Towards solutions to problems

I forget the context of this, but I do remember discussing it most favorably on TVFT. It was the idea of having an ombudsman at tournaments, especially the big tournaments. (The concept would be more problematic at smallish events.) This season is not the first where there have been imbroglios, but it has been setting records for unusual and complicated situations. As I’ve said, the tab room is not responsible for solving problems in a tournament; that is the tournament director’s role. As a matter of fact, the problem could indeed be the tab room, but how many people are going to complain to me about me? Not to mention that most sane individuals realize that tab rooms, because they’re usually knee deep doing the job they are supposed to do, are usually way too busy to address any issue other than which judge has even the remotest mutuality between these two notoriously idiosyncratic rankers. It’s not a good idea to attempt to break into the chaos of putting out the next round with concerns other than putting out the next round. Of course, tournament directors may be hard to find when a problem arises (at my tournament, I can be at either of two buildings, or on the road to pick someone or something up, for example), or may tend to support whatever decision was made if for no other reason than that it was a made decision. An ombudsman, on the other hand, someone who does not represent the host school and who is not tabbing the tournament, might be a better person to whom to address concerns that may arise. That ombudsman would be empowered to solve those concerns to the best of her abilities.

What might these concerns be? Well, a hearty perennial is bad judge behavior. This may seem low on the scale of serious issues, but given that a tournament’s stated goal is to conduct competitive rounds, bad judging—or more to the point intemperate/prejudiced/ill-behaved judging—is hard to justify, and accusations of it are not infrequent. At big tournaments, there are plenty of people who, frankly, no one knows from Adam, so it’s not as if, say, Scarsdale has a judge who does something questionable and I can go to JV and tell him and he can go and hit the judge over the head with a frying pan. The situation can be much more touchy. There is the issue of if, in fact, the judge has committed any fault. I don’t know of any tournament that wants bad judges or bad judge behavior, but by the same token, tournaments have no mechanism to detect or solve those issues.

I have heard people go to a tournament director with a valid albeit difficult complaint, and I have seen the tournament director put them on hold and then disappear without solving it. A harm left unaddressed can fester and blossom—and will do so, way beyond the measure of the original situation.

I have had people come to me with examples of debater behavior bordering on, if not crossing into, actionable assault. I have done my best to address this, but at the expense of putting rounds on hold while so doing. In other words, I’ve been tabbing and I’ve been sympathetic and done my best, but realistically, I was probably not the person to come to in the first place.

I have heard two sides to the same story of who was where and who wasn’t, and when they were and when they weren’t there, and what happened or what didn’t happen.

I have heard accusations of students threatening violence with weapons, too late to do anything about it.

I have heard accusations of students threatening to disseminate (probably untrue) personal information to cause direct harm to the character of others. In the case I'm referring to (many, many years ago), we were able to take appropriate action, but I'm sure there are similar situations today with no action being taken.

I have heard of incidents of racism and sexism.

I have personally been told to take the proverbial long walk off a short pier when I was disagreed with, and there was no one to mitigate.

I have occasionally been vilified for taking actions I have not taken, and seen others in that same situation. The rumor mill works more hours than the truth. I do not work in any closed tab rooms (except for CFL, by rule). While I don’t particularly want everyone in the building looking over my shoulder every time I press a button, I am perfectly willing to have anyone who wants to watch the sausage-making come in and do so.

So can an ombudsman solve all of these issues? I doubt it. As far as rumors trumping the truth are concerned, it will ever be thus. (See Liberty Valence: “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”) But at least the truth will have had its opportunity. If there are two distinct sides to an argument, and it is an issue that needs to be determined, whoever doesn’t get the ombudsman’s favor probably won’t be all that happy. But they might be happier than not getting their way without an ombudsman. As for the issues of danger or threat or potential legality, an ombudsman might in fact help solve. Attention can be brought to issues in the proper forum, and perhaps actions can be taken. Otherwise people will remain fearful or unhappy and maybe just give up.

As I say, the ombudsman must be independent of the particular tournament. I would also suggest female, as the issues that are of gender bias will get a better hearing (and a more likely request for a hearing in the first place). The person should not spend the tournament in the tab room, but should be readily locatable. It should be an adult with as much experience in debate as possible to assure the most detachment from the specific issues and the most knowledge of how tournaments work. The ombudsman’s name should be posted on the tournament website as soon as it is known, because I’ve even had issues arise about registrations before anyone has even shown up.

I can’t make any tournament I don’t run do this. Which means that, if I’m only tabbing an event, I can suggest it, but that’s about it. Tournament directors can do it on their own, or debaters can urge them to do so, or their teams can urge them.

We do not live in a perfect world, but frankly, the debate world is one of the better worlds I’ve seen. Most people who inhabit it do so with the best intentions, supporting debate’s underlying suppositions of free speech and activism and equality and freedom. But there are jokers in the pack, both young and old. Maybe this can minimize the effect of the jokers, or better still, turn them around or, if must needs be, eliminate them.