Goodness, yes!! And go back to letting competitors tell the judge to ask for.evidence. i would have lost multiple rounds without that ability.
Are you really not even allowed to ask the judge to ask for it?? I think remember telling a judge at nats THIS YEAR to ask for evidence if they didn't believe me.
If that was actually a rule violation, that is the dumbest rule I have ever heard. There are teams that specialize in twisting evidence in the last speech, and the only way to pre-empt them is to warn the judge ahead of time.
4) allow judges to read cards after debate rounds
Making judges go through JO is an understandable rule to put in place. They don't want students explaining evidence to the judge after the round or the judge asking anything about it. Judges that are new might ask things they shouldn't.
1) remove script submission
What?? How do they check if you're cheating or not? Not even Stoa doesn't have script submission.
3) discuss rule violations with coaches, not students
First of all, many people including me do not have a coach.
Second, even if I did have a coach, I would want to argue my own case, not have him in there. I would have to explain everything I did to him in order for him to defend me, which would be a huge hassle and risk a lot of miscommunication.
5) allow, but don't mandate,verbal critiques and disclosure of decisions after debate rounds.
PLEASE no. This would be a tragedy. It could result in all kinds of wacky strategic losses. If you know what your record is, and you are sure you are gonna break, you might be tempted to purposely lose or not try as hard against another team you want to break. Or, if you know you CAN'T break, you may feel bad about spoiling someone else's chances, and might purposely lose or not try as hard. Plus, the mere knowledge that you can't break encourages you to not try as hard, which means anyone matched against you will have it unfairly easy.
7) remove apologetics and biblical interpretion
What's wrong with Apol??
8) stop changing IE categories every year
So that people don't get to try as many events? That sounds like a bad idea. Unless you think they should just keep adding events upon events and have them all at the same time, which is bad because a) there aren't enough judges, and b) there are so many categories that there are very few people competing in each one.
10) institute elections for all leadership positions
Why? What possible advantage is there to electing people? There's no reason to think that some random person that was popular is going to do a better job than Mrs. Hudson, especially when she has so much experience.
_________________Check out my new website!
"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014