The Bietz theses, continued

There is some comment movement on the LD Coaches Need to Communicate Front. I won’t elaborate on that issue for the moment. Let’s look at point 2 of the Bietz manifesto. To wit, he is explaining that we have no great rules about evidence, and that we are about as sloppy with the stuff as is conceivable. (All right, I'm paraphrasing, or maybe more to the point, translating into the Coachean bile dialect). Even if some among us are neat as individuals, we certainly haven’t established any norms for the activity at large.

Yep.

First of all, as he points out, people just usually read an author’s last name. I tell my goobers that a last name is pretty meaningless as a general rule, and that some idea of why this person ought to be listened to (position, qualifications, etc) would make the quote more compelling. LDers seem to think that because something is a quote, that’s good enough. As Bietz says, there are CX debate rounds where the value of the evidence is argued, and the team with the best evidence source can win the point being discussed. My source on resources in Africa is the head of the Council on Resources in Africa, while your source for resources in Africa is Cousin Mortie, the one who hangs out down at the deli who just got laid off from his job as head butcher at Starbucks. Of course, my point to the Sailors is simply that reasons why I should listen to the source of your evidence makes your evidence more compelling. Bietz is, correctly, taking a more serious position that sources have importance beyond merely their ability to persuade.

He goes on to bemoan the definition of “published,” which can, amazingly enough, be construed as something he or I write on a blog (and I know I’ve been cited in rounds, which just breaks me up). And secondly, he discusses how the evidence is actually presented physically, with strikethroughs, etc., and how it’s presented in the round for opponents and judges. The lack of norms/standards is, at best, confusing.

Not surprisingly, he and I are very much on the same wavelength here once again. I have no specific answers to present at this point, but none of this is brain rocketry, and I would suggest that, when we sort out a source of communication for LD coaches (point #1 preceding this one), the rules of evidentiary procedure, or at least best practices for evidentiary procedure, be high on the agenda of items to discuss. (I hesitate to suggest rules per se, because they should be, as I have argued in the past, the bailiwick of the NFL. If rules are required, then we should figure out what we want and present it to NFL to codify ex officio.) Having an agenda will help liven up whatever source of communication is settled on.

Meanwhile, if you haven’t voted for Modest Novice yet, time is running out. You have until the end of the month. Keep those cards and letters coming in!