19 comments posted · 110 followers · following 0
I am issuing the following requests from Aaron Timmons:
1. An explanation and apology from Aaron Timmons for his actions:
a) at Harvard, where he used political influence to change the results of a round objectively decided according to the established rules.
b) at Harvard, where his incredibly rude dismissal of my RFD *during* my explanation without expressing any wish to continue shocked the entire room.
c) at Harvard, where he physically grabbed Eric Han, a debater, and started to interrogate him after the bid round, thinking Eric was me.
d) in his letter to the TOC advisory committee, where he made blatant lies to justify the consideration of an at-large application.
2. A full explanation addressing the personal attacks made on me, specifically:
a) Why was I called a "Northeast" judge? It seems like an unnecessary qualifier that isn't accurately descriptive of my history in debate.
b) Why was my vote considered the "deciding" vote in the bid round at Harvard? There was another judge in that round who voted against Bodine, too.
c) An explanation of the intentionally opaque references to Mr. Wang’s “particular behavior” that were never clarified in addition to my residence within a glass house possessing structural deficiencies
Once again, I have been left confused, unaware of any wrongdoing on my part, and unable to address these allegations in a substantive manner. Furthermore, I am *outraged* at the stonewalling coming from Mr. Timmons. This is disgusting.
Linda Zhong's statement on what occurred, with insistence that she remains a neutral observer in this controversy:
"...I can definitely tell you with 100% certainty that Jalon was never at our round at harvard. I got there 15min before the round (well into flight A) and never once did Jalon come upstairs to check if the round was over, and we waited the appropriate time for him to show up before the forfeit..."
An offending statement from Aaron Timmons' letter:
"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."
(1) "At the request of Andrea Reed, Director of the TOC, the Lincoln-Douglas Debate Advisory Committee reviewed an at-large application from a debater who lacked the usual one-bid requirement to apply. The Tournament Director was asked to make an exception to the requirement based on irregularities at tournaments over the course of the year that were summarized in the application and accompanying letter. Upon review of the circumstances, she chose to grant the exception and asked the members of the Advisory Committee to rank the debater."
(2) "The question was not then whether or not the student should be considered but whether the student was competitive. Each member may have different opinions about whether the student should have been on the list, but that was not the role of the members at the point at which they were given the rankings."
*Cited from the TOC LD Advisory Committee Statement regarding the at-large process for the 2011 TOC.
Furthermore, the arguments that Jalon ran were topical. My RFD concerning the argument that Jalon made was that the card related to the argument had no warrant in it.
After reading "minerscanary"'s post, we would like to emphasize four points:
1. That none of us who composed this letter made comments that aligned towards, “they just don’t know their place.” Racial discrimination and marginalization is unacceptable, but so are unwarranted accusations of practicing it.
2. Minerscanary never addressed the direct manipulation of preliminary rounds at the Harvard tournament.
3. We do not wish to enforce any position on TOC qualification procedures, but wish to clarify those in a manner that informs and educates our community.
4. The most any of us had ever asked for was a public apology in regards to the incident at Harvard or additional openness and transparency, never any punitive measures against any individual or group.
It is a sad fact that this statement is true for many debaters and coaches right now. I've had many individuals approach me privately over the past few days and they told me that they support what I'm doing on VBD. These individuals were far too afraid of the political repercussions for their debate careers (and the careers of the debaters they coach) should they speak up publicly.
This is indirect intimidation, there's no other way to describe it. Here are a few choice conversations:
4:44:34 PM Honda Wang: you should support me on VBD
4:47:15 PM ***: hrmmm
4:47:22 PM ***: idk
4:47:22 PM ***: im worried
4:47:24 PM ***: about ToC
4:47:28 PM Honda Wang: strikes
4:47:29 PM Honda Wang: they exist
4:47:40 PM ***: idk who likes AT
12:15:04 AM ***: yeah but i mean, at is reading the thread
12:15:15 AM ***: any chance of doing well at greenhill/meadows/whatever
12:15:25 AM ***: is gone if your name goes out
12:15:34 AM ***: and like i don't have the rep that [top circuit debaters] have yet
6:34:14 PM Honda Wang: support me on facebook
6:34:17 PM Honda Wang: post on VBD
6:34:29 PM ***: political suicide
6:34:30 PM ***: hahaha
6:34:34 PM ***: maybe on facebook
I really admire that you and Hershey can speak out like this
I wish I could, but AB's post only furthered that there could be political repurcussions