Parli Equalization Proposal
UPDATE: The 2011 California State Tournament will admit 48 parli teams.
“Parli Equalization Proposal” was recently submitted to CHSSA in hopes of increasing CA State Tournament allocation for Parliamentary Debate.
Read, discuss, spread the word!
31 Comments to Parli Equalization Proposal
Leave a Reply
FYI…this CHSSA coach’s petition is already circulating in GGSA with the goal of bringing the Parli Equalization Proposal to a statewide vote ASAP.
If PEP is adopted, next year’s CA state tournament will accept 64 entries rather than the current 32 entries.
The rationale for this proposal is included in the PDF, but here’s the thesis: since parli has become the largest speaking event in all of CHSSA, it should no longer get the smallest allocation of entries awarded to the state tournament.
PEP offers tournament planners two options: 1) increase room size on the first day of the state tournament to allow 64 entries each in LD/Policy/Parli; or 2) swap the size of current the Policy/Parli allocations.
Both options are fairer to parli students than the status quo, but it’s my hope tournament planners will always be able to choose option #1 over option #2.
If you are a student & support PEP, please pass this petition along to your coach. If you are a CHSSA coach & want to see PEP go to a statewide vote, please sign & return this petition by February 25, 2010.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think only the head coaches can sign this. You need 10% of all CHSSA coaches(25 coaches) to sign the petition to get it on the ballot. After that, the petition would be voted on by all coaches at CHSSA State Tournament.
Debaters can talk to their coaches about the petition though.
Artem – you are correct as usual. 24 or 25 coach’s signatures (one per school) will qualify this initiative for a statewide vote of all CHSSA schools, not just those attending the state tournament.
I will make sure the PEP gets some notice in SVFL.
I’ll get on it with my coach
What was the rationale for creating the 32 vs 64 dichotomy? Seeing how policy is potentially harmed by the proposal, wouldn’t a 48/48 compromise split be more likely to pass?
I also like the bonus slots idea, but it’s not contingent on increasing slots to 64, so I am not sure why they appear on the same ballot. It seems that if slots increase and bonus slots were introduced as two separate initiatives, there would be a higher chance that at least one of them would get passed.
Despite these criticisms, I think PEP is generally a good idea, and I really hope it garners enough votes.
Thanks for the thoughtful critique & giving this issue space on POI.
We explored the idea of 48 teams competing in debate events & found you’d have to cut the size of both LD & policy to make this work within the existing tournament footprint of 48 rooms. (48 teams also take just as long to finish as 64 teams in a double-elimination format & require an extra bye.) The PEP approach is to ask for more rooms so we can increase the number of slots available for parli without reducing the slots available for other events.
The bit about bonus slots is included only because that’s how the CHSSA constitution is currently written. PEP just says current LD/policy bonus rules apply to any debate event with 64 entries.
I greatly approve, make sure you bring physical copies of this to Debate 4 for coaches to sign.
UPDATE: After yesterday’s final GGSA league tournament, we need only 2 more coach’s signatures to put PEP on a statewide ballot. So far this is done with only GGSA & Sacramento area coaches. If you’re from another league, please persuade your coach to sign & mail or scan/email their petition this week. With your help this will be done.
I’m hoping thursday doesn’t mean 2/25. I’m bringing 5 copies of it to SDIVSL’s qualifying tournament tomorrow
Sam, I sent you an email
Great news! PEP has just been submitted to CHSSA with what we believe are just enough signatures to qualify for a statewide vote in 30 days.
However, if any of the signatures we supplied are rejected by CHSSA, a few more from SDIVSL or any other league will make all the difference in the world!
If you have signed petitions to return, please contact me at the email address shown on the petition form & we will figure out the fastest method of delivery. With your help PEP will be done!
I will post updates here as available.
I think this speaks to what PEP tries to accomplish:
SVFL Qualler:
29 Teams entered in Parli. 2 Qual.
13 Teams in CX. 5 Qual.
That’s 38% qual-success for CX, and a mere 6% for Parli.
Wow there were only 13 entries for policy at SVFL Squals?? Lol, I guess I find that a little funny because I think CFL gets 9 allotted qualifying teams to states…
UPDATE – Official PEP ballots are now being distributed by snail mail & email to CHSSA coaches across the state.
An electronic copy of the official ballot is also posted at http://www.whsdebate.com/OFFICIAL%20REFERENDUM%20BALLOT%20_PEP.pdf
Note the DEADLINE FOR VOTING IS MAY 1ST. Only CHSSA coaches may vote…one vote per school (see ballot for complete instructions).
If you support CHSSA parliamentary debate and want to see our students treated fairly at the CA State Tournament, this is your chance to make it happen.
No more hoping parli becomes a full-scale event some time in the future…a yes vote for PEP will double the number of parli entries offered at next year’s state tournament & offer parliamentary debaters an equal opportunity for recognition & success next season.
If you’re a parli coach, please take the time to cast this important ballot. If you’re a parli student, please bring this ballot to your coach & ask for their vote.
With your support PEP will be done by this time next month!
Thank you all for your support.
Hahaha Does Damien do parli? Doesn’t parli have twice the participation and half the state slots? Even if policy was reduced at the expense of parli, it would still be as fair as possible. By no means can the minority of a community dictate that it should have the majority of power and still remain logical. I expected more from policy debaters. The fact that he liken pufo’s limited participation to parli’s expansive participation is also hilarious. Times are changing and he’s just whining.
Damien’s a policy powerhouse. I don’t think they do any other events at all.
I find it interesting how he distances himself from the underlying debate of Parli vs. Policy.
REMINDER – 3 days left to vote. Link to the official CHSSA ballot above for instructions. Coaches can vote by mail or email. Every vote is needed! Outcome will be posted after results are announced on May 8th.
Is there any new information available as to whether or not it passed? The deadline WAS a week ago.
The PEP vote was counted at last weekend’s CHSSA meeting in Los Angeles where it lost on ballots by nearly a 2-1 margin.
But here’s the EXCELLENT NEWS:
Due to the issues of fairness raised by PEP and level of discussion it produced across the state, CHSSA VOTED TO INCREASE PARLI & PUFO ENTRIES FROM 32 TO 48 TEAMS EACH at next year’s state tournament.
For those of you counting, that’s a 50% increase for both events!
This solution was championed by my respected colleague, Chuck Ballingall, who also assured me this is only a first step as he will continue to push towards full equalization over the next year.
This is how progress is made…
If you had a hand in supporting PEP & speaking out in favor or Parliamentary Debate, then congratulations! This is a good day for us all:)
Awesome news!
Also, will the slots be taken from CX/LD or added to the tournament overall?
The parli community owes Mr. St. Amant and Mr. Ballingall a huge thank you.
Also, will there be bonus slots for leagues that performed well at previous state tourneys?
1) My understanding is that the entry allocations for CX & LD remain unchanged at 64 each. The new Parli/PuFo slots are net additions to the competition.
2) League allocations for the state tournament are not decided until the Fall CHSSA meeting, but I am not aware of any bonus mechanism for the new 48-team fields. Perhaps when ‘full equalization’ occurs, bonuses will be included. For now, it sounds like 4 extra parli/pufo entries for each of the 4 CHSSA Areas. Best guess is you should take the number of parli/pufo slots you had in your league last year & expect it to increase by 50% next year.
Your league president or the delegate who represented your league at last weekend’s CHSSA meeting may have more details/insight.
Unfortunate. At least LD/Policy are unchanged.
i think pufo should definitely have 64, parli im like meh. i guess. maybe 33 is fine with me, 48 is well you should be pretty ecstatic.
I suppose that parliamentary interest/participation has definitely increased over the past 3 years. It makes sense. 32 seems impossibly tough, some of the better teams can get squeezed out =P.
Is it really true that parliamentary is the most popular? this site vs other sites is the smallest. at tournaments, there are more entries for ld. (JOT)
While fairness is important, shouldn’t the lessened educational value of the event compared to others be taken into consideration?
Colleges rank debate events accordingly during applications. shouldn’t we do so as well? quantity NEVER is greater than quality. the quality of debaters in other events is far superior to that of parli. that is also a fact. other debaters work much harder, smarter, and longer, getting much more out of the activity.
harker has what, 10 amazing teams in pufo? lynbrook is pretty boss too, many schools are. CA’s pufo is intense. we had 7 octofinalists from CA in the TOC (correct me if im wrong)
LD and POlicy, CA is amazing as well.
does anyone really do parli out of california? has this thing been contained???
by popularity ,you guys only mean CA right?
There were three CA Public Forum octofinalists at TOC, all of which dropped there.
Interesting point regarding fairness (we have tons of parli debaters, we need more spots) compared to education (parli is the WORST event, all events are better)
Benjamin. In both threads, you have refuted about 10% of the post. Do you agree with everything else which as said?
Also, LOL at 7 in octos.
bad number n00b.
Out of 68 total teams qualled to the TOC, 25 came from the Golden State.
Big schools were lynbrook, harker, mira loma, i forget the others. ohyeah st francis, other schools sent 1-2 teams.
Benjamin, while all CA debaters lost, 2 were aff (harder to win). But that is not important. Let’s look at the sedings for the teams. Harker JJ was the top see, harker had 2 also. st francis was 4th seed. They killed in prelims, but had one unlucky round in octos.
Also, why is a parliamentary debater (you guys don’t even have bids do you?) bashing debaters at the toc. you guys dont even have a toc to go to.
Also, Chin. Read the information compiled on the top of the website please. THe numbers appear to have been crunched, but could use verification. if you are up to it, do so. you might reveal a massive parli conspiracy, bu t i doubt it.
Chin more elitism…huh.
Quantity does outweigh “quality”(however you measure that) in a democracy.
Last time I check the “top” echelon of society doesn’t control government, the majority does. Whats the majority? Oh yeh, more quantity.
And in the grand scheme of things, values between debates truly only matter, marginally. So differences in quality, if any (which I don’t think there are) can’t objectively be measured. But student participation can. More people do the “easier” event and deserve to be recognized. CHSSA advocated the tyranny of the majority by the minority. I consider that unfair.
There was a post on FOL, according to which the increase in the parli field at CHSSA will prevent extempers from double-entering in parli. http://www.forensicsonline.net/forum/showthread.php/8680-CHSSA-forbidding-Parli-Extemp-double-entry-next-year
I wonder if this will cause a shift from Parliamentary to Public Forum for the Extemporaneously-inclined.
I may be wrong, but I think that parli and PF run simultaneously at states. Since PF has also been increased to 48, it seems reasonable to guess that doubling in PF and extemp wouldn’t be allowed either.