en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2873180 Comments by DebateLeaks http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2005/11/21/michael-mangus-wins-the-glenbrooks/#IDComment140679958 LOL @ Turd Ferguson and other funny names Thu, 7 Apr 2011 08:38:57 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2005/11/21/michael-mangus-wins-the-glenbrooks/#IDComment140679958 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140381380 Oh god. If he's attempting to argue the topic, then why would getting a racist to change his views (as you initially allude to) matter? Please just go away, or at least stop conflating Jalon with micropolitics. He only reads black aesthetic in response to theory (usually), not as some generic AC. Wed, 6 Apr 2011 06:00:01 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140381380 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140377001 He reads topical stuff. Stop ruining the cause with your ignorant posts. Wed, 6 Apr 2011 05:43:51 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140377001 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140367067 That said his year has been one that, I imagine, no other student attending the TOC has experienced. Allow me to share a few of those experiences. 1. A note was put on his book bag at Yale as he left to go to the restroom asking, “hey, are you gonna actually EARN your way to TOC this year, affirmative action sucks”. I doubt this note was written to other students who received an at large last year. This note is a small reminder of some of the unprovoked hostile culture of the activity and sentiment of many competitors that seems to exist around his experience this year. The nonverbal and verbal responses we have seen when Jalon loses are shocking. Students have visibly cheered, snickered, and bragged during oral critiques in Jalon’s bid rounds. 2. Several coaches and outside judges have approached Jalon to express their disgust at seeing alliances of multiple teams vigorously collaborate against this “lone wolf.” 3. In at least two other events, judges that were 1’s for him in a world of mutual preference were removed to other panels and replaced with 3’s or 4’s in bid rounds. The more preferred judges were then given to students of people in the tab room OR students of people of whom they are close associates with no explanation. When asked about the rationale later via email on more than one occasion, no response was given. 4. At the Columbia tournament despite the tournament invitation that says “no person” without a judging philosophy online will be allowed to judge”, he was assigned just such a judge. In having his grandfather who serves as “coach” asked to have that person removed over 45 minutes before the debate, they were told “she is a good person”. Nothing was done about that concern. At that SAME event a ballot was recorded incorrectly that not only put him in a break round in prelims (which he won), he was then listed as having a 4-2 record instead of the 5-1 he earned which made the doubles draw much more difficult. These errors are confirmed facts and have been acknowledged by the tournament staff. 5. At the Harvard tournament despite been at the tournament at 7:40 (sitting at a table with me near the Harvard student who was the building monitor) and being around the room for the time of flight B, a Northeast judge said he forfeited his debate. After lodging a concern the tab staff did grant a double win since he was clearly present for the debate. After earning another 5-1 one record and getting to what I think is the 6th bid round of the year, of the 285 judges in the pool, the judge that forfeited him showed up on the panel. Another 2-1 defeat with the judge in question being the deciding vote. At Harvard in doubles after making an argument about African American males being disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system and that was a method of the state to control and exterminate a portion of the population he was told, “what is the impact to that” by one judge in his RFD. In isolation, perhaps all of these things are easily explained away as “mistakes”, “oversights”, and an unfortunate set of events. Maybe all Lders are having these experiences. Perhaps… I am of the opinion that something is a tad more insidious than that. Despite all of this, this young man who travels with his grandfather still wants to compete at the TOC. Given this unique situation, please examine the facts regarding Jalon’s competitive successes this year: Wins over fully qualified TOC debaters- [This part redacted] Ballots won over fully qualified TOC debaters: [This part also redacted] Also, since Jalon’s successful at-large application last year, his performance has improved. His prelim win-loss percentage increased from 66% in 2009, to 71.4%, a 5 percent improvement. Jalon’s speaking also improved substantially. He won top speaker at Yale (out of 167 competitors), ninth speaker at Harvard (out of 324 competitors) and 8th speaker at Meadows. In terms of elim rounds, Jalon has had to win 6 runoff/elim rounds to get to the bid round (Yale, Bronx, Meadows, Harvard and two at Blake). Again, Jalon is an African American male whose travel is funded by his grandfather. He doesn’t “fit in” with the normal crowd at national circuit tournaments, and despite this, Jalon has achieved a very competitive performance this year. A few years ago an exception was granted to Courtney Nunley when Harvard made a single tab mistake and the committee deemed she should receive an at large. With complete respect for Ms. Nunley, based on the comparative records AND the reoccurring “issues” that have occurred at DIFFERENT events AND the fact that Jalon was competitive at TOC last year, he is a slam dunk to receive an at large this year. The fact that another applicant may have a “bid” doesn’t mean that all bids are created the same and that they are more worthy of attending the TOC. If you look at the debaters Jalon has beaten, his overall performance and the issues he has encountered, I believe that he deserves to be at TOC. Best, Aaron Timmons Wed, 6 Apr 2011 05:16:33 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140367067 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140367056 This is a copy of the letter in case the text in the GoogleDoc gets revised. To the TOC Lincoln Douglas Advisory Committee, Last year I wrote a similar letter to the advisory committee in support of Jalon Alexander for an at large bid to the Tournament of Champions. Last year, the majority of the committee had no idea who Bodine JA was. I imagine, this year, you all do. Please allow me to start by saying Jalon has no bids. He has had six bid rounds this year ( [This part redacted]). Some decisions I would argue were legitimate. Some left me questioning not only what happened in that specific debate, but the integrity of the activity. I wrote to Andrea Reed, the new Director of the TOC (I cced J.W. as well) to plead Jalon’s case. Andrea indicated to me that she was willing to make an exception to the “gotta have a bid rule” based on the mitigating circumstances outlined below. My argument was that tournaments ought to have a higher standard of operations if they get the privilege to be called a TOC qualifier. Just so you know, I also asked that ANY student that felt the errors in the tab room be considered migrating circumstances and allow those folks to apply. Wed, 6 Apr 2011 05:16:29 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140367056 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140360082 That's fair. I've heard from two or three judges who ranked Jalon fairly low, but I'm sure not all did. I'd still appreciate some clarification on how the rankings work, though. Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:59:16 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140360082 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140353120 I know multiple members voted the zero bid debater low in protest and because 1>0. How does the weighting work that many ranked him so low but he still came out ahead? Is it just a cumulative ranking (1 --> n), lowest sum is best? Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:41:43 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140353120 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140348267 What were the documented irregularities that were reported? I've heard multiple accounts of AT sending a political email urging people to vote Jalon into the tournament. The explanation is a nice start, but we're still hoping for a leak so that the unfiltered truth can get out at debateleaks2011 AT gmail DOT com. Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:29:44 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140348267 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140347135 Thank god the Committee posted something. It is much appreciated. Why weren't other people notified FOR THIS YEAR that an exception could be made for bidless debaters? Plenty of people who likely deserved a shot to be deemed competitive won't get another chance next year. Why didn't Ms. Reed publicize this at all? Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:26:58 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140347135 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140341084 Also, please get off your high horse about working against structural problems in LD. Janda has already pointed out that your unwillingness to discuss public details has made it so that other similarly oppressed kids cannot alleviate their oppression via application in the future because we don't know what extenuating circumstances are. Additionally, you guys continue to claim that you asked for an exception to be made for all debaters. Christian Tarsney called Berryhill's BS on this 270 posts ago, challenging you to come forward with the email proving it. Ken Hershey adds a lot of reasons to doubt that you guys did it. But you can go right on ahead claiming you did, I guess. That seems cool. Produce the email. Finally, Tyler Butler should absolutely be going to TOC, and it sickens me that he was denied, largely because I'm not sure why Jalon got a pss over him. Maybe if the reasons were explained, I'd understand more, but you guys seem unwilling to do that. Tyler Butler earned his bid fair and square, and he should not have been passed over on claims of racism by jalon, who has zero bids. Jalon is not merely Black, but the intersection of his race, family, political connections, etc. Even if we speak from some White privilege, we can still recognize that the oppression targeted at Tyler, who has few political connections, are at least significant, and maybe even more deserving than Jalon's. Tyler Butler for TOC 2011. Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:07:00 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140341084 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140339698 @MinersCanary Janda's post is exactly correct. If anyone hasn't read it yet, you can find it directly beneath the original DebateLeaks post. You guys isolate two reasons in Post #3 about why you should not make public the specific extenuating circumstances that made Jalon's situation uniquely so that we could move discourse forward and offer better methods of solvency for other disadvantaged students in the future. Here's why they're wrong. "Many ask us, like DebaterLeaks for SPECIFICS, but what guarantee do we have that it would either a.) go anywhere, or b.) not be subject to the same denial, erasure and cruelty which has not only occurred but SUPPORTED in most of the last 100-130 posts? " A is at best defense for you guys. There is no harm specified to making the information public, so even if the discourse doesn't head anywhere, no harm, no foul. But that's being pretty generous to grant you guys that there would be no impact to further discussion. Our argument for transparency is precisely that your unwillingness to talk and your insistance on hiding behind shadow language is the reason the discussion hasn't gone very far. Regardless, it has certainly gone somewhere, so it seems likely that more precision and more information would lead down a better path. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A 100% GUARANTEE. This is akin to saying "but like uh maybe it won't solve one hundred percent." Who cares? It's still marginally better to make the information available. B is flawed for two reasons. The first is it is at worst non-unique. If denial and erasure are already happening, then some denial and erasure in response to the information would not be a no harm, so there's no risk there. Additionally, even if there were some denial or erasure, I contend it would at least be a more productive form of them than the status quo because it would discuss the real issue at hand rather than making faulty assumptions about Jalon's experiences that subject him to even more second-guessing. The amount of denial would be quantitatively less. BUT, the most important issue in response to B, and to your post as a whole, is that you are ignoring that LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF ANY (read: none) RACIAL ANGER / BULLYING / ETC. Our argument is very precisely that your unwillingness to discuss the situation promotes the image that something untenable took place. It is not that people are criticizing Jalon and as such you shouldn't want to speak, but rather that people are criticizing Jalon BECAUSE you won't speak. If they were criticizing Jalon, that is, which they aren't. Either way, the only way to clear up this issue and make the perception slightly better is to lay the details out on the line. To use your repugnant rhetoric: LYNCHMOB INEVITABLE, BETTER TO TAKE A STAB AT ENDING THE LYNCHMOB BY BEING TRANSPARENT. That is why I encourage anyone with information to leak it anonymously to debateleaks2011 AT gmail DOT com. Or for Jalon's supporters to come forward with a public information. Either way, I just want closure on this issue so that I can debate next year without fear of some deep dark political force. I want to trust the community, but you guys are making it really difficult right now. Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:02:12 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140339698 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140263400 Jalon Alexander deserves better than to have his name tarnished by groundless speculation about how he got to the TOC. I do, however, understand people’s frustrations with the lack of explanation: the avoidance of specifics by Berryhill, Jalon’s Facebook posts, and the general silence by the Committee to this point contribute to the perception that something untenable took place. Discourse cannot progress until we know what truly happened, and the lack of knowledge have caused much of the frustration about which Jalon’s camp seems so upset. I have a lot of faith in the Committee, though. I believe that they likely have a justification for the actions they took, and I would like to believe that they think they are working for the best interests of the community. To not explain what happened is unfair both to Jalon and to the debate community on the whole: an innocent debater gets smeared, and everyone else remains in the dark. The harms of silence on this issue have brought me to the following conclusion. Somebody on the Advisory Committee needs to (anonymously) leak information regarding the case at hand. I understand that nobody wants to risk publicly coming forward and losing their spot, so I have created an anonymous email at which you can email me. You can create an anonymous account as well. I have heard from multiple people that Mr. Timmons circulated a message of some form to the other members of the Committee regarding Jalon’s eligibility and why he believes that his debater deserves an at-large. I have also heard that the Committee is continuing to discuss the issues on this thread through back-channel emails, none of which have yet been made available. I promise you that your information will be protected if you choose to send it along. The email account at which you can reach me is debateleaks2011 AT gmail DOT com. I encourage you to use a proxy as well so that your IP cannot be traced. All affected parties deserve an explanation, and this is a way to get that explanation out without repercussions. You have an obligation as a member of the community to make sure we correct injustices, and I hope that you take up this opportunity. I suspect that not all members of the Committee agreed with the decision, and I hope this account brings that truth to light. I do not wish to continue debating in the community next year if we cannot even achieve this basic transparency, but hopefully I will not be disappointed. Mr. Timmons often says (in his defenses of disclosure) that, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Let’s make that vision a reality. Regards, DebateLeaks2011 Tue, 5 Apr 2011 21:37:55 +0000 http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2011/03/30/at-larges-alerted/#IDComment140263400