2005 Fall CUSIDWest Meeting Minutes
Hugill Cup, University of Alberta – November 26, 2005
VP West, Athabasca, Calgary (Kettles), BC (Teddy), Alberta (Roman / James), Saskatchewan (Ky), Brandon (BJ), [Alaska (Steve)], SFU (Massie)
* VP West report
– CA school / training etc over summer
– Massie’s videos
– Portland tournament, 9 – 11 Dec. (Steve)
– Brandon invitational, 20 – 22 Jan. (BJ)
– French discussion, FL-HS debate in Apr. (Guillaume)
* Tournament debriefing
– Mandatory for all tournaments, posted before meeting (BJ)
– Can codify until blue in face, but if we want them, we should just do it (Crossman)
We will encourage them, posted beforehand, in Western Issues
* Western Issues mod policy
– Current policy arbitrary, let’s limit somewhat (James)
– Pref. open access on request, but Western Issues is intended for business and mod policy should follow (Massie)
… discussion of optics, utility
General consensus on “anyone CUSID-West gets access on request, with a strong moderation policy of ‘stay on topic’ and keep it to business.”
* McGoun
Ky & Shavaun(sp.): U of S is looking for tournament that encompasses how a tournament would be run in Sask. Considering heckling, questions, etc. — Sask style includes a lot of heckling, speaker-POIs, and dislike of tight / spec / researched cases. Think that a lot of style questions should be up to host school. Are well on-track for planning, considering external CA (had some offers already, want to develop local CA talent too).
Teddy: understand that you want to run tournament in certain way, but query why this policy of host sovereignty is good.
Sh: see two divisions in CUSID-West: AB/BC have focussed on some aspects of CP, SK/MB have focussed on others. Seems logical to U of S that when it comes to sub-region, there should be some reflectiveness.
Massie: 5 years ago, Leger hosted wanted to run it in BP style. Three years ago, CUSID Pres went to Dief and said “this is more different than we thought”. CUSID-West said style included canned cases, POIs encouraged, etc. When did we develop idea that there are _two_ western styles?
Sh: look at schools as they are now, Brandon, Regina, & Sask tend to run similar styles, which have a categorized difference.
Massie: this is more of an _emerging_ difference, rather than a recognition of a past difference. Isn’t it better to do this prospectively and recognize style?
Teddy: why, for a title tournament, should the host school decide? Can we, as a region, come up with a defined style? See for instance Worlds.
Mandy: to say that this is emerging loses the point that this is _our_Â style.
Massie: Sask said that UBC Nats style was Western style, and Dief wasn’t.
Crossman: in terms of TD’s discretion (which I think is important), this is a CUSID-sanctioned tournament. While there may well be a or two CUSID-West styles, there is also a general CUSID style that cuts through all regions. And perhaps things like having heckling or questions through speaker do undermine that. But when we have a title tournament, as we did at Nats last year, you have to be willing to bend on questions and make people comfortable for the legitimacy.
BJ: five years is non-trivial, in-house style.
Massie: involvement in CUSID West is part of what defines style.
Kyle: MoA is product of schools coming together to answer question “So, what is your style?” when CUSID asked at Nats bids. Maybe we’ve evolved since then and should revisit style. If there are concerns about canned cases, maybe we need to move towards straight cases.
Teddy: maybe, formally, hosts do have that discretion. But as a region, we ought to set the style etc for tournaments.
Consensus seems to be that we want to have a consensus on style for title tournaments and that we’ll try to hammer this out.