1.) this is not a reason to not bring Parli to STOA. Actually, STOA DOES run Parli. The whole debate is over getting it as a NITOC event and in California tournaments. This argument is a blanket generalization that is not necessarily true. Granted, some judges automatically don't like counter plans/anti values/balanced negs, etc. But the way you make many judges to be like is that they are simply always going to vote for the simpelest, least-"debater-ish" cases and dont have minds of their own. This is, quite frankly, very insulting to the many judges who work for our STOA tournaments. I might be misinterpreting your statement, and I'm sorry if I sound mean, but what I think your saying is that Parli should not be an event because judges aren't capable of judging it. (Hint: there's a brand new thing called "orientations." And many parents/community judges are already somewhat experienced in judging Parli rounds.)
While I'm certainly not implying that all parent judges are incapable of fairly looking at a highly technical theory-heavy debate round, I am definitely implying that an overwhelmingly large amount
are. When you have multiple judges in the judging pool that simply will not vote for a counterplan in team policy because they think it's "unfair" (regardless of articulation by the other side), I can promise you easily six out of seven parent judges will not be able to vote fairly or consistently on positions that run exclusively/primarily in Parli.
Arguably, the existence of orientation is counter productive to Parli debate (unlike TP or LD), because it is assumed that the debaters agree upon the rules by consent, excluding the no-written-evidence rule. The parli culture shapes "the rules", not an orientation.
By some parent/community judges, I presume you're referring to the minority of parents that judge on behalf of the college their now-Stoa-alumni debates at. I can think of a grand total of two to three parent judges that fall under this category. Excluding alumni, which would realistically have to be the backbone of the operation, you're simply not going to get the parent judges.
Also, in our club alone, I have examples of parents who are great TP judges, but are absolutely terrified of having to vote for kids based on theory, so they don't judge at all/judge LD. I can't help but think this rings true for other clubs, too, so even (some of) the parents that would normally judge TP won't judge Parli.
2.) I understand the amount of work tab needs to do in order to keep a tournament running smoothly. For mega-California tournaments with 11 IE's and two debate events already, Parli might not be able to be scheduled in. But there's no reason why you can't have debate-only tournaments (such as VCC) or debate plus certain speech events.
Interestingly enough, it's the debate side of things that take most of the tab room time (according to people who work tab I've talked to about this). With that said though, if Parli was going to work, it would almost definitely have to be at a debate-only tournament -- though it seems very unlikely this would work well at a national-level tournament like NITOC.
3.) this was already sort of addressed in points 1 and 2.
Not entirely. Orientation, as I already sort of touched on, is not going to solve for the mindset. With parli, everything should be set up on a timetable. If a judge's feedback is too long, a team takes too long to show up, etc, this single action can eliminate final rounds (and this has happened at several parli tournaments in the SoCal area). The Stoa atmosphere is significantly more laid back, like it or not, and the likelihood of lateness is virtually a given.
[...]My comments on the CUI thread were NOT because I didn't like the Parli resolutions offered.
I didn't say you did. My point was that some
Stoa kids have a habit of bad-mouthing things they don't fully understand (including resolution choices, ballots, whathaveyou). I appreciate that you had complaints about how Parli was run at a specific tournament -- regardless of whether you meant to or not, you came across on that thread like you were ungrateful. You say you're not, and I believe you. Not quite the same story for other kids that will invariably whine about resolutions choices, etc. Again, this is non-unique -- no amount of orientation, pleading or threatening is going to be able to fix this. Impact, parents/coaches are less interested in setting extra events up for seemingly-ungrateful kids.
I could go on about the myriad of benefits of Parli, how students so appreciate and love doing Parli, etc.
Students, you included, obviously enjoy doing Parli. Personally, I like Parli better than TP and LD in terms of educational benefits. However, Stoaers don't actually articulate this except when they don't have it
Granted, some people don't appreciate the work that coaches put into a tournament. But those people can hardly be called the majority, let alone a sizable minority of STOA. And it is simply absurd to assert that all Parliamentarians are unthankful.
No one is saying all Stoa Parli debaters would be ungrateful -- I'd even go so far as to assert maybe 10-15% of the kids would bad-mouth tournaments/coaches/parent judges/resolutions. Definitely the minority. But when an even smaller number of kids go up to parent judges that gave them a bad ballot and openly thank them for their feedback and time, this leaves a void of roughly 80% of the kids that just stay neutrally silent.
My thought is basically this -- if even a fourth of the students went out of their way to be openly thankful and appreciative to the tab staff, directors, parent judges, and so on, the decision-makers that be would be a lot more likely to put in extra effort. Sure, it would still be sloppy-ish, final rounds would have to be cut, you'd get a whole bunch of iffy debates, etc, but it would be there.