Fixing the problem

It’s easy to suggest that both debaters walk into the round with a copy of the rules in the old briefcase, but it doesn’t matter much if the judge hasn’t walked into the round with a copy of the same rules. So we have to mandate it. We have to insist that all judges follow the rules. It’s as simple as that.

As we’ve already argued, the rules to be followed are those published by the NFL in the District Manual, a pdf extraction of which is available on this site. The question remains, how do we mandate it? There are a lot of obstacles to this, despite its manifest logic. Chief among these obstacles is the jungle of individual paradigms published hither and yon, added to every year by the latest crop of college freshmen filled with their own ideas of what LD ought to be. I love that they are filled with their own ideas of what LD ought to be, but I am the first to point out that wishing doesn’t make it so. LD is what it is, and it’s fine to want to change it, and there are ways of changing it, but those ways are not in the rounds you judge in a competitive vacuum. In fact, not judging according to the rules does not allow to activity to evolve, as some people suggest, but merely makes the whole activity (and any hoped for progress) that much more muddled. Nonetheless, there is certainly variance among judge preferences that are within the rules, so although I would prefer to eliminate judge paradigms altogether insofar as they indirectly nurture the worst aspects of the activity, I would suggest that every judge, high and low, begin their paradigm with the simple phrase: “I adhere to the rules of LD as posted by the NFL.” Many judges (most?) could stop there. Contrariwise, if a judge does not submit to these rules, then they should begin their paradigm with the simple phrase: “I do not adhere to the rules of LD as posted by the NFL.” In this latter case, this would alert us in advance not to hire these judges in the first place.

But that’s where the real crux of the issue is, and the real source of control, in the hiring and use of judges. Ultimately this falls on the coaches, and the execution of practices that could keep the rules being adhered to falls on the coaches who are tournament or league directors. Like me. I am a director of the MHL, and I run the Bump invitational tournament every November. I can do a couple of very easy things that could make a difference. I can attach to the operational rules of the MHL a notice that we adhere to the NFL LD rules, and I can attach to the MHL website a copy of those rules. And I can insist at the beginning of every tournament, when I whisper the opening announcements, that we will be following these rules, which can also be distributed at the ballot table. Certainly these rules will be part of the package I give to new judges, posted on the MHL website. As for Bump, I simply make this a part of the invitation. I note that the activities at the tournament will follow NFL rules, and I will post those rules as an addendum to the invitation and on the Bump website. I will insist that all judges must adhere to these rules. Judges and/or teams who do not wish to adhere to these rules are welcome to find a different way to spend the weekend.

And, come to think of it, since I’m claiming I could do those so-called very easy things, I will do those very easy things.

And then we take to the bully pulpit (which is this blog, in my case) and we have at every other tournament. We ask simply, when we register, if the tournament will be adhering to the rules of LD as published by the NFL. If they are, so be it. If they aren’t, we can ask what rules they will be following. For instance, the CFL follows moderately different rules in PF and LD, and when I accept an invitation to one of their tournaments, I’m happy to follow those rules. Other venues might have other versions of the rules. But is it asking too much for them to publish those versions? And if they do not wish to enforce any rules, is it asking too much for them to admit it publicly? If I am going to a free-for-all in the guise of a debate tournament, the least you can do if I’m paying you an entry fee is to let me know that this is the case so that my teams can conduct themselves accordingly (bringing extra protective mental equipment, for instance). Even the most rabid “progressive” LD advocate can’t object to the idea that we should know what we’re paying for!

Great. Now I’ve got another iron in the fire, and something else to advocate for, and complain about. But, at least it’s clear and specific. You show me your rules and I’ll show you mine. It’s not asking that much at all. But I wonder how many people will actually take me up on it.