NPDA Business Meeting Place & Time

[NonEcdicus]

Subject: NPDA business meeting time and place
From: "Kuster, Tom" <tkuster@blc.edu>
Date: Thu, November 14, 2002 5:14 pm
To: Multiple recipients of list <parli@willamette.edu>

<strong>The NPDA business meeting in New Orleans

Thursday evening, 8:00 - 9:30 p.m.
Cornet Room
8th floor
Sheraton</strong>

We will try hard to start on time. Please come a bit early to read the written reports (and save meeting time).

Please pass this notice on to interested people who may not be on the discussion lists.

Looking forward to seeing you there!

-- Tom

Dr. Tom Kuster, NPDA president
Bethany Lutheran College
Mankato MN 56001 USA
tkuster@blc.edu 507-344-7336

[scooter]

Does anyone have any information on what I am certain was such a very packed meeting?

S

[NonEcdicus]

I'm sure that official minutes are on the way, but in the meantime, here's what happened.

Extensive discussion of Treasurer's Report. For the complete version distributed to the Executive Council members, see:

www.parlidebate.org/fall02-treasurer.pdf (http://www.parlidebate.org/fall02-treasurer.pdf)

A. To establish a committee of two to prepare a proposal for
formalizing NPDA ethics and rules procedures
Submitted by Tom Kuster, NPDA president

<strong>PASSED</strong>

B. A proposal that NPDA become a member of IDEA
Submitted by Tom Kuster, NPDA president

<strong>PASSED</strong>

C. A proposal to support attendance of international debaters
at the National Championship Tournament
Submitted by Robert Trapp and Tom Kuster

<strong>PASSED WITH MINOR AMENDMENT</strong>

Proposal #1: The President is directed to appoint an Ad Hoc
Committee (or extend the charge of the present Blue Ribbon
Committee) to plan a Parliamentary Debate Developmental
Conference during 2004.

<strong>PASSED WITH MINOR AMENDMENT</strong>

Proposal #2: [This proposal requires Constitutional changes –
see “note” above] “Individual members” should be given the
right to vote in elections for representatives. Individual
memberships should not be available to active debaters
enrolled at a member institution or to paid coaches at those
institutions.

<strong>FAILED</strong>

Proposal #3: [This proposal requires Constitutional changes –
see “note” above] Voting should be restructured so that votes
for both Constitutional and ByLaws changes may be cast
EITHER at a Business Meeting OR in a mail ballot sent out
after the Business Meeting to all voters who did not attend.
Absentee voters would have 1 month to return votes to the
Executive Secretary.

<strong>POSTPONED</strong>

Proposal #4: The President shall appoint an Ad Hoc
Committee to determine a new and representative districting
system for NPDA.

<strong>PASSED</strong>

Proposal #5: [This proposal requires Constitutional changes –
see “note” above] Each district should elect three
representatives -- two faculty representatives and one student
representative.

<strong>NO ACTION TAKEN</strong>

Proposal #6: Attendees at Business Meetings should register
upon entry to the meeting as either voting or non-voting
attendees.

<strong>NO ACTION TAKEN</strong>

Proposal #7: Business Meetings should be restructured as
follows (all times may be extended or contracted by majority
vote of the meeting):

<strong>NO ACTION TAKEN</strong>

D--An amendment to promote clash in debates.
Submitted by John Meany, Claremont Colleges

<strong>FAILED</strong>

E--An amendment to eliminate points of order and privilege.
Submitted by John Meany, Claremont Colleges

<strong>FAILED (17 Ayes; 21 Nays)</strong>

F--An amendment to provide additional information regarding
tournament success.
Submitted by John Meany, Claremont Colleges

<strong>POSTPONED</strong>

G --An amendment to create a judge training session.
Submitted by John Meany, Claremont Colleges

<strong>POSTPONED</strong>

H --An amendment to prevent inappropriate judge
identification
Submitted by John Meany, Claremont Colleges

<strong>NO ACTION TAKEN</strong>

I --An amendment to increase tournament disclosure.
Submitted by John Meany, Claremont Colleges

<strong>NO ACTION TAKEN</strong>

J--An amendment to require judge decision disclosure.
Submitted by John Meany, Claremont Colleges

<strong>NO ACTION TAKEN</strong>

K -- An amendment to give priority to equal judge strikes
Submitted by Mark McCaig, D3 Student Representative

<strong>PASSED WITH MINOR AMENDMENT</strong>

[McCaig]

Brian,
Do you know what the amendment to my proposal was?

Mark

[NonEcdicus]

Hey Mark. The amendment was to delete the first sentence. So, it is mandatory (no "reasonable efforts" involved).

[scooter]

From my estimate, roughly 50% of the motions were not fully considered. Some of these include John's who I swear seems to get tabled year after year.

Any idea when these other issues would be considered?

Did I miss any report concerning electronic voting/representation-- of course, I am assuming that the meeting was, as always, chuck full of people so the need for other means of representation would be negated.

S

[NonEcdicus]

Oh yeah, the only nomination for Vice President (the only office up for election this year), was Ed Inch from Pacific Lutheran University. Ballots will go out right away.

And, there was a concerted effort to get through as many of John's proposals as possible. And, we did get through a whole lot of them, with significant discussion. I believe the plan, anyway, is to get through the rest at the March meeting.

[mdreher]

Scott,
We tried to get through more resolutions. Tom specifically had time limits on each part of the agenda. However, the discussion of some of the minutes took significantly longer than expected. Thus, we couldn't get through it all.

However, I can say with certainty that our goal was to try to get through as many of John's agenda items as we could.

The voting by mail was discussed -- we're still trying to figure out a good way to do that.

Just my opinions, not necessarily those of Exec Council...

Michael

[tutakai]

It continues to be very troubling that major decisions, including nominations, are exclusively made in a forum that is not accessible to a large percentage of NPDA members and participants. The "vote" that takes place in Business Meetings at NCA is not really a vote at all -- it cannot be said to meaningfully represent anything other than the happenstance of who is financially able to attend.

The fact that there is now only one candidate for vice president (who automatically becomes president 2 years later) shows the oligarchical consequences of this de facto closed format.

[scooter]

It continues to be very troubling that major decisions, including nominations, are exclusively made in a forum that is not accessible to a large percentage of NPDA members and participants. The "vote" that takes place in Business Meetings at NCA is not really a vote at all -- it cannot be said to meaningfully represent anything other than the happenstance of who is financially able to attend.


Hear! Hear! Jason!

In this era of electronic elightenment I question the reason that a meeting is held at NCA (when we as the body are fortunate enough to actually hear of the __correct__ meeting time prior to one week before the event) at a location when so few members of the body are able to attend without occuring a large portion of financial setback.

I furhter read, with an overwhelming amount of interest, that a significant amount of time was taken up at the meeting with discussions concerning the minutes (Still not getting why John's motions are pushed to the end of the agenda while new ones are considered beforehand). I just have to know: Why would minutes lead to such an extreme amount of discussion in that the same discussion could have easily taken place in myriad other formats, opening up time for more meaningful conversation?

S

[scooter]

One of the additional difficulties of attending a meeting at NCA is the supposed justification that "departments pay for travel related to business and scholarly pursuits, so the meeting is truly open to all." A few responses:

1) Sure--- if your department agrees with the inherent benefit of debate as opposed to other forms of scholarly pursuits which are deemed to be of higher caliber (oh yes, said departments do exist, trust me on this one), for example, NPDA is not its own established NCA division, and thus is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as having less clout than other forms of scholarship.

2) Beyond those departments who argue against the very existance of the activity, many will either chose or be able to fund a small amount of attendees, and thus the actual participation is quite limited.

3) Haven't heard of the overwhelming amount of students getting backing from their departments lately. And student are thus not able to be heard but at Nationals.

The issues could and should be handled in a more equitable form that is truly open for all, of which an electronic discussion and voting is a clear option.

In short, yes, policy decisions can (and are) made electronically (in list serves, in emails, in postings, in chatrooms, in webpages, in etc. etc. etc.)

Strike the meeting.

S

[tutakai]

The "departments will pay" assumption rests on an underlying assumption that displays the very real lack of diversity in the community. The only departments that are even likely to support NCA attendence at any level is comm studies departments. Most students and some coaches are NOT in communication studies. But alas, the mindset in NPDA is so centered on comm studies that they don't seem to care about the exclusionary effects that this has in actual implementation.

Frankly, in this age of tightening budgets, I would expect that NPDA would see the advantages inherent in a more open and cross-discplinary approach. Unfortunately, there seems to be little interest at the top in anything of the sort.

As for Mr. Meany's proposals, I think it is for the best that they were not handled at NCA. I think there has not been any meaningful discussion of the real effects of some of those proposals and I think it would be problematic to implement some of them (i.e. the abolition of the POO and the PoPP) on the basis of an unrepresentative vote and "justification" sections that reflect only a very narrow perception of the overall situation. No such discussion took place and neither this forum nor the parli mailing list is currently is a position to produce such a discussion. The parli mailing list is far too narrow and hostile a forum to have a real discussion (a certain element has a strong tendency to "shout down" dissent -- many of us, including myself, have given up even trying to post there) and this forum seems only to extend to a relatively small and homogenous (as far as debate issues go) segment of the community.

The real problem is that NPDA has no consensus as to what it wants to be and what kind of debate it wants to foster. So we are left with small groups that try to push their agendas in a sea of apathy and vague discontent. So nothing much happens and problems go unaddressed year after year.

[scooter]

I concure with your comments Jason concerning the status of NPDA, NCA and comm studies departments (again noting the diverse responses even within those departments in consideration of the activity itself and NPDA) and appreciate this discussion. I do see your points on the current electronic means of discussions and their drawbacks. I do, however, still have a question:

I see your points on the appropriateness of using NCA as a forum for a means of discussion of Mr. Meaney's proposals. Yes, the representative sample is minute in comparison to the larger population that is clearly affected by such proposals. But where I remain confused is that I swear I have seen these same proposals before at a prior nationals. Read as: They got pushed, and then they just got pushed again!

Am I mistaken in that assumption?

S

[Dan6814]

Jason, if I'm not mistaken, you just shot down NCA, the parli-L, and here as places to have a meaningful discussion on the proposals. Is there a proper and existing forum in which to have this discussion, and if so, where is it? Should the business meeting at Nats be drastically extended to account for the proposals which Scott notes have been on the table for years? Is that even a proper forum?

Dan

[tutakai]

Dan, you are seeing the precise problem that I am getting at. Right now, NPDA is structurally configured in a way that makes it so there is NO adequate forum available. Even extending the Business Meeting won't solve for the lack of accurate information and open discussion about the proposals on the agenda.

The Ad Hoc Committee fulfilled its charter to craft the first components of a solution when we put forward a detailed proposal for a system of representation. However, this recommendation was referred back to the Committee for study and I haven't heard of any new action.

Even with representation, the lack of an adequate forum for discussion and debate would remain a problem. A major part of the problem is structural and another major part is social.

The structural component derives from the exclusivity of the Business Meetings and, more seriously, the lack of transparency on the Executive Committee and in tournament administration at the National Championship Tournament. In most of the past several years, actions have been taken that undermine or even flaunt the NPDA Constitution. The individuals who made those decisions did not feel it necessary to comply with the rules or to justify deviations to the general membership. There is no mechanism by which those disadvantaged by such arbitrary actions to obtain redress.

The social component exacerbates the effects of the structural component. Specifically, anyone who raises specific complaints publicly or asks for accountability is usually accused of "ad hominum attacks" and is dismissed out-of-hand. Further, the atmosphere on the parli L is frequently so poisonous towards those that dissent from certain viewpoints that many students and faculty members in NPDA avoid participation entirely. In some cases, students have experienced threats of in-round punishment for saying the "wrong" things publicly. And even faculty members have to consider the long-term consequences of making public comments that may damage their careers down the line due to petty retribution.

As for Net Benefits, the content here is overwhelmingly social in nature and focused upon a relatively small and almost familially close subset of the community. While I know that NBen intends to be open, viewed from the outside or from the perspective of someone who does not share in the social lives, norms and/or opinions of the West Coast segment of the NPDA community, it often appears very insular and close-minded. As a result, many people choose simply not to invest the time or take the risks to try to participate. Finally, conglomeration of rules and structural issues into the "On Case" category does not provide anything like an environment capable of supporting detailed point-by-point discussion of proposed rule changes. It frankly gets too mixed up in all the other threads to be sustainable.

So, in answer to your question, I am pessimistic about a real forum where issues can be debated and discussed. My reaction when reading the "justification" sections of some of Mr. Meany's proposals was shock in an abrupt realization of how unaware (or uncaring) the author was about some of the other regions of NPDA. And my real fear there is that someday the tiny selection of people at the Business Meeting might be unrepresentative enough to provide a majority of votes from just one or two regions. Debaters in NPDA are already suffering from a discontinuity as the national organization diverges from what their local circuits demand by rule (written and unwritten). The structural and social barriers to discourse in NPDA are making that problem worse.

What can be done? I really don't know. I know that the incoming President is interested in trying to work some of these issues out but 2 years is a very short time. And the President after that has already been appointed (he is running unopposed for Vice President and will be automatically elevated) and frankly I have never noticed him being particularly eager to solicit input or suggestion from the general membership or to engage in public discussion about organizational issues. The fact that a future President was nominated and effectively appointed from a Business Meeting that was effectively closed to a large part of the membership (i.e. anyone who could not obtain institutional funding to attend NCA) is VERY troubling.

The most troubling thing of all, however, is the fact that no one at the higher levels even seems to notice or care about these concerns. So my honest expectation is that apathy and institutional gridlock will continue to grow.

But, hey, people will still get their vitae lines out of it, and that's really what it's all about if you look hard at it.

[Dan6814]

Ok, I have to say I'm confused then. Scott and others are concerned that John's proposals don't get talked about. Jason refers to John's ideas as "unaware" and "uncaring" about regions other than the West Coast. And yet Jason clearly puts a great deal of thought into crafting an argument for why nothing can ever be fairly discussed, rather than discussing the issues.
It seems that unless Jason's purpose in putting up this last post was "overwhelmingly social," I think that an equally effective way to spend time would be to provide the arguments for why John's ideas are West Coast-centric to the exclusion of caring about other regions. Holding that particular discussion on the parli-l would guarantee that the major proponent (John) responds, but I'm sure that someone will pick up the slack. Unless, of course, we're all too "insular and close-minded."

Maybe we should find out.

Dan

[scooter]

To respond to Dan: Yes, I am wondering why John's proposals are not discussed appropriately. It may be my (ever sliding) memory but the proposals that John put forward it seems are not new to this year's NCA and yet they were not the first to be discussed (some were not discussed at all); newer proposals were instead considered over items that were tabled. Why?

How to fix the situation and
To respond to Jason: I am not sure of what the solution is except that yes, I do believe that the meeting at NCA is not a good representation of the community and I am not too much in favor of its continued existance, especially as a policy making meeting (personally I would rather have a meeting that lasted until all matters were resolved at any given nationals and all business was fully considered by a large amount of representatives as nationals is truly when most of the body is present, but I know such an event will not occur, although I do believe that other forms of forensics, yes, even larger ones, do handle matters in that manner.)

Jason, I do agree: A transparency of the Executive Council would most definitely be a good thing. To that: A most hearty Hear! Hear! I also believe that Sharon has addressed the same concern on a few occasions and will continue to do so.

As far as an appropriate forum, I have no idea: I don't know the effect of the L as I am not on it and I no longer attend tournaments.

Thus, I fully realize, my opinion in this matter means quite little...


S

[tutakai]

1) This thread is not about Mr. Meany's proposals.
2) Mr. Meany is not here to respond to concerns nor do I believe he is interested in outside input on the subject.
3) Net Benefits is not structurally or socially well-suited for a thorough discussion of rule-change proposals. Specifically, conglomeration of such discussions into the "On Case" area tends to get the discussions lost. Furthermore, as can be observed on many other threads, tangental discussions and "shout outs" between the small group of West Coast comrades often divert threads far away from their original subject matter.
4) Your apparent desire to take any comments about West Coast-centrism as a personal affront demonstrates EXACTLY the problem I was previously talking about. Why should I invest any time ina discussion when you will ignore the argument whenever it is more convenient for you to just claim to be offended?

[Dan6814]

Ok, Jason, I'll put it this way. I think it's hypocritical of you to criticize others for creating a chilling environment when posting things like "nor do I believe he is interested in outside input on the subject."

If you think these proposals need to be talked about, and your objections are that "this thread isn't about Mr. Meany's proposals" and "this board gets hijacked by West Coast shout-outs," I think we can work around it. I'll start a new thread if you think that'll make a discussion possible. I don't have the justification sections of the proposals, though, and so though I'm pretty sure what "an amendment to promote clash in debates" is, perhaps someone with the justification could post it (or we could wait until tomorrow, when I'll see John).

You're right; John isn't here. Does that mean the idea can't be talked about? If no one else wants to defend it (And I don't agree with all the proposals, so I won't do it in proxy), then that should offer a biting critique all by itself. Besides, John HAS occasionally popped his nose in here...

I think your appeals to a conglomeration of posts that will swallow any meaningful conversation are baseless, at the very least because there's the possibility for either a new forum or to stick the thread at the top of the page as has been done to other threads. Do threads occasionally get turned into "shout-outs?" Probably. That tends to be what off-case is for.

I think I can go through the archives and pull out quite a few substantive discussions that didn't, though. In fact, just scrolling down the first page of On-Case, I find "Taking no POIs/Taking 3 POIs," "Attitudinal Inherency," "Factual Errors," "Is = Resolution of Fact," "Good res of fact cases," "NPDA sweepstakes and divisions," "accusations of 'canning,'" "Where to go on the flip," "Etymology of 'Open'" (which started out not so big, and was hijacked into a substantive discussion), "Ladies and Minorities... are you in need of a mentor?," T, and why judges love it," "Help me coach my teams to adapt!," and "funding." Out of posts intended to be serious, the only ones I dropped were two that stayed on topic ("where has the fun gone" and "required costuming") but became lighthearted at points, and a thread which you have recently turned into a criticism of the failure of West Coast teams to come to the Midwest. Quite frankly, I don't see this hijacking happening on a massive scale, and since you've noted your problem with it, I don't think we'd have that issue.

I didn't claim to be offended at any point during the e-mail (although I was when you insulted John). I thought you were offensive to the community in general when you referred to it as insular and close-minded. I would have addressed the arguments presented, had there been arguments present in the previous post. I have no DESIRE to be offended, and would genuinely like to see the reasons why Net Benefits is West Coast-centric in its treatment of other arguments, as well as why John's proposals are "unaware and uncaring" of what goes on in other regions of the country.

Dan

[tutakai]

See THAT is the problem. I never insulted John Meany. But you interpreted ANY disagreement or criticism as an "insult".

Thus, conversation is impossible since I am unable to post any honest opinion without it being ruled out-of-bounds by the PRESUMPTION that any disagreement or criticism is the same as a personal attack

And if you want a look at why those of us who are outside of the West Coast friendship group tend to avoid posting here, look in a mirror. You sure haven't done anything to provide me an incentive to discuss anything here. I know I am not alone in that perception, I'm just willing to say to your face what others say by their quiet avoidance.

[Dan6814]

conversation's not impossible. I just went through an entire PAGE of threads that weren't hijacked. I believe it's your comments more than anything that freeze a thread.

Nothing else that I have to say to you is proper to this forum, as you continue to avoid posting substantive material, preferring to identify me as the source of all the problems you claim (but never show) earlier.

Dan

[USC MissingLink]

I have to agree with Dan here Jason. If the "West Coast" has a larger voice here it's because we post more. The reason other regions aren't represented isn't that "we" shut them down and "hijack" their threads. It's that <em>they don't post</em>. My two cents.

There's a great little annecdote in <em>The West Wing</em>. The way to beat the NRA is to join them. Have 30,000 democrats join the NRA and at the next meeting vote to abolish itself. A bit idealist and unrealistic, I realize, but the concept remains. If you want more representation, take more representation. There are only two "administrators" at this site. Brian Shipley and myself. Both of us refuse to use our admin power to favor any argument. I have never moderated a thread or favored a certain perspective or region. Beyond we two, everyone at this site is on equal footing and has equal voice.

jEd

[tutakai]

>conversation's not impossible. I just went through an entire
>PAGE of threads that weren't hijacked. I believe it's your
>comments more than anything that freeze a thread.

This puts me in a Catch-22. If I say anything, then you accuse me of freezing threads. (I had no idea I was so powerful.) If I don't say anything, then you accuse me of contributing to the lack of discussion in this forum.

Please take a step back for a second and ask yourself what incentive ANYONE who disagrees with West Coast ways of thinking about parli has to participate here? If they post their disagreements publicly, they will be accused of "personal attacks". Alternatively, if they post something it might just not get responded to at all (and then they may even be accused of being the CAUSE of that as you did above).

Why should anyone bother? If you want Net Benefits to get more diverse, you need to deal seriously with this issue. If instead you want Net Benefits to continue to alienate people, then you can continue to shut people down and make accusations whenever they deviate from your "Required Thought".

I seriously doubt that I am personally the cause of the lack of participation on Net Benefits. I have only been around off and on and there has not been any observable increase in participation or diversity during the periods in which I am not here.

Now, all that being said, I'm willing to give you the chance thatyou seem unwilling to give others. Specifically, if you want to start a thread about the amendments (one thread per amendment would be better) then I would be willing to participate in those substantive discussions. If nothing else, it will provide an opportunity to test our competing notions about how effective this forum could be.

[tutakai]

>I have to agree with Dan here Jason. If the "West Coast"
>has a larger voice here it's because we post more. The
>reason other regions aren't represented isn't that "we" shut
>them down and "hijack" their threads. It's that they don't
>post. My two cents.

Jed, that's circular. You need to ask the question, "why don't they post?"

I suggest that part of the reason they don't post is that they have no incentive to post and some substantial disincentives. Its easy to post in a forum when all your friends are already there and you all mostly agree on things. Its very hard to post when you know relatively few of the active people and when the response to new viewpoints is often hostile, confrontational, or mocking.

Now my hypothess could be completely wrong and something else could be driving the lack of participation. But I haven't seen an argument on what that alternative cause could be. Further, I haven't seen much genuine interest about addressing the problem at all. Its easier, for example, for Dan to just blame me.

[Dan6814]

All I wanted. As noted earlier, though, since I don't have the justification sections, I'll have to put the threads up tomorrow, unless someone else has them.

Dan

[tutakai]

I believe the justification sections are included in the NPDA Business Meeting minutes. A link for this was recently posted by Michael Dreher. Archives of the parli L can be found on the www.debateaddict.com website.

[USC MissingLink]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I suggest that part of the reason they don't post is that they have no incentive to post and some substantial disincentives. Its easy to post in a forum when all your friends are already there and you all mostly agree on things. Its very hard to post when you know relatively few of the active people and when the response to new viewpoints is often hostile, confrontational, or mocking.[/quote]The points of view at this forum are <em>far</em> from homogenous. And you won't get to know the participants unless you interract first. I'm involved in other forums where I've <em>never met</em> those who I interract with and yet, through repetative posting I've grown to know them very well.

You're right, it is circular. <em>But</em> my point is that this circular position has a starting point and that starting point isn't that there is disagreement (or agreement) among members of the board, but rather that people assume that disagreement is regional and <em>choose</em> not to post.

jEd

[Dan6814]

Missed that; posts pending.

Dan

[tutakai]

Jed,

Getting past the causality discussion, we all agree that non-West Coast participation is quite low as a point of fact. I think there are some things you could consider changing to at least address the social and structural causes in part:

1) Moderators: While I grant you fully that the moderators do not (and should not) exercise "power" over the content of posts, their identity is symbolically significant. I know from long experience with online forums that people are more likely to participate if they are friends with people who are "players" in a forum. The current set is "good people" but it is very West Coast. I mean, Brian Shipley is second only to Bob Trapp and Skip Rutledge as the very definition of "West Coast Establishment" in NPDA. :) Thus, maybe you could consider adding a couple of co-moderators from different regions. I think there are some individuals from Florida and Missouri that are already regular participants and who could be considered as co-moderators. Patty Steck might be a good candidate as she is much more diplomatic and much more of a regionally substantial figure in NPDA than her wierd and socially inept husband.

2) Regional forums: The fact that they are locked by password makes them generally unused due to the inconvenience of obtaining and remembering the password. The segmentation also tends to reify regional differences and reduce interaction. Perhaps these could be opened up. This would allow for a board that was dedicated to each region as a topic area but that could involve participation and insights cross-regionally.

3) The "On Case" area: I think it is too big and diverse of a topic area for a single board. Mostly, I think it functions well as a place to discuss debate theory, case ideas, strategies, judges, etc. But you could consider splitting off a separate board for "NPDA Rules" discussions. I would also be interested in an NPTE board, if possible, for discussion of NPTE Rules and of various issues involving rankings.

4) Additional areas: Perhaps an area for debating issues of the day would be a nice addition that may bring in more people. This would also serve as a place for people to become more educated about those issues and it might provoke some marginal improvements in debate as practiced in rounds along the way.

[NonEcdicus]

Jason, that's got to be the nicest thing you've ever said about me. So, even though I would like to disagree, I will leave it alone.

As for the structure of NB, and of opportunities for online communication among NPDA members, generally, here are a few thoughts. . .

1) Sure, we should continue over time to diversify the moderatators selected to assist with NB. Jed has spoken to this before. But, I would add that, realistically, there is very little to be done.

2) On regional forums. I agree that there probably is no reason for them to be closed. In fact, I think that there are benefits to be gained from openning them up, besides just increasing the posting overall.

One thing I fear, though, about openning them up, is that if a lot of substantive debate discussions develop in those forums, others not from those regions may feel uncomfortable joining in, when they ought to.

3) I do, hesitate, though about wanting to add lots of new forums. A current events discussion/debate forum distinct from on case and off case would be good. I imagine it would encourage some discussions that are some of the best we've had at NB, but which only happen rarely as it is, perhaps because they don't really fit really anywhere with the current options.

4) I'm not so sure I agree that On Case should be split. Lots of "rules" discussions overlap pretty heavily with other categories of debate issues. Maybe I could see an "NPDA Business" forum distinct from the rest of On Case, which would stay limited to specific proposals, committee work, and other business issues.

5) Consistent with that, it probably would be fine to split off an NPTE forum, but I'm really not sure that is necessary at this point. Especially if NPDA Business is split from On Case, I would want to see more discussion of NPTE in On Case before I was sure that it wouldn't just end up being a relatively dead forum.

Just some miscellaneous quick thoughts.

-Brian

[NonEcdicus]

Oh yeah, I also think an advantage of an "NPDA Business" forum distinct from On Case is that I think we'd have an easier time encouraging more participation by NPDA Officers, Reps, etc.

[USC MissingLink]

Thanks for the thoughts Jason and Brian.

I don't want to divide On Case into sub-forums for the simple reason that it will make navigation more difficult and not accomplish anything. On Case, as it is, serves just fine for discussing NPDA and/or NPTE business. Creating a new forum won't in any way cut down on "off-topic" posts or increase attention to these issues.

As for the district forums, these were intended to be <em>student</em> forums for the private discussion of <em>student</em> business issues. I will admit that I am rather disappointed in the almost complete lack of interest in these forums. However, I feel that if they were to be unlocked, many discussions - relavent to the whole community - will take place in the individual regional forums and will thereby pass under the radar of many of our readers. In other words, similar to my previous concern, if we open up too many forums keeping up with discussions in the different forums would be very difficult.

I am open to other moderators/administrators - especially considering that I'll soon be spending some time overseas. Patty would be a wonderful choice, and if it's something she's interested in, I'll be happy to talk with her about it (link@net-benefits.net).

As I've said before, the problem with participation here isn't structural. It's social. And it's not restricted to Net Benefits. In fact, the Parli-L is (and always was) much more limited in participation. Net Benefits has included many new voices, and for good or for bad, most of those who have decided to participate are from the West Coast. Perhaps we over here are more interested in discussing these subjects than our colleagues in the rest of the country?

Net Benefits is a forum in literal and figurative sense. It is a town-hall, where people are more than welcome to post their opinions. But while we have extended the invitation to others to get involved and use thier voice, we do not have the power to force them to participate. Such, I suppose, is the nature of free speech and democracy.

jEd

[pattybar]

Dan,

Not that Jason needs me to stick up for him... but it seems that you and some others well west of snowy MN are taking much of this too personally.

Fact of the matter is that unless you feel that you actually know some of the people here face-to-face -- thanks to a travel budget, it isn't exactly easy to fully include your input here , or on the parli-L... I only felt comfortble posting because I knew Jed and met Amy and Andrea over my time coaching.... and who couldn't love Brian --- poor guy, looking more and more frazzled with each topic announcement... but it seems that many outside of the west coast loop would feel that they were not cool enough to sit at the cool kid's table.....

Additionally, it does not seem the NB, or other open forums are well suited for a full discussion of the amendments considered. Personally, I think that the NPDA website would be a good place for "official" conversations about rule changes etc. and that the access to thse message areas should be restricted to a certain number of posts per day, if only to keep the message vollume managable. The time to post should also be limited, say to 14 days or so...so that the conversation can actually come to a close and voting can begin.

Within NPDA, we clearly have a problem with representation and the NCA business meeting... say nothing of the fact that I would never ask my department for funds for a comm conference (I'm out of philosophy) and any funds I could get from the dean would be at the expense of my team -- which Jason and I already subsidize with extra judging...

The nationals business meeting is often rushed, and those voting don't have either the attention span or motivation to read the amendments.. they often just listen to what the authors say about the amendments, and do not read what is actually IN the amendments. I think that mail/e-mail or some other non-at NPDA nat's voting should be the ONLY way rule changes are made... we can discuss things at the business meeting all we'd like, we can read minutes and translate them into Mandarin if we'd like... we can discuss the pros and cons of judging on ties vs. flow paper styles if we want... BUT we should not be voting there.

It seems to me that the business meeting should be a time to get new ideas from the community on how to fix issues within NPDA, while all of those good debate minds (and most likely the coach/competitors of the next national champs) are all together, why should we waste that time with procedural stuff? Instead, we should take some proposed amendments and discuss them... then the authors of those amendments should revise them as needed and put them up for a vote in the week after NPDA,.

Patty

[DreinCali]

Just wanted to agree with Jed that disagreement here has never seemed regionalized with the possible exception of the travel thread. I would like to see some more justification for the thought that the "west" thinks one way and everyone else has differing opinions (as far as NB goes, not referencing Meany's POO proposal :) ) I was specifically thinking of the mentoring system thread in which I was very much in the minority, and the consensus criticizing the system was quite national in scope.

Andrea
ex-California girl

[NonEcdicus]

I completely disagree with Andrea.

-Brian

[mdreher]

On the transparency of the Executive Council point, a couple of observations:

1. There are different conceptions of the Exec Council, as Brian has pointed out on past occasions. There are times, for example, when Ed Inch & I are in the loop (by Constitutional means), and other times when we aren't. On the 2nd Vice President nominations, for example, I didn't know what went on with those myself until the business meeting. That was the province of the Elections Committee, which I presume reported back to Tom, Sharon & others.

2. My notion -- and again, I'm not speaking for Tom, but based on my observations of Exec Council discussions, is that both Tom & Sharon are both trying to get more people involved... the means are different, but the objective seems to be the same. For example, Tom has increased the number of committees with access & influence into NPDA decision making (i.e., the Ad Hoc Blue Ribbon committee, Publications committee, etc.). Sharon is also very concerned with increasing representation. Not all of those committees have been successful; I don't think we have enough data yet to say that the committee structure has failed.

3. What has the Exec Committee been talking about? I can tell you that first and foremost in our minds is making sure that we don't have a repeat of the problems we had at Metro II. The Exec Committee has also been concerned about supporting international debate -- and figuring how we can best make that happen. Tom, Robert Trapp, Brent & others have gone to Europe, and I know they will continue to do so. We passed the resolution to bring the European debaters over at the business meeting. And, I think looking ahead to the future of the organization -- what should NPDA look like -- has been very much on the minds of several of us.

4. On the moving up of items -- actually, truth be told, Rebekah & I talked earlier in the day on Thursday at NCA. Rebekah thought it would be a good idea to get the whole judge strike issue out in the open early in the 3rd section of the business meeting. I agreed with her. Thus, I moved that Mark's business meeting item be moved up so that it could be covered first. So, no conspiracy against John's motions-- Rebekah & I simply thought that the judge strike issue was a pressing concern.

5. I don't know how many people take advantage of Tom's willingness to correspond by e-mail, but I know that he doesn't frequent Net Benefits, and that he mostly lurks on parli-l. However, a direct e-mail or phone call to him will get a response. I know the same is true for Sharon as well.

I think that's all for now... my papers await!

Michael