homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:51 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:57 am
Posts: 124
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Check your fridge.
marinadelayne wrote:
Yasssss please. Seriously wishing nats was actually in Seattle.


Good luck finding judges for a conservative debate tournament in Seattle.

_________________
Benjamin Vincent, RII Alum
Biola University '21
www.lifeinthesunrise.com

"Everything in this world is either a potato... or not a potato."


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Masked Midnight wrote:
1. They just adopted this in Texas this year like in R8.
2. Texas has at least 3x as many debaters as SC does.
3. I expect it may fail in TX too. :?

Sorry, but this isn't accurate. I can't speak to what they did in 2014 though I believe it was the same, but there is absolutely no doubt that they used this system in 2015. Go to the NCFCA website, check under "opportunities" in your account, and view Region 4's 2015 tournaments. They had 3 regular state-wide qualifiers (Shawnee, Austin, & Frisco) and then two District qualifiers (Wylie District A, Conroe District B). You can further compare the District A and B results to see that there weren't teams that went to both (at least in debate, I'm not spending my time going through the whole list but I wouldn't doubt it). http://www.ncfca.org/login/my-ncfca/opp ... region-iv/

I was also under the impression that this system was in place in 2014 (especially as there are 6 qualifiers and I remember it being bruited around a while back), but I can't be certain.

The fact of the matter is this: we do have a blueprint to work off of. This isn't something that hasn't been tried before. Our regional co-ordinators (at least those that I've talked to 1 on 1) agree that the new system will alleviate many of our problems. I'm not a huge fan of it yet and I'll wait and see how it works, but we can't be so quick to pass judgement on a system when we can't get it straight whether it has existed in the past or not. I'd almost say that the fact that it seemed so subtle in region IV is a testament to it's possible success in our own region.

EDIT: That doesn't mean I don't feel like this move is a bit premature for our region. As Razi mentioned, our region still seems a LOT smaller than Region IV and I don't anticipate having Octafinals in TP (as Region 4 did) in any of our District-wide tournaments this year.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:12 pm
Posts: 74
Home Schooled: Yes
The biggest kicker for me was definitely the location of nationals. I'm from PA, live in a family of 8, and my dad is an English teacher so we were struggling to make it to NATs this year. I am EXTREMELY disappointed at the location of nationals for next year and am not sure about how I will get there :cry: . Oh well I guess I better start babysitting and mowing lawns right away :lol: .

_________________
Lincoln Douglas 2012-2013
Anastasi/Clarahan 2013-2014
Anastasi/Anastasi 2014-2015
Anastasi/Anastasi 2015-2016
Anastasi/Anastasi 2016-2017
~~~
Arete TP Club :becool:


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:55 am
Posts: 211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: VA
I'm just hoping Region IX can have octas for a tourney or two again. XP

_________________
NCFCA Region IX (FASD)

Reagan Bass/Justin Moffatt '12-'16


Retired.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:13 pm
Posts: 471
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Purcellville, VA
Masked Midnight wrote:
Okay, that's new in 2015. Hm. I would say that the majority of their qualifiers were regional, with only 2 district qualifiers.
I'm not a RIVer (obviously :P), but, from talking to RIVers, I was under the impression that they had limitations on how many tourneys people could go to in 2014 (possibly even before then...I just wasn't around to hear anything about it). I had been told that there were 6 RIV qualifiers, but that each family was limited to go to a maximum of 4. Maybe it wasn't an official district system, but it seems like it was the same basic idea. Though I could have simply been misinformed...

JustM.e wrote:
I'm just hoping Region IX can have octas for a tourney or two again. XP
ditto. >.>

_________________
RIX Alum | Patrick Henry College | Class of 2019


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Masked Midnight wrote:
We've never been so short on judges that a tournament didn't work out;

Talk to the state reps. We came very very close.

Masked Midnight wrote:
Couple that with the fact that SC (and even Florida) are minuscule in comparison to Texas, and you have a problematic system.

We aren't that small. Look at LD. We have double octas at every tournament. And speeches, we've had extended semis in several events over the qualifiers because we've been so big.

Masked Midnight wrote:
Furthermore, prohibiting students from competing against others in their same region most of the time does not help anyone...only hinders them

Listen, it's not like they wanted to do this. The logistics are getting to the point that we simply can't continue on the same path that we've been traveling on. See my above post if you doubt the logistics and the opportunity cost for students who aren't able to be as committed as they'd like to be.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Masked Midnight wrote:
The fact of the matter is, we've never canceled a tournament on behalf of judges because the community is so strong.

And no one in my immediate family has died from not wearing a seat belt. I guess I don't need to wear them.

Masked Midnight wrote:
@Speeches + LD: And most of those LDers are from FL, so they're all going to be competing in the same district anyway;

This isn't entirely true. Granted, Florida does have a lot of LDers, but not so many that it would seriously imbalance the league. Plus, what about speech? Also, are you ignoring that SC tournaments are generally the largest? That's no accident or anomaly.

Masked Midnight wrote:
I agree that we have a commitment problem in the league, but I don't think we can fix it by severing off competition which is an incentive to work hard in order to do well.

Because maintaining the hardest competition will incentivize the filling up of the bank accounts that belong to these families. Right, I see where you're coming from.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Masked Midnight wrote:
Quote:
Talk to the state reps. We came very very close.
Every tournament in NCFCA history has been close on something, especially national opens and nationals. By this logic, we should not have a National Open in NC because it's too big. The fact of the matter is, we've never canceled a tournament on behalf of judges because the community is so strong.

@Speeches + LD: And most of those LDers are from FL, so they're all going to be competing in the same district anyway; if anything, this illustrates why the system won't work because your SC tournaments will be tiny. Remember too that Nats in Spokane is going to render less competitors nationwide as well, especially from R8.

Masked Midnight wrote:
@Not wanting to do this/logistics: There actually is an incentive to do this because it means more tournaments and, from an economic perspective, more revenue as a result. I agree that we have a commitment problem in the league, but I don't think we can fix it by severing off competition which is an incentive to work hard in order to do well.
I don't see much merit in this argument. Before you might have had 250 students in Region 8 who could go to 4 qualifiers. Lets say that each student spent $50 at each qualifier on average and you have a grand total of $50,000 in revenue from such payments. Switch to this new system. You have 250 students who can go to 4 regional qualifiers who still pay $50 per event. Nothing changes in regards to membership or increased funds. Also, I object to your insinuation that the NCFCA is basically going "Moaarrr moneyyyyy!!!! . . . let's make all these kids go to extra tournaments because of . . . :? . . . :shock: . . . reasons!!!"
There are legitimate reasons for change. The tournaments are too big. Yes, it is highly unlikely that the results of a tournament would be cancelled because we can always delay rounds long enough to get some exhausted parents the necessary ballots. But this isn't the ideal situation and the NCFCA can't be self-sustaining as far as judges go. I would disagree that "the community is so strong." As I believe has been mentioned above already, the tournaments have stretched way over-time in the past due to lack of sufficient judges. It's not enough to simply get by with tournaments. We need tournaments that can be run and managed efficiently, and the former system wasn't allowing for this.
From a student's perspective, I've enjoyed Regional-wide tournaments and will miss them, but we have to put ourselves in the shoes of the parents and administrators.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
When they come out with the rules for Biblical Interpretation then we can determine whether it is a bust or not. It doesn't sound like it's going to be a hot speech but it could be interesting. I tend to agree with Razi that it doesn't have that high of a ceiling in my opinion.

I also find it hard to defend the idea that Region 8 is large enough to warrant dividing it in half. Delays were common but not something that I felt couldn't be overcome. However, I respect the leadership and my State and Regional co-ordinators enough to know that they are making the decision that they have mulled over for many months (since at least September) and have thought about the issue a lot more than any of us students have in just the last week or so.

@prepping 30 teams vs 10 teams. This just isn't so. It's not like the whole region went from every tournament being 35 teams to EVERY tournament being 12-18. Those who are dedicated in the first place will still put in the work. Those who aren't dedicated (namely the novices or those who are too busy otherwise) will still be able to get the important experience of the NCFCA without being overwhelmed (also, smaller tournaments gives the opportunity for debaters to reach out to those who they otherwise wouldn't, fostering better participation and greater interaction with novices). For myself, I'm going to be prepping for ALL the cases that will be in the region, because I intend to go to both the Region-wide tournaments and the National open. A district-only tournament will afford me the opportunity actually have some down time before the tournament, even though I'll still get the same educational value via my participation in the other tournaments. Basically, this argument should be changed from "Prepping 30 cases for 4 tournaments" to "prepping 30 cases for 2 tournaments and prepping 10-15 for 2 others." To me, it means that I can actually focus more on the cases that I will likely hit and I can actually develop my skills against SPECIFIC cases rather then just go gun-ho on 35 cases that I have a very small probability of hitting.

It is whatever you make it out to be.

@parents & administrators spending money. Not sure what argument you are making here. There are a few cases (poor Mrs. Shelton :( ) where parents will have students in both District A and B and will be commuting a lot, but this is not in any way descriptive of the rest of the system. I don't anticipate anyone other than those in that unique situation and perhaps the regional coordinator (and even our coordinator missed a qualifier or two this year) to have to be present for all 6. For the most part, those who are involved in organizing a tournament are involved regardless of their proximity to the tournament. Also, given that tournaments are so much closer it will cut down on many of the associated expenses. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your argument.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 2:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:03 pm
Posts: 10
Home Schooled: Yes
Nationals in Washington? WHAT!!!!! No, no, no! :o

_________________
Benjamin Anastasi, Region X
"It is our choices that show who we truly are, far more then our abilities," - Albus Dumbledore

Anastasi/Anastasi 2014-2015 - WPACO

Anastasi/Anastasi 2015-2016 - Cosmos Debate Club
Anastasi/Anastasi 2016-2017 - Arete


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Masked Midnight wrote:
This is a false analogy. People do die from not wearing seat belts, but there has never been a tournament cancelled for lack of judges.

Fair enough, the United States should stop guarding their Nuclear Weapons. No one has ever stolen one. But aside from getting hung up on analogies, you surely see my point. The concept of preemption? The signs were clear last year that we are very short on judges. This problem is going to continue into the next year. Why should we wait until a tournament becomes void before we take action? Do you realize the consequences? The time and money of hundreds of students wasted because we didn't have the common sense to see the train coming and get off the tracks. If you want to question the potential of this problem, talk to our state reps like I have, they know about our judging situation for certain and they know that there is a problem.

Masked Midnight wrote:
FL has the most competitors. Yes, SC tournaments tend to be the largest but they would not be if you didn't have the FL and NC teams coming in to compete there. I'm saying that if you nix FL, those tournaments would not be quite so big.

SC+GA+NC=Close enough to FL. Granted, maybe not a perfect split, but it doesn't have to be.

Masked Midnight wrote:
No, but it will encourage kids to dedicate themselves to the competition in order to prep 30 teams rather than 10. That takes more time and dedication; prepping harder for the NC Open than you did for the SWU Qualifier should illustrate this point.

Razi, poor people in NCFCA are a reality. This has nothing to do with dedication based out of competition. Not everyone can afford to travel 750 miles to a debate tournament. We need more tournaments in local areas in order to facilitate their needs.

Masked Midnight wrote:
At Regionals in 2014, we were perfectly on time

You're right. In 2014 we were fine. But we aren't in 2014. I'm loath to remind you that your credence is in question here. You haven't been in the league for over a year and these problems have to do with recent events of how tournaments have been running. I don't believe that your word can be taken for much unless it is backed by statistics and examples. Region 8 has a serious problem with logistics of tournaments and the mitigating based on year old experience isn't going to cut it. (Note: This is not a personal attack, simply pointing out that things have changed since you were competing and heavily involved in Region 8)

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
We've reached a sort of mid-way point on most of our arguments so far where I feel we both understand the other person's points but won't necessarily be swayed by them, so I'll "drop them from the flow" so to speak :).
Masked Midnight wrote:
Hammy, if a tournament was going to become void it would have happened already. The NC National Open has been the biggest tournament in NCFCA history and everything went as well as could be expected. Yes, there is a shortage of judges...but that's not something redistricting will actually fix; repairing that problem requires parents and community judges to take action. Less students = less parents, so (in the very least) your judging pool will, in most cases, be proportional to your student turnout in the end.

Scenario 1 (Region-wide):
200 students, 200 parents, 50 community judges
Each student participates in 1 debate and 2 speeches on average (so they are in basically every pattern). We'll assume that they can't get ballots on consecutive events (Debate round 1 and Speech round 1).
Need for speech (8 per room) = 25 rooms and 75 judges. Need for debate = 75 rooms and 100 judges (LD double-flight). 250 judge pool to select 175 ballots.

Scenario 2 (districts):
100 students, 100 parents, 50 community judges
Need for speech = 13 rooms and 39 judges, Need for debate = 38 rooms and 50 judges. 150 judge pool to get 90 ballots.

Ideally we want the highest fraction possible (we want 5 judges going after 1 ballot as opposed to 2 judges going after 1 ballot). It is VERY difficult for the parents to judge in a manner that benefits the students if they are picking up 4 ballots per day. It does make a difference.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Masked Midnight wrote:
Tournaments ran on time and while judges were short, they are and have been in every region ever since I can remember.

That's cool, but R8 is growing. Getting larger and larger. Your prior experience doesn't hold a whole lot of relevance to today, and in actuality, I've been in R8 far longer than you have so if we're talking experience here.... :P Combine that with John Mark's schematic above and what do you get? A slippery slope leading to a looming brink?

Masked Midnight wrote:
R8 could have doubled down on judge recruitment

What do you think we've been trying to do for the last 7 years?

Masked Midnight wrote:
chose different facilities as opposed to dividing the region.

Be my guest to go tell the state reps that they aren't working hard enough to find alternate facilities. I've seen the process of finding facilities, it isn't nearly as easy and simple as you are making it out to be.

Masked Midnight wrote:
Hammy, if a tournament was going to become void it would have happened already.

No it wouldn't. As tournaments grow larger the risk grows larger. This is a solution to counter the growing risk.

Masked Midnight wrote:
The NC National Open has been the biggest tournament in NCFCA history and everything went as well as could be expected.

National tournaments draw more judges than simple qualifiers.

Masked Midnight wrote:
so (in the very least) your judging pool will, in most cases, be proportional to your student turnout in the end.

But the community judging pool stays the same under both scenarios.

Masked Midnight wrote:
This is a bit of a straw man, but for it to work the tournaments would have to be held in more rural areas -- closer to these families. Results require action and I have seen no evidence to suggest that tournaments are switching locales.

It would be a straw man, but it's actually part of the rational for this change. :P More tournaments leads to more options. Under this system we will have two tournaments in Florida. We've never had two Florida tournaments in the past 7 years (at least). This is big opportunity for a lot of the Florida families who typically can't go to any tournaments outside of Florida. It doesn't have to be super local, just by staying in-state reduces expenditures significantly.

Masked Midnight wrote:
Finally, if the league is so concerned about poor families...explain nationals. ;)

Ooooh, talk about straw men. ;) But seriously, think about it. What do all the west coast families have to do every year? They have to make that trip east ward almost every single year. This gives them a better opportunity. Your needs =/= everyone's needs.

Masked Midnight wrote:
If you'd still rather not believe what I have to say,

I would rather believe the tournament officials who actually administer the system instead of someone who simply observes the system. ;)

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Masked Midnight wrote:
It may be growing, but the question is has it grown enough to warrant redistricting? And no, there's no looming brink. Understand that if you have rural tournaments, less community judges will want to venture out there. John Mark's scenario is interesting because in the region-wide system (250 Judges : 175 Ballots :arrow: 175/250 = 0.7) actually has a higher ratio of judges to ballots than the district circumstance (150 Judges : 90 Ballots :arrow: 90/150 = 0.6)). The regional system still works better.
You're missing the math here. Let's apply your numbers and say what they mean. Region-wide tournaments = .7 ballots per judge every 2-event cycle. District-wide tournaments = .6 ballots per judge every 2-event cycle. The fewer ballots a judge has to take the easier it is to run a tournament.
Quote:
Furthermore, what of the 2 regional tournaments? If the redistricting concept is so laudable, why not abolish the two region-wide tournaments? The setup literally contradicts itself.
Quote:
It fluctuates based on locale.
I think you answered your own "contradiction." Some areas you can get more judges than others. This is where I feel some of your "Texas still has large tournaments" argument breaks down. For one, everything is bigger in Texas :D, but also there are larger facilities and cities to choose from with greater communities and conservative community judges. Go back to the schematic and find a facility that gets us 100 community judges, and you can have 200 students, 200 parents and a .6 ratio of ballots-to-parents.
A big issue in Region 8 has been that we can't find SUFFICIENT facilities that can support our needs. We had one or two that were large enough (SWU perhaps, and Anderson maybe), but we had a terribly difficult time of getting 4. I remember early in the year when many of the parents were asked to pray for a facility because it was likely that we would only have 3 qualifiers (we only got the last one at the last minute). There are facilities that could host smaller tournaments, but we've outgrown many of them with the Region-wide policy (I've been told we've outgrown CIU and Columbia College, but I can't be sure on that end). As it is, the new policy limits the region to 2 Large tournaments as opposed to 4, and 4 smaller tournaments that are easier to manage. The question becomes: Do you want to have 3 qualifiers because we are too big? or do you want 6 and you can participate in 4?

Also, I'm all for having Nationals in Texas.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: NCFCA Resolutions
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Masked Midnight wrote:
Region 4, even post redistricting, have tournaments larger than in R8. They seem to manage well. Furthermore, what of the 2 regional tournaments? If the redistricting concept is so laudable, why not abolish the two region-wide tournaments? The setup literally contradicts itself.

Well that's because there is merit to your argumentation. :P Splitting friends, competition, etc. They don't want the defects and harms that your describing, but at the same time you do have to take into consideration the problems that John Mark and I are putting up. The solution attempts to mitigate both sides of problems and I believe that it will work because like you're describing, there is no certain brink. We can fly under the radar if you will and harvest the best of both worlds.

The three issues that the solution is trying to fix.

1. Facility size:
See what John Mark said.

2. Limited judge pool
Masked Midnight wrote:
I'm saying that you need to find places that are accessible to community judges,

Ah good point. Community judges do depend on locale. But when we only have a limited amount of locations who can host us while we're that size (mind you a total of 1 facility in Florida) our choices are too limited. We don't have the luxury of picking areas with ideal locales and our community judge pool is threatened.

3. Poor people
Masked Midnight wrote:
Who decides which way split that up and how?

I don't understand, could you elaborate? Not sure how this relates to there being at least two tournaments in Florida which is double what we normally have.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited