[GFCA] The By-Laws

[Smiley, Adam]

One more clarification.  By law sections 1.0 (student participation) and 2.0 (school) apply to all tournaments and any rules contained in them would apply to all tournaments.  The tournament sanctioning section (2.51) would apply to all tournaments.  However, no sanctioned tournament would lose its sanctioning for failure to model GFCA policies.  Tournaments can be denied sanctioning for failing to follow the deadlines listed in sections 2.51-2.53.

On Oct 19, 2010, at 11:14 AM, "Bill Batterman" <billbatterman at gmail.com> wrote:

> One quick clarification.  The section of the bylaws where this clause is contained only applies to the State tournaments that are run by the GFCA.  While it is reasonable to expect that most tournaments will model the GFCA state policies, tournament directors will still have the ability to set different expectations.
> 
> Thanks — this is excellent. In Wisconsin, the WDCA's bylaws applied to all tournaments **sanctioned** by the WDCA — tournaments that deviated from the organization's bylaws were technically "unsanctioned" events, something that school administrations—if made aware of—would obviously find objectionable. Unsanctioned tournaments also did not count toward qualification for the state tournament. The Georgia model — GFCA bylaws apply to GFCA tournaments only — is definitely superior. 
>  
> I agree with Jenny, but have one question:  What if a coach works on a file during the 1ac and posts it to the teams' server.  Is it ok to use it?
> 
> I think the "spirit of the law" should be that once the (1)AC (or whatever the first speech is called in Public Forum) begins, the students competing in a particular contest round should receive no assistance from anyone but their partners. Original research is consistent with this norm but assistance from coaches or teammates (including new files/updates) is not.
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thegfca-bounces at lists.gradyspeaks.org
> [mailto:thegfca-bounces at lists.gradyspeaks.org] On Behalf Of Jenny Heidt
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:56 AM
> To: Berthiaume, Maggie; Jeffrey Miller; thegfca at lists.gradyspeaks.org
> Subject: Re: [GFCA] The By-Laws
> 
> I agree with both of Maggie's suggestions but also think that students
> should be allowed to research in debates.  2 important examples re: why
> this should be the case:
> 
> 1) A few years ago where there was some very surprising aff T
> evidence--a search during the debate revealed that it was fabricated.
> 
> 2) A politics DA was read that had passed.  The aff found one card
> saying "it passed."  The judge did not know either way so that was
> critical and prevented what would have been a fairly dumb debate from
> occurring.
> 
> If a position is so bad that it can be beaten with a card or two found
> during prep time, why not?
> 
> Also, we have our files on email and a server.  If someone forgot to
> download something, why couldn't they access it?
> 
> So, I think that the rule should exclude electronic communication
> between anyone besides the partner but not otherwise limit internet
> access.
> 
> Jenny
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> thegfca mailing list
> thegfca at lists.gradyspeaks.org
> http://lists.gradyspeaks.org/listinfo.cgi/thegfca-gradyspeaks.org
> _______________________________________________
> thegfca mailing list
> thegfca at lists.gradyspeaks.org
> http://lists.gradyspeaks.org/listinfo.cgi/thegfca-gradyspeaks.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> thegfca mailing list
> thegfca at lists.gradyspeaks.org
> http://lists.gradyspeaks.org/listinfo.cgi/thegfca-gradyspeaks.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gradyspeaks.org/pipermail/thegfca-gradyspeaks.org/attachments/20101019/d6e4c2b6/attachment-0004.htm>