NPDA Final Round Thank You's

[truthisjust]

What was up with timing the thank you's. Sure they gav them an extra minute. I personally like the unlimited thxs... the wedding proposals... etc.

[Western Amy]

You know, if Audrey and Kristine had gotten to finals they planned to publicly BREAK UP with their boyfriends. . .which would have ben pretty funny. I had something planned (in the back of my mind) too, but now you'll never know. . .

[smiley30girl]

Thanks Amy, that was supposed to be secret. I wasn't sure if you had heard us discussing those plans...you were pretty much passed out on our bed. :) jk- Amy, you know I love you!

In truth, Kristine and I planned to wear wedding dresses if we had gotten to finals, and regardless of the resolution, ran legalizing same sex marriage. The ballots would be "symbolic acceptances" of our union. How are you going to vote against that? :)

I dont really have an opinion on final round thank you's, timing them or not....but I'm all for entertainment.

Audrey :)

[Western Amy]

Sorry to spoil the secret Audrey. . .but I thought Kristine was done debating. Don't tell me you could even THINK about loving another the same way, i know you better!

Passed out. . .. maybe. . .but I HEARD all!!!! ;) Plus, I think I was on David and Brian's bed. Yours was. . .ahemm, occupied


What would you have done if you were in finals but on the opp?

[RJM]

I have coached the teams that I prepped for finals to use as much time as the could for thank yous. That way they could acclimate themselves to the room and deal with the initial nervousness before actually making arguments. I think limiting the time is a bit uncool especially when there is no impact to extended thanks. It is the debaters moment and no road blocks should be placed in front of them.

RJM

[pattybar]

I agree with Rob.... it seems that if you make it to the final round, you ought not have to be rushed in your thanks.

If you happen to watch the final round from 1999, Ryan, the PM, was coached to keep thanking people until he stopped being nervous. If you know Ryan, it was pretty funny to watch in retrospect because he kept thanking people, and at some point looked like he wished he could think of a few more people to thank.

While I'm not crazy about the proposals bit, I would think that if someone is going to be a national finalist we should listen to their thanks in their full form.

Patty

[truthisjust]

Hey if you have the nerve to propose to someone right before the national final round... go for it... what if she would have said, "I will think about it."

[Western Amy]

My understanding is that he had a pretty good idea that she'd say yes. Well Will?

[debatehasbeen]

Rumor has it, actually, that is was just a set-up: that they were already unofficially engaged. True?

[RJM]

I'm sure Will can answer with more specificity but my understanding was that they had discussed getting married and agreed that it was in their future but no official proposal had yet occured.

I'm not sure who knew he was going to do that. It never came up in prep. If he had discussed it with Danny they had both kept it quiet.

RJM

[Daniel Grossberg]

Danny keeps nothing quiet, you should know that, Rob.

But what about my idea of having all the thank-yous BEFORE the speeches, so that it doesn't interrupt the flow?

Justin and I have been on quite a roll agreeing with each other, so I hope he agrees here as well. That will also allow better, longer thank yous.

BTW, I had the idea of proposing in finals (not that I have a person in mind or will get to finals), but I guess great minds think alike, so kudos to Will!

-Dan

[Spasticwombat]

The fact that debaters in the final round were forced to pick between having an edge over their opponent and thanking those who have helped them get to the final round. Which isn't really a decent dichotomy to force them into. (or a fair debate dichotomy)

I certainly felt the thanks given in the final round were rushed, and less entertaining than in years past. The MG seemed quick and not too grateful (course, that could just be him, rather than his time). He spent more time on a Red-bull joke than all of his coaches.
I don't know to what extent it affected all the debaters, but I'd find it hard to sacrifice time, which might cost me the FINAL ROUND, for a proper set of thank-yous.

And, as mentioned, it can be used to relax the competitors. This didn't seem like much of an issue, but it could have been helpful for the MO, who seemed a little nervous. A bit more confidence there might have given Opp the edge it needed.

[Will Trachman]

What an interesting rumor to have heard on Net Benefits, we had no idea that we had gotten engaged a few days beforehand.

Actually, we're more than willing to tell the story to anyone that cares to ask for the nitty-gritty details, but the outline is as follows:

For the week in-between DSR and Nationals last year, we were split between Boulder and Berkeley. While talking on the phone, we did joke about getting married and spending our lives together- we really missed each other.

After Sems, I borrowed a friend's wife's engagement ring (because I did not expect to be proposing) for the final round. Danny never knew.

The Cal team had Nina sit on the aisle seat of a row, because I had told Chris Klimmek and Stacey Brown beforehand. I think she might have figured out what was going to happen, but I can assure everyone that it was not staged.

I hope this clears up the misconceptions. Rob M. basically had it right. Thank you for rushing to my defense Rob.

Will

[USC MissingLink]

awwww! :)

jEd

[truthisjust]

you two are so cute : )

[Western Amy]

They really are. I hit Will twice at NPDA and both times he thanked Nina really sweetly in his intro.

[Daniel Grossberg]

Will, as the only one here who has actually _been_ in final rounds, would you enlighten us as to your opinion of whether or not thank yous should be limited on time, or occur before the rounds start, etc.?

-Dan

[Will Trachman]

Thank you Dan for affording me the status of "expert."

The first thing I thought of when the new policy was announced, giving each constructive speech a minute extra, was that the MG would just not thank anyone, for a strategic advantage. It seems that this would be what any rational debater, who was sufficiently pressed for time, would do.

But this problem could simply be gotten around by timing thank yous up to one minute, then starting the 7/8 minute speeches.

I don't like it, but I understand why it happened. The video on the internet from last year didn't show any of the thankyous, or the proposal. These are only on the videotapes that were sent to the competitors. I have a feeling the thankyous will be on the internet this year.

But is this really all that critical of an advantage? If a debater wants to thank a certain number of former coaches, competitors and parents, and it will take him 1:15 to do it, I think each participant in the final round has earned our patience.

The old system is more friendly to the participants, who deserve a little luxury. I don't think there has been much abuse of this policy. Even if thank yous lasted a full two or three minutes, it would be really difficult to prep a speech and think of arguments while at the same time thanking people.

Let's go back to the old system, and let the finalists have their day. As Bill Herman mentioned in the final round my fresman year at Pt Loma, very few, if any of us, are ever going to win Oscars, let us have our time to shine, and thank the people who helped us get there.

Will

[Daniel Grossberg]

I agree that they should be afforded sufficient time, but I think this should be before the round, so that it does not interfere with the flow of the round and prevents debaters from using the "thank-you" time for extra arguments (which is unethical).

-Dan

[RJM]

Dan,

You talk about perserving the flow of the debate. For who? If anything the thank you time is beneficial for the debaters as it allows them time to ground themselves in what is easily one of the most nerve-wracking moments of their lives. If you are talking about the audience's sense of flow, screw them. Its not about them at all. If it's for the judges, speaking as a final round critic the thank yous did nothing to affect my ability to keep up with the debate.

You also mention abuse (i.e. short thank yous) to take advantage of the extra time. Well, if they weren't timed that problem would go away.

RJM

[Daniel Grossberg]

Or, they could be timed but once they start debating their speach time commences...

Personally, I think the flow of the debate (for everyone) suffers with the thank yous. Why not take a smoke break halfway into the debate? Maybe I am just not smart, but I like debates to go on without 10+ minutes of non-debate rambling.

-Dan

[RJM]

Dan,

The final round is not just about the debate. It is a celebration of the activity and the people involved. Recognition of those folks who made it all possible is part of the celebration.

Anyway, who cares what any audience member thinks. The moment is about 4 people (and to a lesser extent their coaches and teammates). If they want/need to thank the people that helped them get there then so be it. Anybody who dislikes the thank yous can step out of the room while they are going on and return for the substantive portion of the debate.

RJM

[Daniel Grossberg]

It would be much easier to walk out and come back if ther was simply a "thank you period" prior to the PMC where all four went through their thank yous.

[RJM]

What is easier for the audience is of zero importance to me. Again, it is not about you (the audience member) it is about the debaters. Speaking once again from experience the competitors appreciate the time just prior to their speeches to gather themselves. Plus, there is zero impact to the thank yous so we don't need to change a thing (except to reverse the most recent change which I will see about doing.)

RJ M

[pattybar]

It seems to me that a noticible percentage of people leaving for thank-yous would be very insulting to the teams. It would also be disruptive in general and I would consider it an extraoridinarily rude statement toward the community in general.

Frankly, Dan, if you don't want to see the thanks get the video and fast-forward.... but if you ever make it to finals (and if you are half as good as you say you are, you should...) you'd better thank Rob if he gets the procedure changed..... or not use the time to give thanks at all.

It seems that when someone achieves that to which a) many aspire and b) they have worked for years they have the right to say a few personal thanks...

Besides, if I ever get a team into finals against one of Marty Birkholt's teams from Creighton I want my debaters to thank their debate grandfather in public..... Thus making twice that he's been thanked from both sides of the debate.

Dan, if you walk out, good riddance..... and be careful coming back, you might get some riddicule from the podium...

Patty

Patty

[Daniel Grossberg]

Since when did I say I would walk out of a round?

And who the fuck are you to keep insulting me personally? I have held back on any remarks towards you, but there is a reason you were the most struck judge at BOTH NPTE and NPDA (two years in a row).

If I am half as good as I think I am, I am still 100 times better than you. Talk about ridicule! At least I am aware of the negative sentiment some have towards me.

Don't talk to/about me ever again!

-Dan

[Western Amy]

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone about the guidelines that Jed laid out in the FAQ.

[NonEcdicus]

As one who can and probably should in this sort of situation say so, I'll add that, Dan, your objective claim about Patty's record, at NPDA at least, is flat out factually untrue. I think your subjective claims about her are way off, also, but Amy has spoken to their irrelevance already anyway.

Back on topic, I am glad to be reading everyone's discussion of this issue. The special timing/Thank You's rule was unilaterally imposed at the very, very, very last minute upon the debaters (just to make it all the more sinister). The whole issue--both how it happened and the notion of adjusting the speaking times for one particular round at all--are both already on the agenda for those involved in planning next year's tournament to confront appropriately. I am certain that they will. I have a pretty good feeling it won't happen again. Everyone's input here will have been very helpful.

-Brian

[Daniel Grossberg]

Okay, Brian. How many teams struck Patty? What was the average? What was the median? What were the 25th and 75th percentiles? If I was off by one or two, it was due to hyperbole, but I seriously doubt I am that far off. Others in positions equal to yours told me otherwise.

Show us the data and I will retract my statement. But short of that, don't make that claim that you just know differently but can't be specific.

[Daniel Grossberg]

Amy, I just read the FAQ - again. Nothing I did is in violation of the Net Benefits policies. I have paid my dues and followed the rules.

-Dan

[Western Amy]

I am not speaking of strict rules. . .which Jed doesn't have. But he does ask that we keep our posts a)on topic, especially in the On Case section. He also asks that we b)respect each other. In passing, I want to point out that I did not directly address my post to you.

There are no "dues" to pay for NB, nor are there rules, but respect is an important overarching principle.

[Daniel Grossberg]

Amy, I didn't say that you were adressing me specifically. I assumed I was included in whatever sized group you thought was being offensive. If I am mistaken and you are, for once, finding my behavior saintly, I apologize be not being offensive enough. (That is a joke, Amy.) But thank you for acknowledging I was simply responding to an attack.

-Dan

[USC MissingLink]

lol; for the record, john and i didn't strike patty because she's always made good decisions in our rounds - and good doesn't always mean she picked us up.

i think there were a lot of more worthy strikes at npda and npte.

and let's keep this from degrading to a flame war 'eh?

jEd

[Tutakai]

I am going to add nothing more than a point of fact that I have first-hand knowledge of: Patty was NOT the most struck judge at NPTE. As usual, Grossberg is making things up (lying) whenever it suits him to do so.

[Daniel Grossberg]

Okay, Jason, then show us the records!

BTW, please post the NPTE tournament records. It has been quite some time.

[Tutakai]

Is anyone else amused at how Grossberg's burden of proof operates? He is allowed to make any claim he wants (about events at tournaments and tab rooms he wasn't even AT) and then he claims he must be ASSUMED correct unless PROVEN otherwise.

Of course, if myself or Brian Shipley posted the records he's demanding, he'd just shift his argument or claim the records weren't accurate or something. (Note: He already shifted his argument in regard to NPDA.)

Well, Grossberg wasn't in the tab room at NPTE or NPDA. And the tab room administrators from BOTH of those tournaments have stated flatly that Grossberg's reports about who was struck are unfounded.

[Tutakai]

One side effect of Grossberg's wild rantings is to renew in my mind a question I've had for some time -- from where comes the assumption that striking a judge is equivelent to saying that they are a "bad judge"?

The reasons actually given by debaters often seem to belie this. Often, they report that they feel the judge is fine objectively, but gives them particular problems in adaptation, knowledge base or stylistic preferences. Alternatively, many teams report they strike "unknown" or "mystery meat" judges, figuring that the devil you know is better than the one you don't.

As a pattern, I have noticed that there seems to only be a few rather notorious individuals who try to use (alleged) judge strikes as an "insult" directed at judges. Such individuals feel that judge strikes give them a chance to pass judgement on the judges (as if the judges care or pay some kind of penalty for this).

So rather than let the issue become coopted by Grossberg's various personality problems, perhaps it would be more useful to redirect the discussion to a more productive question: What are YOUR criteria for judge strikes?

[Daniel Grossberg]

Jason, provide the info and prove me wrong.

Shifting a burden of proof is different that shifting a burden to produce evidence. Show us the strike records.

Today is tax day. If the IRS claims you cheated on your taxes, you are required to produce your financial documents, even though the burden of proof rests on them.

Why don't you publish the strikes from NPTE. You and Patty are 2/5 of the Executive Committee. Getting one more vote shouldn't be hard.

I am amazed how defensive you are off of a claim you assert has no merit. You are so defensive that you offer multiple explanations for why someone would be often stricken. Why not forgoe this arduous task and simply produce the strikes?

-Dan

[USC MissingLink]

Dan, as moderator I am asking that you stop this immediately.

Thank you.

Jedidiah Link

[Tutakai]

>Why not forgoe this arduous task and simply produce the strikes?

Dan, at the point you cuss out my wife and tell fairy tales in the complete absence of any supporting data, the mere fact that you want access to the data is enough reason for me to deny it to you.

Besides, what POSSIBLE reason would I have for providing the data to you? So you can flame other judges instead of (or in addition to) Patty? So you can continue to feed your delusion that you are in charge of something?

I'll keep the records just in case someone ever needs the dataset for a research project or something. But provide it to you so you can pursue more of your infantile vendettas? I think not.

[Daniel Grossberg]

Point proven, Jason. Argument over. Jed, who has earned my respect, has asked me nicely to stop.

I am glad you moved your new topic to a new thread (as it belongs), and I will respond to it (on topic) despite your objection.

-Dan