The Purpose of DCAs

[tinfoilhat]

Having observed with some interest the activities with DCAs, particularly at major IVs in recent years, what is the function, purpose and necessary qualification for being a DCA. There seem to be very widespread disagreements about the criteria and purpose, and it seems to me if there was ever a purpose for a board like this, it is to discuss the nature of this role.

I hope people can manage to both keep it clean, while being honest, though doubtless a discussion like this can only go so long before a foolish remark is made, or rather than respond to the merits of the statements made, someone tries to respond to the merits of the person making them. That is really neither here nor there. The only basis for criticism of qualifications is if one actually stands for the position of DCA.

There seem to be several recognised reasons for DCAs:
* Regional representation
* Help minimise the workload of the CA
* Provide a recognised figure of undisputed credibility who gives confidence to others (usually from different regions) as to the results reached, draw, adjudication allocation, topics, etc.

What is the threshold for being a DCA, or CA, at a major national IV, an international IV, and at Worlds? Is it enough merely to have been a very good adjudicator, or should you have won the IV, or achieved very good results at it?

[Tom]

Perhaps if you want to generate a conversation like this, tinfoilhat, it would be polite to use your real name and not a pseudonym.

Particularly if you want it to be an 'honest' conversation.

[tinfoilhat]

I don't see how that would be productive, beyond satisfying your own particular view that people on this board shouldn't post anonymously, a view which I notice didn't do your board any favours when it was password blocked.

I don't share your view that people can't discuss things intelligently without leaving their name and number, and it isn't how the internet works. Discussions like this are a good medium for throwing out ideas and letting people be 'honest' in their views, without inviting themselves to be crushed under the weight of what can be a particularly PC environment.

People are usually less "honest" when they put their names to something publically (in this sense the quotation marks you used were actually appropriate, albeit unintentionally), and when this principle doesn't hold true it usually leads to massive splits within the debating community. I think the Asian debating community probably would have gained alot from an anonymous forum to make their grievances before they fell out. So no, even though it would be particularly easy, and even though I'm not ever going to see you personally, I won't be encouraging your views that people need to make their names known to discuss things intelligently, I'll rather be standing be the principle that anonymous hypothetical discussions are broadly good, and intelligent people can respond to the substantive merits of arguments without needing to know who they are.

[Tom]

<<I think the Asian debating community probably would have gained a lot from an anonymous forum to make their grievances before they fell out.>>

What a brilliant idea! So why don't you go away and start an anonymous forum for the Asian debating community, instead of shit-stirring on the Monash board?

For the record, I'm more than happy to have the conversation about the role of DCAs at Australs. In fact I think its overdue. But I'm very concerned about the motives of someone who invites controversial responses on the forum of a club of which they're obviously not a member.

[tinfoilhat]

You've been asked in good faith and nor have there been any personal attacks. The fact that you think I am inviting "controversial responses", particularly after my initial disclaimer, says more about others (particularly your own views) than it does about me. If you feel my anonymous thread is not a suitable place for a discussion, feel free to start your own to discuss this long overdue subject, perhaps entitled "What Tom Chapman thinks about DCAs". I won't hold my breath.

[Duncan]

Thanks Tom. I think someone needed to say it, and better you did than someone else.
As for DCAs, I'm not sure this is the best time to discuss the matter when Keio choosing who to put on their bid. We wouldn't want to criticise some candidates on a forum like this, and make preference to others, as it's not what this forum was intended for. If you have any personal opinions regarding particular applicants, do the same as everyone else and email Keio.

[tinfoilhat]

There will always be an IV around the corner, and as long as nobody names anyone specifically it is difficult to understand why this time is less suited to discuss the "long overdue" subject. Or is there something special about the Keio bid which makes it different to every other bid which happens every other month for some IV or another, who you may inadvertently offend?

Whatever you say will still be on the record later, so if this discussion had been last year it is hard to see how the effect would be different. Particularly with threads a year old still visible on the first page of this forum. It seems to me that what you're really calling for is for this discussion to not happen ever (in public), which is what I feared when Tom made his initial posts.

[Tom]

I agree entirely with Duncan. Anybody with an opinion on the issue should e-mail the Keio Australs committee with their thoughts on what should qualify someone to be a DCA, as well as their thoughts on the candidates. I'd encourage as many people as possible to send them feedback. Particularly from Australian universities, as Japanese debaters only have limited contact with Australian debating.