So recently an ethics statement produced by the NDCA failed to get passed by a pretty large margin. It seems fairly obvious that counting people not voting as a no vote was the cause here (despite arguments made to the contrary…) so I think either people just didn’t know about it or didn’t care enough to vote. Below I have gone through some of the provisions and given thoughts and then suggested some ways the statement could be improved.
The Heart of Texas tournament at St. Marks is considering implementing my break side constraint idea so that undefeated teams going into the last prelim would be forced to debate each other instead of getting a pull up. TM wanted to get a feel of if anyone was extremely opposed to this, so if you see a problem/have a complaint please post in the comments.
For those unfamiliar with this Einstein level idea I had in the last podcast, basically if two teams were 5-0 going into round 5 but were both due neg, instead of both getting pull ups they would debate each other. Mahoney has added that the debate would be flip for sides- so the teams would have to balance their desire for an immediate win to be highest seed with planning for the elims (can’t be neg twice).
Edit- ok apparently some people out there aren’t listening to the podcast (I know, LOSERS), so here is a short explanation of my reasoning here:
1. Encourages rivalry/head to heads between the top teams
2. Undefeated teams are going to clear anyway so it doesn’t matter to mess with them to increase competition
3. Being pulled up sucks- a down 1 team who is pulled up and loses could face a very real chance of not clearing at a major, it doesn’t make sense to make them debate their break round vs the best team at the tournament and then when they lose let a worse team clear because they got a better round 6 draw.