From Brian DeLong:
Digital Presence Debate @ Vandy 2013
Intro/Explanation:
Indiana University will be experimenting with digital presence debate at Vanderbilt. The team of Joey Peculis/Ben Smale (IU PS) will have one physically absent member during the tournament. They will be digitally included in the debate via livestreaming technology. We would like to thank our opponents, judges and Vanderbilt University for accommodating our needs during this time. This document is a quick explanation of what we’re trying to do as well as a few FAQs and answers for our opponents and judge.
How does it work?:
PS will have a setup at Vandy as well as the IU campus. The Vandy setup will include a movable webcam, external speakers, a quality USB microphone, a dedicated computer and monitor for processing video and audio. The setup at IU will be the same. Ben will have a quality mic, headphones (to help avoid feedback), an external webcam, a dedicated computer for handling processing, and his usual debate computer. At Vandy, if available, we will use classroom projector equipment to make Ben more “life-size” Files will be shared with our opponents via dropbox or an email chain, whichever you prefer.
Failures, speech time and prep time:
We recognize the inevitable failures that may occur while we try to innovate this new practice. We want no special treatment, the “debate time rules” are a necessary component of running tournaments. This is what we ask (of course judge preference will determine how we precede):
1) Opponents, please setup file transfers methods before the start of the debate. If the speech document changes radically from the speech presented, please make sure you share the “clean” speech doc ASAP so Ben can have it.
2) In the event of a tek failure (loss of sound), start a timer that subtracts time from our preparation time, not the speech time. Ben may not know he isn’t being heard. Once our prep time is out, speech time will continue. If everything collapses, Joey will debate as a maverick. Let’s hope this doesn’t occur!
3) If the internet crashes. This team will have a mifi device. To reduce bandwitch overusage, we will try to limit video usage during the debate. Audio will be the main focus.
Audio:
Audio is the most important hurdle for a debate to occur. We ask that our opponents please help us out before the start of the debate by doing a quick “mic” check. If you’re too loud it can cause distortion, if you’re too quite Ben won’t be able to flow you. We can do the same to make sure you get used to his voice and/or express any concerns you may have.
Cross-Examination:
At the moment we’re having issues where people cannot talk over one another. Programs automatically “mic switch” where only one mic can be active at once. This may be fixed by R1 or it may be an issue for the first tournament. If this is an issue here is what we suggest and will strive to do:
1) Ask questions directly and clearly.
2) We will not take advantage of your CX time, our answers will be limited, clear, and concise. We will not “takeover” your valuable time. Ben will stop and wait if you need to ask a follow up question.
3) IF #2 “best practice fails” waving at the camera will alert Ben that he needs to listen.
Hand Signals:
1) Wave at Ben if you want him to listen and not speak
2) If Ben needs to be louder point one finger upward at the sky
3) If he needs to be quitter, point one finger down at the ground
4) If Ben asks a question (“Are you ready?”) and you want to affirm the question, put up THUMBS UP!
Any other questions? Suggestions? We're happy to answer and respond the best we can. Travel starts tomorrow at 7 AM so we're limited in response time until we arrive in Nashville.
From Ben Smale:
I'm Ben Smale and am a freshman debater at Indiana University. Whether or not you have been following Delo's posts about our recent experiment with Digital Presence at Vandy, I would like to explain some of the concerns participating in that forum brought up. My comments on this page will be limited to how my experience will translate to the community at large - I will post my personal thought and feelings about this weekend on my own page after I finish typing this post.
If you are unaware of the Digital Presence Experiment the IU conducted at Vandy, please refer yourself to Brian DeLong's earlier posts. If you want to know circumstances that made this experiment necessary, send me a message either on facebook or at my email: BSmale95@gmail.com. I would be happy to discuss anything from my experiences to accessibility in Debate.
Now to the content of this post. Debating digitally was an experience that I hope to avoid in the future, if my health allows it. I'd like to qualify my previous statement with a huge shoutout to the Vanderbilt squad for being so supportive of our needs, Georgia Tech JS, especially Ricardo Saenz, for being so awesome before the first round with tech help, the judges and debater involved in our rounds for being so accommodating, and the coaching staff here at IU that worked very hard to ensure that I had an opportunity to participate. That being said, debating digitally has a couple implications that are irrelevant to arguments being made or personal history.
1) The Cross - Ex issue - has been discussed extensively in Brian and Caitlin's posts so I will not go into details here. Potentially resolvable, so not a huge deterrent on its own.
2) Non Verbal Communication - Debating through the screen made non-verbal communication with judges much harder. It is difficult to know when your making eye contact, even when you stare directly into the camera, because you cannot see the judge looking back at you. Additionally, the presence of multiple screens with multiple images is disconcerting to say the least. There are other obvious issues with non-verbal communication and not being physically present, which i would be happy to discuss more in depth at a later time.
3) Inherent Barriers to Tech - Debating over the livestream took an aspect out of debate that I find essential to at least my experience. Digital presence at the tournament make round that are occurring seem less real - this impact may be unquantifiable or falsifiable, but it is a very real impact. There is some characteristic of walking into a round ready to put all you got into the next 2 hours that is missing from digital presence. Anyone who's ever played a sports video game after playing that sport will know what I am describing to some degree. Just as the screen makes drone pilots desensitized to violence, the screen desensitizes me to the round, if I could make a topical analogy as well.
4) Social Interaction at the Tournament - I feel like this is the most important and largest downside to digital presence. Debate, especially after lots of the controversy that has occurred recently to which i will not speak of here, is fundamentally a social activity. Debaters are people with personalities, and - although it is hard to believe - judges are not computers that crunch data to determine winners and losers. I do see a certain level of irony that my biggest complaint has nothing to do with the competitive round or the tech being used - but if debate was just isolated rounds the term "debate community" would be an oxymoron. While Blake Hallinan and Caitlin Reynolds gave up much of their time to ensure that I was not abandoned during the time between rounds, and I am eternally grateful for that, digital presence cuts out 99% of social interactions that occur at debate tournaments. That is not a sustainable model for a debater. There is also a further implication - if you are not well known in the community before you begin to use digital presence, then you run the risk of being known as that kid who livestreams in all their debates. This creates an identity based around your impairment, which is harmful for multiple reasons that beyond the basic marginalizes other parts of your identity I have not read enough disability lit to know/understand.
Conclusion: Digital presence is better than the alternative of not debating. If afforded the choice, I would want to physically be there every time. While I believe that this is a great tool to have in the toolbox for making debate more accessible, it would sadden me deeply to see this becoming a norm. I do not know what the alternative is beside no debate, but I think working to find other solutions, if that be preventive medical care or treatment to ensure that people aren't faced with this choice or different travel procedures that might mean being away from campus longer but being safer in travel, or something else entirely, would be a worthwhile investment.
More Concise Conclusion: No Debate < digital presence < pysical presence
No comments:
Post a Comment