Gary Larson Announces End to Career as USA Policy Debate Tab Mentor, Cites Problems in Activity

http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,5389.msg11922.html#msg11922

From Gary Larson:

Many of you know that I have been agonizing for a long time regarding my future role in debate tournament management. On Easter Sunday I wrote a lengthy cedaforum post that described my angst and my reasons for staying engaged with the activity (for more context I suggest re-reading it). In the intevening eight months the tensions have only gotten worse, making my continued involvement increasingly untenable.

After the events surrounding Kentucky and Harvard, I prepared for the Wake tournament with a significant amount of concern but with a mandate to implement a number of goals posed first by the Wake "experiment" and then the modifications we actually adopted. I had just about convinced myself that I had to stay engaged given my wealth of experience managing all kinds of judge placement algorithms, the ability to modify or write new ones if necessary and because I still seem to engender a significant amount of personal goodwill. But I've quickly disabused myself of any "messiah complex." While I appreciate the fact that students and coaches treat me graciously, the system that I've created and manage is viewed by members of both sides of our divide(s) as being a principal source of their concern. And if not a source, it is widely viewed as exacerbating the problems. On both the left and the right (very unfortunate terms), MPJ as encoded in my algorithms and implemented in the tabrooms that I run is viewed as disadvantaging their opportunity to participate fully and fairly in our activity.

I could defend MPJ as simply a tool and a very flexible one at that, but I can't pretend that there is some magic setting or combination of settings that would permit us to simultaneously meet all of our competing and often contradictory goals. And for that matter, I would also express extreme doubt that some proposed alternative, whether it be random with strikes, random with mutuality, affirmative action placement, a return to 4, 6 or 9 categories or even manual placement by an "enlightened" tabroom can succeed in simultaneously accomplishing all of the objectives that various members of our community would want to achieve. As I noted in the session before the tournament, even though I got a degree in AI, technological solutions often can't be provided for what are ultimately human problems.

So absent some flash of lightning or voice from above, Wake will be my last tournament. Since I've made prior commitments to ADA Nats and CEDA Nats, I won't renege if the tournament directors can't make suitable alternative arrangements (they've both been contacted earlier). For the immediate future, I anticipate continuing to provide support to Bruschke and Palmer for the code that I have embedded in CAT. I will also continue to support for those in the NPDA and NPTE community that use versions of STA. But I anticipate that as the community has a frank discussion of how judging should best be assigned, new tools will be created to support that vision.

I want to thank everyone who has been unfailingly gracious and appreciative during the 40+ years that I've been in the activity and particularly the last 28 that I've been running tournaments on computer. During that time, I've observed many times when the death of policy debate was predicted. I trust that persons of goodwill will come together and produce a shared vision for the future of debate that is genuinely inclusive and which trains our students to become effective public advocates in whatever sphere of influence they engage. I wish you all well.