear that there's nothing in the works now that
>>> would chill people from their own efforts. The membership can decide on
>>> transparency of these operations when they begin.
>>>
>>> I am interested to see what happens with the organization, it might
>>> fail which is fine, it might succeed which is fine. People will test the
>>> waters of participation here and there. I think USU is nice to have, and it
>>> would be good if people could work collectively under a structure to ensure
>>> that particular tasks have leadership and are addressed and people feel
>>> encouraged to share their views under a rubric of structure and procedure.
>>> It provides some nice guidelines that might encourage faculty and students
>>> to work together on some cool things.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Brad Burns <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> For one, I agree with DReg that it is extremely unclear how this is
>>>> the distinct from the status quo, where everyone votes to award a bid in
>>>> much the same way as the USUDC - bottom line is I don't think *any* of
>>>> these concerns are unique to the new organization, though this may be a
>>>> valuable legal discussion extracted from that.
>>>>
>>>> That being said, even if there are still concerns, can't they all be
>>>> alleviated by having everyone at USUs sign a waiver? Perhaps I am
>>>> demonstrating my shocking lack of legal knowledge, but this seems like a
>>>> very simple, but effective, solution - even if I am somewhat saddened that
>>>> we might be at a point in our community where that might be necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Brad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:22 PM, D Register <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tuna,
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, interesting comments/questions. I'll address the money thing
>>>>> first. If the development coordinator (or committee) fails to raise money,
>>>>> the development coordinator (or committee) fails to raise money. There is,
>>>>> frankly, no impact. It would be nice to have a cheaper national
>>>>> tournament. If it turns out that it's not possible because there's too
>>>>> much hassle, then it turns out that it's not possible because there's too
>>>>> much hassle. The result would be... the same as the status quo.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for most of the other stuff... the problems you describe are the
>>>>> status quo as well. If what you say is true, than all the people who vote
>>>>> for a USU bid in a world of no USUDA are at risk as well. A de facto
>>>>> organization already has existed (no one has questioned that point at any
>>>>> time). The difference between the status quo and the USUDA is that with
>>>>> the USUDA there are codified voting procedures. That's not a significant
>>>>> difference were a lawsuit to happen. Let's all hope nothing bad happens at
>>>>> Purdue this year, since all of us who voted to award the bid are exposed to
>>>>> risk. I do want to repeat the question, however, since I don't feel like
>>>>> it's been addressed: What is the "something bad" that you're talking about?
>>>>> What possible lawsuit do you see happening? I think this is *very*important, especially since we're all liable if something happens at
>>>>> Purdue. Lawsuits tend to focus on details, so details here might help us
>>>>> all move forward in the most productive/least exposed manner.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for mission creep... These are rules for voting on USU bids and
>>>>> trying to help facilitate the best tournament possible. Any broadening of
>>>>> the function of the USUDA beyond that means the USUDA is dissolved (see the
>>>>> section at the bottom of the document). I feel like you're conflating
>>>>> voting procedures with some kind of overarching organization (like CEDA),
>>>>> but fail to recognize that the USUDA is not at all similar to something
>>>>> like that. I would like to reiterate Steve's appeal for people to read the
>>>>> actual document, instead of making claims based on the fear of what the
>>>>> USUDA might be/become.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean when you reference Josh's appeal to
>>>>> civility, but I vaguely remember people engaging in personal insult instead
>>>>> of arguments. If that's what you mean, yes. Civility is good. But,
>>>>> haven't we also resolved that Meany and Shengwu engaging in snark is also a
>>>>> valuable (and entertaining) form of argument?
>>>>>
>>>>> I know (based on various backchannels) that there are a couple of
>>>>> schools who intend to NOT join the USUDA based on principle, although the
>>>>> principle has not been articulated. I'm not about to out anyone here, but
>>>>> I hope that more folks will choose to engage as you have, Tuna. Debate is
>>>>> good (and all of that).
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Alfred Snider <[log in to unmask]
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> See below. Mostly agree, but..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/21/13 4:56 AM, Stephen Llano wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Tuna,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good questions. At this point I think the appropriate place to ask
>>>>>> these questions is to the general membership and what they would like to do
>>>>>> about them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My opinion is based on a reminder that this organization has one
>>>>>> function, to streamline and make sense of the process of selecting a host
>>>>>> for USU. So concerns about sanctioning, deciding who gets to participate,
>>>>>> etc. are not relevant to the organization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as insurance goes, I believe any host would need to look
>>>>>> into the liability matter as they would for any tournament, and follow
>>>>>> their procedures. Since this organization does no sanctioning and is not
>>>>>> hosting any competitions, I don't think there would be any need for
>>>>>> insurance. I think there's a big difference between hosting your event on
>>>>>> someone's campus and facilitating someone's desire to host an event. I
>>>>>> believe the host would not be USU, but the school who is bidding, as it's
>>>>>> always been.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ask a lawyer. I am told that if you award a bid to a host, then you
>>>>>> are also responsible. You agree to hold it WITH them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, general membership can change this as they see fit and
>>>>>> explore these options.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the money issue, I believe it would be great for this
>>>>>> organization to raise money to make USU free or inexpensive to all who wish
>>>>>> to come, so that's why I included the development officer position. This of
>>>>>> course will require some work to see what needs to be done in order to
>>>>>> raise and distribute funds to hosts in ways that do not violate non-profit
>>>>>> status of host institutions, etc. It's something that will be explored in
>>>>>> the future by those who wish to hold this position or work with those who
>>>>>> hold the position, and most likely will require some legal assistance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The WSDC Charity formed for precisely this purpose. The result has
>>>>>> been NOTHING. Lots of expense and hassle to form a legal charity, and no
>>>>>> money. My point is that if an organization takes responsibility for
>>>>>> something then nobody else does stuff. Saying there is a magic wand for
>>>>>> finding money is usually inappropriate ("Let's create an organization to
>>>>>> raise money," like "Let's hire a fundraising expert" are both too familiar
>>>>>> and ineffective). Name an organization connected to debate who has done it
>>>>>> well (without George Soros).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please note that having a position in the organization officially
>>>>>> does not preclude someone working with the person who has that title, or
>>>>>> forgoing the title and having a committee work that position. But I find it
>>>>>> strange to think that if something happened at a tournament that those who
>>>>>> facilitated the bidding process would be held liable. It's possible I
>>>>>> guess, but I think any host of any tournament should learn and apply the
>>>>>> procedures that their institution follows. And as Mike pointed out,
>>>>>> everyone who works in debate should be aware of them too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You award the bid, you are part of it. The university faces a legal
>>>>>> issue, and they drag you in. Who will pay to defend you when this happens?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, I hope everyone realizes that this is not an organization
>>>>>> that will sanction debates, say what debate is or is not, or say which
>>>>>> tournaments matter and which don't. The only thing the organization exists
>>>>>> to do is to facilitate the process of agreeing where we have a national
>>>>>> championship tournament. I encourage everyone to carefully read the
>>>>>> document outlining the organizations scope and powers and realize that this
>>>>>> is not the creation of a national organization to govern BP debate in the
>>>>>> US, but merely to make our process for choosing a national tournament site
>>>>>> centralized, accessible, and easy to follow so that we can encourage a
>>>>>> large, diverse number of bids in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not think USUDA will do any harm (unless there is legal
>>>>>> trouble) but my opinion is that often when we form an organization we tend
>>>>>> to look to it to solve our problems and that demobilizes us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Josh Martin's post about a lack of civility is still largely
>>>>>> unanswered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope I am wrong. I hope USUDA finds great bids, raises money, etc.
>>>>>> We shall see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tuna
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best, Steve
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Alfred Snider <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just a couple of questions before I sign on:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will the organization be legally constituted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will it have a budget of any sort and/or will it raise funds?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will officers be indemnified or insured against damages?
>>>>>>> New Scenario: School X organizes USU with USUDA. Something bad
>>>>>>> happens, a lawsuit begins. Campus X dos not want to be responsible so they
>>>>>>> sue the organizers, USUDA. USUDA has no policy, so officers are responsible.
>>>>>>> Old scenario: No one to blame, so host has to handle it.
>>>>>>> This is what my legal adviser has told me to ask. I am told that if
>>>>>>> it is not insured, don't be an officer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not trying to rain on any parade, but curious.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tuna
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/20/13 6:11 PM, D Register wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greetings all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a reminder that folks can declare themselves members of the
>>>>>>>> USUDA here:
>>>>>>>> http://bpforum.yaledebate.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2319
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A current list of members is located here:
>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kaiGgmw-5y44hEDm7IBl-2--jJYzqEehxA06tq8zMrU/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> David Register
>>>>>>>> Bard College
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>>> Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
>>>>>>> Director, Lawrence Debate Union; Director, World Debate Institute
>>>>>>> 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
>>>>>>> 802-238-8345 mobile, 802-656-0097 office, 802-656-4275 fax
>>>>>>> http://debate.uvm.edu/alfredsnider.html
>>>>>>> http://debate.uvm.edu/tunacalendar.html
>>>>>>> @asnider Twitter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>> Stephen Llano, Ph.D.
>>>>>> Director of Debate and Assistant Professor, Department of Rhetoric,
>>>>>> Communication & Theater
>>>>>> St. John’s University
>>>>>> Queens, NY
>>>>>> 718-990-5606(voice) 718-990-2435 (fax)
>>>>>> callto://stevellano -- Skype Me!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Knit the brows, and a strategem comes to mind." - Lo Kuan-chung,
>>>>>> Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Poetry is a rival government always in opposition to its cruder
>>>>>> replicas." - William Carlos Williams
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ========================
>>>>>> Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
>>>>>> Director, Lawrence Debate Union; Director, World Debate Institute
>>>>>> 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA802-238-8345 mobile, 802-656-0097 office, 802-656-4275 faxhttp://debate.uvm.edu/alfredsnider.htmlhttp://debate.uvm.edu/tunacalendar.html
>>>>>> @asnider Twitter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> _____
>>> Stephen Llano, Ph.D.
>>> Director of Debate and Assistant Professor, Department of Rhetoric,
>>> Communication & Theater
>>> St. John’s University
>>> Queens, NY
>>> 718-990-5606(voice) 718-990-2435 (fax)
>>> callto://stevellano -- Skype Me!
>>>
>>> "Knit the brows, and a strategem comes to mind." - Lo Kuan-chung,
>>> Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
>>>
>>> "Poetry is a rival government always in opposition to its cruder
>>> replicas." - William Carlos Williams
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ========================
>>> Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
>>> Director, Lawrence Debate Union; Director, World Debate Institute
>>> 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA802-238-8345 mobile, 802-656-0097 office, 802-656-4275 faxhttp://debate.uvm.edu/alfredsnider.htmlhttp://debate.uvm.edu/tunacalendar.html
>>> @asnider Twitter
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ========================
>> Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
>> Director, Lawrence Debate Union; Director, World Debate Institute
>> 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA802-238-8345 mobile, 802-656-0097 office, 802-656-4275 faxhttp://debate.uvm.edu/alfredsnider.htmlhttp://debate.uvm.edu/tunacalendar.html
>> @asnider Twitter
>>
>>
>
--
_____
Stephen Llano, Ph.D.
Director of Debate and Assistant Professor, Department of Rhetoric,
Communication & Theater
St. John’s University
Queens, NY
718-990-5606(voice) 718-990-2435 (fax)
callto://stevellano -- Skype Me!
"Knit the brows, and a strategem comes to mind." - Lo Kuan-chung, Romance
of the Three Kingdoms.
"Poetry is a rival government always in opposition to its cruder replicas."
- William Carlos Williams
