[Ndca-l] NDCA Judge Protocol for Handling Card-Clipping Situations

Chris Palmer palmer
Thu Apr 10 11:33:19 EDT 2014



For future reference, these have also been posted to the website under
the Tournament -> Rules & Procedures heading:

http://www.debatecoaches.org/tournament/rules-procedures/card-clipping-guidelines/

best,
-Chris


On 08/04/14, Joshua Clark wrote:
> Coaches-
> We have included the following in our Protocols for the NDCA tournament in
> regards to the way judges should handle card-clipping situations and
> accusations.
> We look forward to seeing everyone in a couple of days.
> 
> Josh Clark
> 
> 
> NDCA SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR
> 
> CARD CLIPPING ACCUSATIONS
> 
> 
> 
> While the NDCA has come to an agreement on the definition of "card
> clipping," THE SCOPE OF NDCA AUTHORITY DOESN'T GO BEYOND THE NDCA NATIONAL
> CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENT. SCHOOLS WHO HOST TOURNAMENTS should consider
> adopting a similar rule AND POSTING THAT RULE IN THEIR INVITATION.
> 
> 
> 
> In response to a recent rise in the accusations of "card clipping" in high
> school policy, public forum and Lincoln-Douglas debates, on February 2nd,
> 2014 the National Debate Coaches Association approved a definition of
> "clipping." As a result, the NDCA currently defines "card clipping" as, "A
> judge should find clipping has occurred when a debater represents they have
> read five words or more that they did not read in any speech. If the judge
> finds that clipping has occurred the penalty is a loss for the team and
> zero speaker points for the debater who "clipped." If a team makes a false
> accusation of clipping the penalty is a loss and zero speaker points for
> both debaters on the team who made the false accusation.
> 
> Technical malfunction isn't an excuse for clipping. Debaters have an
> obligation to accurately represent the material they have read. If a judge
> finds that students represented they read material that they did not read
> then it's clipping and penalties should be imposed even if the judge
> doesn't think there was ill intent.
> 
> The enforcement is left solely to the discretion of the judge(s) and can
> not be appealed to the tabroom or the NDCA Board.."
> 
> 
> 
> While the NDCA has come to an agreement on the definition of "card
> clipping," the scope of the NDCA authority doesn't go beyond the NDCA
> national championship tournament.  The NDCA encourages schools who host
> tournaments to adopt this or a similar rule regarding clipping and post it
> in their invitation. Tournament hosting schools are also encouraged to use
> the NDCA Suggested Guidelines For Card Clipping Accusations in their
> invitation materials and judge information packets.
> 
> 
> 
> The following are the suggested guidelines for judges in resolving "card
> clipping" accusations:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  At whatever point the accusation happens, the judge should immediately
> pause the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The judge should then read the definition that the tournament provides
> for what constitutes "card clipping."
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Next, the judge should inform both teams that either the accused team
> will be found guilty of clipping and will receive a loss and the offending
> student will be given zero speaker points, or the accused team will be
> found innocent of clipping and the accusing team will receive the loss and
> both receive zero speaking points.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. The accusing team can then decide to continue with or cease in their
> accusation of clipping. In the event that they decide not to level the
> accusation, the debate proceeds as normal. If the accusing team decides
> they will indeed make a clipping accusation the debate ceases and the round
> is decided entirely on whether or not clipping has occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The accusing team then presents their evidence of clipping to the
> judge(s) (a recording, differences in marked evidence documents, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> 6. The judge(s) reviews the evidence and makes a decision on whether or not
> the definition of clipping has been violated or not.
> 
> *In the event that the judge feels that insufficient evidence exists, and
> the judge has no firsthand knowledge the clipping occurred, the win should
> go to the team being accused.
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Judges are encouraged to use this as a teaching moment in the decision
> process. The goal is to provide respectful and helpful instructions to both
> sides while rendering their decision based on the result of the accusation.
> 
> 
> 
> 8. When filling out the ballot, make sure to write the basis and
> explanation for decision so that coaches can be made aware of the context
> of the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 9. Please also alert the tab room so they can note that a challenge has
> been made.
> 
> 
> 
> *All discussion while adjudicating the decision should happen in front of
> both teams. The judge should refrain from any private conversations with
> only one team or debater, so as to maintain complete transparency.
> 
> 
> 
> **None of this precludes a judge, based on their own judgement, from
> deciding clipping has occurred. As has been traditional practice, judges
> are empowered based on their own flow, following speech documents,
> recordings and/or other information that clipping has occurred and to level
> appropriate penalties
> 
> 
> 
> ***These guidelines only apply to the varsity division.  JV and novice
> divisions should be dealt with based on best estimation of intent and
> judges should use the situation as a teaching moment instead of purely a
> punitive measure."

> _______________________________________________
> Ndca-l mailing list
> Ndca-l at lists.debatecoaches.org
> http://lists.debatecoaches.org/listinfo.cgi/ndca-l-debatecoaches.org


-Chris

---
Free Tournament Management software from IDEA:  http://www.tabroom.com
Asst Coach, Lexington Debate: http://www.lexdebate.org
LD & Congress tournament director, NDCA:  http://www.debatecoaches.org





More information about the Ndca-l mailing list