POLICIES FOR HEALTHY COMPETITION AT THE WNDI

1. disclosure policy

--reveal the aff plan/advocacy and advantages/main arguments

--negs reveal the key positions they plan to present in the debate

--students may NOT present arguments that have evidence which is not available to all WNDI debaters

2. optional meetings (eg prep sessions at night/dinner/etc.)--are they okay?

--yes.

--but there are limits.

· you may not start until 30 minutes after bfast/lunch/dinner has begun. kids need food and social time.

· you may not do late night prep sessions (10:30pm to 1am) repeatedly. kids need social time.

--can these meetings be mandatory? no.

--can you encourage attendance at these meetings? yes. that includes talking about how doing this kind of prep'ing is key to being competitive at tournaments.

it should not include any explicit statements of the reverse (eg you will lose; you are lazy, etc. if you don't come to the optional meeting)

3. lab "competition"

--it is healthy to have light hearted and even some level of "real" competition among labs

--lab leaders should make every effort to help their kids do as well as they can--to "win" as much as they can

--attacking other labs as part of the competition is NOT okay. "x's lab sucks, we'll crush them."

--do not encourage students to throw debates, to be walked over, to win/lose for a strategy of who will debate in the next elim, etc.

4. kids interests take priority over lab interests. always. verbally and in practice.

--what are a kids interests? eating healthy, developing their argument skills, etc. they are NOT ones that interfere with the lab. so, this is a balance issue.

--students who are less skilled, less involved. yep, that's life. staff do not make comments in front of students criticizing such students. each kid is valuable. period.

5. staff do not verbally attack each other in front of students. period.

--you may disagree with each other but this should be done respectfully.

· example: "I know staff member believes x. my view is y." good.

· example: "oh yea, staff member and I disagree about that . . ." nice.

· example: "jim is just wrong." oh so bad in so many ways. :)

--ALWAYS MAKE IT CLEAR YOU RESPECT YOUR COLLEAGUE.

--humorous "attacks" are okay too BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT CLEAR YOU ARE

BEING HUMOROUS. and the truth is most irony/satire is lost on kids and can be lost in the heat of competitive moments. SO BE CAREFUL.

6. can and should lab leaders be writing blocks and cases?

--yes.

--but there are limits.

· students should be actively involved in this overall process. Eg helping write additional/different blocks/cases. eg writing part of the case. eg working with you as you write a key block.

· limits. students should feel comfortable and understand the blocks/arguments.

--limits. students should not be forced nor pressured to run your arguments. yes you can encourage but you cannot pressure.

7. when judging

--it is vital that you remain absolutely impartial regarding lab affiliation; your integrity and credibility are on the line; the students' experience is directly affected

--attacking other judge's decisions is not acceptable; we're hear to teach adapting to judges. if there is a serious breach of ethics, it should be brought to my attention--not to other staff nor to other students. examples:

· "the other judges intervened." not appropriate.

· “I was right." not really appropriate--implies the other judge(s) was/were wrong.

· An appropriate example: "I disagree with their decisions. I thought . . ."

--be careful when commenting about evidence saying what a debater claims it says. if you feel it does not--then what you say about this can be construed as an ethical challenge. state specifically and concretely what the evidence says versus the claim made to show you did not believe the evidence supported the claim AND SAY VERBALLY AND EXPLICITLY THAT YOU ARE NOT MAKING AN ETHICAL CHALLENGE.

Click here to Return to the "Before Camp" List of Items to Read

WNDI STAFF PAGES