I alluded to this objection in my post.

I understand that there are once-in-a-generation debaters that are extraordinary. I myself lost to Sid at the Minneapple after you called out "Richfield KP" on the big board at that tournament in 1999. Though to make this reminiscence germane, I recall being impressed by his ability to thoroughly defeat me while maverick rather than aggrieved by the notion that he wasn't being held back by an inferior partner.

However - reasonably speaking, strategic calculations that could factor into Scott Phillips jettisoning a partner for the TOC don't really map onto JV state, and allow me to aver that the reason this is a big deal for me is that I have an odd number of JVers, not that I want to game everyone to get a JV or Novice title. I believe that in the overwhelming majority of cases, going maverick puts the contestant at a significant strategic disadvantage.

Note also that your objections to mavericks and my objections to prohibiting them can be permed - just don't allow more than one maverick per division per squad. That would solve any gaming as I find it hard to believe any coach would tell Darren to stay home from the state tournament.

Ultimately I don't think you're really interacting with the weighing in my initial post. Empirical defense is on my side - last year there were mavericks, the year before there were mavericks (and in years further back I have every reason to believe they were there too), and they didn't wreak paths of unfair competitive destruction. And I don't think "the rules are the rules" is that strong of a weight against "let my students debate" when the rule is a departure from the past and was created (perhaps not intentionally but in effect) without full community participation.

Dan, this is going to come across as picking on you.  I suppose it is, in some ways, but it's not intended to be personal.  There are others I want to address too.

It's not like these rules just came out this week.  They were adopted in September, and were publicized at the time.  They have been posted on the JoT site for the JV/Novice Championships ever since it went up (weeks ago).  Raising objections to them during the week of the tournament isn't the most productive timing. 

Also, while people certainly have legitimate conflicts with meeting dates, that's why we schedule two sessions.  One person, other than Chris and myself, showed up at CTAM.  That's why people could communicate objections to MDTA leadership in advance of the meetings.  None did. 

I think Chris is offering a reasonable compromise. 

All that aside, Dan, I believe your interpretation of the electronic communication rule--that it only prohibits communication during the debate--is correct.  The intent is to prohibit debaters from getting coaching or assistance while the debate is taking place.  If called upon during the tournament to make a ruling, I can't see myself voting to sanction anyone for providing materials to their student or teammate by electronic means before a round starts. 

I think he is too. I'm more addressing the people who spoke up to object to it.

By definition, if Scott gave every speech in a round he would have to take a loss.  Also, this is a dangerous precedent.  I strongly urge the MDTA to adopt a rule which prohibits a maverick debater from debating himself/herself in a prelim. 

 Alternatively, the MDTA could adopt a rule that allows double wins if and only if  a maverick debates her/himself. I favor this rule as the last thing we need to do is give already privileged maverick debaters the assurance that they will not debate themselves, keep em scared, so they can't just break down the bracket and spend a couple hours prepping their certain opponents. This way, they know that any time they spend prepping to make themselves difficult to beat might come back and bite them in the ass. 

All I know

JV Quarters

Edina SS d. Bloomington HF (Harris/Fontaine) - Coates, Sun, Shaw
Wayzata PP d. EP CL (Clayton/Li)
Wayzata ES over Wayzata BS (Bahls/Sun)
Blake MM d. Bloomington GP (Gibbs/Phan)

Semis

Edina SS vs. Wayzata PP - Panneck, Stafford, Shaw
Wayzata ES vs. Blake MM

Edina and Blake in finals

Congratulations to all of the teams that competed at this weekend's MDTA JV/Novice State Championship held at Eagan High School.

In Novice Public Forum Benilde St. Margaret's BE wins on a 3-0 over Anoka HK

In JV Public Forum Eagan BB closes out finals with their teammates Eagan PW and takes home 1st place on higher seed.

In Novice LD Lakeville North Sam Anderson wins on a 3-0 over Eagan Andrew Friedman

In JV LD Edina Tara Gupta wins on a 2-1 over Apple Valley Luke Stuttgen

Currently in Policy Debate Finals

Novice Policy Debate Eden Prairie CP is debating Minneapolis South BJ

JV Policy Debate Edina SS is debating Blake MM

I am most pleased to see 9 different debate programs represented in the final rounds at JV/Novice State. Congratulations once again to everyone who attended.

Chris

In the novice policy final:

Eden Prairie CP (aff) d. Minneapolis South BJ 3-0--I was on the panel with Natalia Espejo and Kelly Nickel.

Congratulations to all the participants.

On behalf of the Urban Debate League, I want to say thank you to Chris, the tab room and everyone else for putting on such a terrific tournament. Across the board all of my students said they had a great time and a great experience.  Thank you!

Amy

Congratulations to all of the debaters who fulfilled their goals for the tournament.

Special kudos go to the policy debaters that were still going at 9:54:41 p.m.  This is a testament to your skills, stamina, and commitment to the activity.