gdp's Comments

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Wed, 6 Apr 2011 20:58:06 +0000

I'm saying it was incredibly inappropriate behavior coming from a grown adult, not physical assault. Furthermore, I am concerned at the silence regarding *all* of these points.

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Wed, 6 Apr 2011 20:26:35 +0000

A statement by the other debater in that prelim round has confirmed the fact that Aaron Timmons had outright lied in his letter to the TOC committee in addition to using political influence to manipulate results at the Harvard tournament. The incredibly unethical practices of Aaron Timmons at the Harvard tournament this past season need to be condemned and Mr. Timmons must immediately issue an explanation and apology for his own actions. 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."

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Wed, 6 Apr 2011 06:05:37 +0000

This is just an objective observation. I have no opinion on the at-large qualification issue. It was a unilateral decision by the Director to admit said debater into the at-large process. (1) Then the issue was treated as a matter of competition and not entry. (2) This isn't a commentary on whether or not this was a fair decision, but the decision for consideration during the at-large process was made by one person instead of a council. (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.

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Wed, 6 Apr 2011 05:50:11 +0000

This is precisely what my letter, http://www.hondawang.com/open-letter/ , was trying to argue against. We need more civility and professionalism when addressing issues. I get angry when people lie, but that's no excuse to personally insult people. 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.

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Wed, 6 Apr 2011 05:27:29 +0000

Aside from the sheer hilarity of characterizing me as a "Northeast" judge (I was born and bred in Iowan debate, folks), that description of the preliminary round where I dropped Jalon was blatantly false. The other debater from Ridge, Linda Zhong, should be able to confirm this. I was timing the wait on my phone before Jalon was dropped, and he forfeited well within the rules of the tournament.

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:52:56 +0000

A committee member who I have been talking with disagrees with this post. I should clarify he has only been respectful and honest to me so far and his belief should be held with some weight.

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:44:42 +0000

After reviewing the statements posted, I have decided to collaborate in an open letter to Aaron Timmons and other relevant members of the debate community. We have been working on this for the past few days, and we would appreciate dialogue, constructive criticism, and/or support for our efforts. http://www.hondawang.com/open-letter/ 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.

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Tue, 5 Apr 2011 03:51:20 +0000

Try the "Last Activity" option.

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:47:38 +0000

"since you can't fuck over my debaters anymore (i don't have any, since i don't coach), i feel ok saying this publicly." 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 --- ***:ahh 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 sorry bro

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Mon, 4 Apr 2011 21:32:22 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMBZDwf9dok

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Mon, 4 Apr 2011 20:41:27 +0000

Cool. So, I shouldn't care? I shouldn't voice an opinion that debaters are too afraid to do so because they fear it'll hurt their future performance at tournaments? Changing the rules of a debate tournament to suit only one person isn't unethical? I never said I thought the TOC was a scam, just that you shouldn't do things like use your political influence to utilize opportunities available only to you and not others. Right, because you have the ability not to make that decision, you are given a choice. The choice to make that decision is not something that simply happens because of your status, it is enabled because of your status and then done because of your own will to perform it. What happened was the equivalent of a high school basketball coach, using his/her political influence, changing the scoreboard of a game to what he or she thought should be the outcome, regardless of how many points the teams scored. I don't see anybody simply accepting that as an outcome of one's role in the community.

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Mon, 4 Apr 2011 20:01:50 +0000

Your post came off to me as trying to encourage complacency with the current environment. I don't see how your post argues how people can find common ground. That point you gave talked about how we shouldn't personally vilify Timmons, which I can agree with, but it also implies that he doesn't choose to actively abuse his power (which he does). Furthermore, it's hard to "maintain perspective" when there are blatantly unethical practices happening that isn't just hearsay or gossip. Additionally, Aaron has given a lot to debate, I don't deny any of that, but he has no right to completely change the rules of a tournament in his favor, screwing over the chances of other debaters in the process. Your post isn't a "reasonable middle ground" from my point of view. It's acquiescing to an establishment content with creating a more divisive, politically factioned, and unequal debate community.

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Mon, 4 Apr 2011 19:44:55 +0000

I completely disagree with your statement about political power. "AT knows when he can call in a favor and how large of a favor he can expect. in this sense, AT may not actively abuse political power, but he definitely *has* political power which works in his favor, whether he actively wields it to lean on people or not. for less influential people, a strongly-worded rule seems clear-cut; when you're close with the people who make the rules, you can find room for a rule to bend." I think my statements about what happened at the Harvard tournament definitely show an active *abuse* of political power. It is simply not fair for these rules to be broken (not bent) for the benefit of people who happen to have more political power. When the Harvard tournament director told Aaron that she, and I quote again, "would not do this for anybody else." that displayed a favoritism that necessarily excludes everybody else from this benefit, creating an uneven playing ground at a tournament. A type of skew that can be corrected by simply not being manipulative. It is wrong for somebody to wield political power and use it to completely change the outcome of a round. It is wrong because it necessarily screws over another hard working kid over in the process. Even if you think this kind of social influence "isn't unusual", it's still wrong. Issues like socioeconomic status might be impossible to solve for when trying to level the playing ground at debate tournaments, but political power is something that you can voluntarily withhold from exercising. It's something you can actively do to make the event more accessible and less intimidating for others to participate in. And if you are complacent with this, it's just contributing towards a depressing downward spiral for our community.

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Mon, 4 Apr 2011 01:23:26 +0000

Hey Megan, it seems to me that your feelings align with those of us urging for transparency in the debate world. I've told a lot of debaters to post their feelings because the event is about them, not coaches, directors, or judges. Thanks so much for contributing to this discourse and revealing the underlying problems with our community at present.

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:59:31 +0000

Finally, an opportunity to change my name. Take that, grade school bullies.

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:42:08 +0000

Apparently I can't edit posts now. Either way, noanon123 had a valid point. I forgot to convert the last four numbers. Comments requesting explanation for the Harvard prelim round: 5% Comments about the 2008 controversy: 4% Comments "attacking" Jalon: 1% Comments attacking Aaron Timmons: 5%

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:15:49 +0000

Hi again. Here are some stats regarding this terrible and vitriolic lynch mob on VBD. (I'm only taking a look at VBD comments. May have missed some on the second page when it was updated.) Comments congratulating Jalon: 10.5% Comments congratulating other people on qualifying: 16% Comments requesting explanation for his qual without bids: 21% Comments requesting explanation for the Harvard prelim round: 0.05% Comments about the 2008 controversy: 0.04% Comments "attacking" Jalon: 0.01% Comments attacking Aaron Timmons: 0.05% TOTAL: 47.65% of total comments*** *I counted ABlay's comment as attacking Jalon, even though it was just really attacking the practice. Not implying that ABlay was initiating any personal attack on Jalon's character. **Some comments have involved more than one of the categories at the same time. ***Whoops, forgot about sub-threads. Apparently those comments are a part of the total comments reported. The actual percentage of total comments (and the numbers before) should be somewhat higher.

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Sun, 3 Apr 2011 21:22:51 +0000

This is merely an avoidance of directly addressing the issue at hand. For those wishing to speak of the "glass house" that I live in, feel free to bring it up in another discussion regarding my competence as a judge. Or maybe in a thread regarding Aaron Timmons' inability to distinguish me from Eric Han, a debater from Stuyvesant. Feel free to get a better prescription for your glasses before thinly veiling your accusations of racism towards others in emails to TOC committees, Aaron. Your ridiculous statements in those emails will be leaked, and it will add onto the mounting evidence of your anti-competitive nature. I come from a school in Iowa with absolutely no political influence. What I witnessed was one person specifically telling Aaron Timmons that for absolutely nobody else but him, the rules would be broken. Apparently Aaron Timmons lives in a different world where rules, addressed in ink, do not apply to him. I want this issue to be addressed, not pushed off to the side. Many debaters have come up to me, thanking me for posting on VBD. I asked them why they didn't support me publicly and they informed me that they were too afraid of the political repercussions for them or their own debaters. This intimidation is disgusting and repugnant. I am not afraid of your threats. Nor should anybody else supporting the health and vitality of debate as a welcoming and friendly community. EDIT: I should also clarify that I was an eyewitness to the ridiculous abuse at Harvard. I was standing right next you all of you, listening to that exchange. I, among many others, want an explanation and an apology. Address the issues in a clear statement, not a wall of text dismissing everybody. EDIT 2: "Nor will we tolerate any further unprofessionalism and disrespect of Mr. Timmons..." This is a great line. I guess we both live in glass houses, Aaron.

VBD: High School Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum : At-Larges Alerted

Sun, 3 Apr 2011 18:26:25 +0000

Hi everybody. I had the pleasure of two wonderful interactions with Aaron Timmons at the Harvard tournament. The latter of which was outrageous rudeness and disrespect, but the former was a flagrant use of political force to break, not bend, the rules of the tournament. The prelim round where Bodine was supposed to hit Ridge, I arrived at the room a good 10-15 minutes early. Sitting across from the entrance was the Ridge debater. I brought a chair over and waited for the round currently in the room to be over. Once the round was finished, I entered the room, along with the Ridge debater, and waited the full time as stated by the Harvard Tournament rules (and printed out on ballots) before dropping Bodine. I handed in my ballot with absolutely no problem, but somebody then came up to me afterwards to say that Mr. Vaughn needed to talk to me. Assuming I had just forgotten to sign my ballot, I went up only to be greeted by Mr. Vaughn, Aaron Timmons, and the Harvard tournament director. They quizzed me as to what happened in that round, and I told them what was previously stated. They nodded their heads, and decided to accept that as fact. Then, out of nowhere, Aaron Timmons gave the excuse that Jalon was simply in the building, and "near" the room itself. And that, apparently, was justification for not dropping Bodine with no speaks for being late and instead giving both debaters a double win. The tournament director then told him that she, "wouldn't do this for anybody else." This was, and still is, a bombshell. This should not happen in debate. This should not be allowed in debate. I don't know what reaction there should be, but I do know that Aaron Timmons should issue a public apology for his anti-competitive use of political force in debate. EDIT: Aside from Aaron Timmons, I also believe that the Harvard tournament director, I don't know what her name is, should also apologize for her actions. While I don't believe Mr. Vaughn had any role in allowing this to happen, the Harvard tournament director specifically accepted Aaron Timmons' proposed alternative outcome to that prelim round. This is a huge black mark on the Harvard debate tournament.