homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:47 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

Which Resolution will you vote for?
LD Rez #1 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
LD Rez #2 8%  8%  [ 2 ]
LD Rez #3 12%  12%  [ 3 ]
LD Rez #4 12%  12%  [ 3 ]
LD Rez #5 16%  16%  [ 4 ]
TP Rez #1 20%  20%  [ 5 ]
TP Rez #2 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
TP Rez #3 28%  28%  [ 7 ]
Total votes: 25
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:42 pm
Posts: 21
Home Schooled: Yes
Stoa just announced the possible debate resolutions for next year. Please tell us what rez you plan on voting for and why. Your options are;

LD Resolutions:

1. Resolved: In the United States, limits on immigration that do not directly pertain to national security are unjustified.

2. Resolved: Providing for the basic human needs of citizens in a society ought to be valued above individual property rights.

3. Resolved: When in conflict, an individual’s freedom of speech should be valued above a community’s moral standards.

4. Resolved: In the United States federal jurisprudence, the letter of the law ought to have priority over the spirit of the law.

5. Resolved: The actions of for-profit corporations ought to held to the same moral standards as the actions of individuals.

TP Resolutions:

1. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform one or more sanctions programs administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

2. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform its electronic surveillance law.

3. Resolved: One or more treaties pending in the United States Senate should be ratified.

For the TP rez I plan on voting for number 3. Firstly because it's unidirectional and I think about time stoa adopt a unidirectional rez. Secondly I think the topic of treaties looks like it could be a very fun and educational topic with some interesting possible affs. Thirdly I think it's narrow enough to prevent weird niche affs that negs could never be prepared for and yet broad enough to allow for a nice variety of cases.
What will your choices be?

_________________
Psalm 40:2 He lifted me out of the slimy pit,
out of the mud and mire;
he set my feet on a rock
and gave me a firm place to stand.

Stoa NC

2012-13 Hackendorf/Smith
2013-14 Hackendorf/Herrera
2014-15 Hackendorf/Young


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:19 pm
Posts: 123
Home Schooled: Yes
I think res. 1 for TP would be nice but the number 3 is good as well. If resolution 3 was adopted I think negs might have a generic foreign entanglements bad brief. The second resolution seems too value centered. Everyone would probably be running the same kind of mindsets such as justice and national security over privacy or the other way around.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:42 pm
Posts: 21
Home Schooled: Yes
atshelton wrote:
I think res. 1 for TP would be nice but the number 3 is good as well. If resolution 3 was adopted I think negs might have a generic foreign entanglements bad brief. The second resolution seems too value centered. Everyone would probably be running the same kind of mindsets such as justice and national security over privacy or the other way around.


Not to mention everybody and they're brother (Literally) running a NSA bad aff. I don't think a 'generic foreign entanglements bad brief' would work agienst every case because a lot of international treaties have domestic implications. My main concern with 1 is that I think because it's bi it could be too broad. Because you could predict affs that remove or reduce sanctions but I don't think it would be fair to expect negs to prepare for affs that increase sanctions. There will be a lot of 'X country is doing things the us is agenst so we should impose sanctions on them so they stop' affs. I mean sanctions are basically the tool for a lot of non-military foreign policy action. Meaning the aff could make a case dealing with a variety of harms in any country on the face of the earth.

_________________
Psalm 40:2 He lifted me out of the slimy pit,
out of the mud and mire;
he set my feet on a rock
and gave me a firm place to stand.

Stoa NC

2012-13 Hackendorf/Smith
2013-14 Hackendorf/Herrera
2014-15 Hackendorf/Young


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:52 pm 
Offline
Is now cool
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 3495
Home Schooled: Yes
I put this on facebook already, but I figured it would have a happy home here.

-LD1 worries me because there's next to no value clash. It essentially forces debaters to concede 'national security' as high value, and debate from there as if it were a fact resolution.
-LD2 is a fantastic resolution that I'm afraid won't be debated well in our republican/libertarian dominated league. If judges and competitors are willing to have open minds it could be great.
-LD3 has some interesting moral implications. It reminds me of the Cartoon Wars episodes of South Park, which could be interesting. I don't know if it's incredibly debatable though.
-LD4 is wonderful. I know that my dearest friend Isaac says he hates it, but this really is a good resolution. It stems from one of the old NFL resolutions, and I've suggested it to the NCFCA in the past. The themes are important and universal, and highly debatable. Tons of apps. Great resolution.
-PLEASE for the love of all that is good and right in the world, please please please vote for this topic. This is an amazing resolution that carries massive political importance, a plethora of examples, wide range of values and real world applicability. Bravo to whoever wrote it, it's an incredible resolution and I can't think of a better way to argue the phrase "corporations are people too!". If my Stoa friends don't vote for this one I will be severely disappointed.

Also TP2 FOR THE WIN <3 It's an amazing resolution. Hands down. Nooo doubt about it.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
I have absolutely no horse in this race, but, my opinions:

LD1: Interesting, but I don't think its a discussion for LD. There's plenty of ground for clash, but the values would take far too long to set up and I think it would devolve into a policy round very quickly.

LD2: Judge bias would be a huge problem with this, also the aff has no protection from the neg just saying "pure communism is bad, yo" and win, because the res has no qualifiers. If they put "when in conflict" in there, it would be much better.

LD3: This would be fascinating, and you could easily use it to critique Stoa/NCFCA debate. I would love to have this res.

LD4: I can't see the neg ever winning this, since again there is no protection for the aff from reducto ad absurdum.

LD5: I have a degree in basically this. This would be fantastic.

TP1: This could be a fascinating topic, but I'm afraid it would be too broad. The US has sanctioned so many countries (not sure which ones are through the OFA) that the neg would have to prepare for everything. Also, because an aff only has to repeal one sanction, they could find some tiny insignificant sanction and win every round.

TP2: Two problems. First, it could change at any time, plus we're learning more about it all the time, so inherency would be a nightmare. Second, and more importantly, a lot of the laws regarding monitoring are classified, so debaters don't have access to them. That would make an informed debate incredibly difficult. Awesome discussion, bad debate topic.

TP3: This. This all day long.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:42 pm
Posts: 21
Home Schooled: Yes
LocutusofBorg wrote:
I have absolutely no horse in this race, but, my opinions:

TP1: This could be a fascinating topic, but I'm afraid it would be too broad. The US has sanctioned so many countries (not sure which ones are through the OFA) that the neg would have to prepare for everything. Also, because an aff only has to repeal one sanction, they could find some tiny insignificant sanction and win every round.

TP2: Two problems. First, it could change at any time, plus we're learning more about it all the time, so inherency would be a nightmare. Second, and more importantly, a lot of the laws regarding monitoring are classified, so debaters don't have access to them. That would make an informed debate incredibly difficult. Awesome discussion, bad debate topic.

TP3: This. This all day long.


Finally someone who agrees that TP3 is the best!

Yeah I never thought about most of the survalence being classified. I can also imagine waking up to go to a tournament and seeing a front page news story that renders your aff un-inherent. More reasons why number 2 is a big steaming pile of number 2.

Let's not forget that the aff could also tweak sanctions and not repeal them. If they knew what they where doing then they could claim the advantages of repealing it while avoiding the disads. If this becomes the rez thats what I plan on doing with my case.
I don't if the aff would beable to pull off affs on tiny insignificant sanctions because you know, the whole stock issue of significance. Also if it's really the insig there's probably not a lot of evidence about it, meaning writing an aff about would be kinda hard.

_________________
Psalm 40:2 He lifted me out of the slimy pit,
out of the mud and mire;
he set my feet on a rock
and gave me a firm place to stand.

Stoa NC

2012-13 Hackendorf/Smith
2013-14 Hackendorf/Herrera
2014-15 Hackendorf/Young


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
Protagonist wrote:
I don't if the aff would beable to pull off affs on tiny insignificant sanctions because you know, the whole stock issue of significance. Also if it's really the insig there's probably not a lot of evidence about it, meaning writing an aff about would be kinda hard.

That's conflating two different stock issues. As long as an insignificant change has significant impacts, they meet the sig SI. Because there's no modifier saying the change itself has to be significant, the aff can make any tiny change they want as long as it has big enough impacts.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:34 am 
Offline
Mr. Grumpy
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:37 pm
Posts: 209
Home Schooled: Yes
In regards to Rez 1 being too broad: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... grams.aspx

There's all of your inherency right there.

_________________
Graham Stacy:
NCFCA & Stoa Alumnus
Author: COG Debate
Coach: ResolvedFL - Sigma Society
USF - Class of '19 - Applied Mathematics


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
I only have one comment, and it's about LD #3. Once you get into the literature, you'll find that most of it is about pornography and obscenity trials, and I imagine that would create a whole lot of hassle and awkward circumlocution that you just don't need. Go do a quick search for "community standards" in the context of free speech law and see what the overwhelming majority is about. The playing field shouldn't be a minefield.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
In regards to Rez 1 being too broad: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... grams.aspx

There's all of your inherency right there.

Right, but here's the page for Libya:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SI ... ain_02.tpl

That's only the actual text, add enforcement, various executive mandates, etc., and factor in that one sentence could be changed to make a topical aff, and you have an incredibly broad res.

EDIT: I agree it isn't that bad of a res, it just isn't great.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:36 pm
Posts: 15
Home Schooled: Yes
So uh...just wondering...has anyone noticed that TP rez 3 happens to like have no actor?

Resolved: One or more treaties pending in the United States Senate should be ratified.

There is definitely good intent backing the idea of the resolution. However, the way it is worded, it would be completely topical to act as a different country and ratify an international treaty that also happens to be pending in the US Senate.

Like seriously a plan with Iran as the actor and the mandate being "ratify the CTBT" would be completely topical under this rez so long as the treaty being ratified was pending in the US Senate. The immense breath/unpredictability would be horrible for 90% of the debaters in the league. Instead of prepping for different treaties, everyone would have to prep for different countries/organizations ratifying the treaties. TP would become Parli (which isn't necessarily bad...but they are two different styles for a reason :D)

I'm also not so keen on TP rez 2 simply because surveillance has been pretty big in STOA since the privacy rez/on the news since the NSA scandal. During LD's privacy year, a huge problem was that people would vote on their per-determined mindsets about privacy/surveillance/all that jazz. The actual debate would never be weighed because of judge bias. Unfortunately, I could see that as a huge (and frustrating) problem in STOA with the 2nd TP rez. For me, that's reason enough not to vote for this resolution.

_________________
STOA 2014-2015| Team Policy - Hasegawa/VonHelms | Veritas CA
STOA 2013-2015| Parli - Hasegawa/Ludlam | Veritas CA


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:37 am 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1378
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
I think LD rez's 3-5 are pretty interesting and sound like good grounds for a debate. My favorite out of those three would be #3. #4 is rather vague and could easily devolve into impassioned yet meaningless argument. Although #5 may provide for an interesting debate because under American law, corporations are legally considered persons, the resolution may be abnormally prone to logical fallacies galore. (Just one I can think of right now: corporations are entities made up of people, ergo, they have the same obligations as people. Part-to-whole fallacy.)

For Team Policy, I prefer #3. The other two are hugely broad and may be prone to judge bias.

The main issue about all of these resolutions is that none of them have gotten me energized or very excited like this year's LD resolution did when it appeared on the ballot. While they are good resolutions, not bad per se, they just don't seem that exciting. But idk, maybe that's just me. I don't like to be pessimistic at all and look forward to seeing how the Lord directs Stoa for the resolutions next year! :)

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
kitkathasegawa wrote:
So uh...just wondering...has anyone noticed that TP rez 3 happens to like have no actor?

Resolved: One or more treaties pending in the United States Senate should be ratified.

There is definitely good intent backing the idea of the resolution. However, the way it is worded, it would be completely topical to act as a different country and ratify an international treaty that also happens to be pending in the US Senate.

Like seriously a plan with Iran as the actor and the mandate being "ratify the CTBT" would be completely topical under this rez so long as the treaty being ratified was pending in the US Senate. The immense breath/unpredictability would be horrible for 90% of the debaters in the league. Instead of prepping for different treaties, everyone would have to prep for different countries/organizations ratifying the treaties. TP would become Parli (which isn't necessarily bad...but they are two different styles for a reason :D).

Interesting thought, I didn't realize that. Usually I would agree that a res needs an actor but in this case not really. Any treaty pension in the us senate would have language specific to the US such that no other country could logically pass it.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:36 pm
Posts: 15
Home Schooled: Yes
LocutusofBorg wrote:
kitkathasegawa wrote:
So uh...just wondering...has anyone noticed that TP rez 3 happens to like have no actor?

Resolved: One or more treaties pending in the United States Senate should be ratified.

There is definitely good intent backing the idea of the resolution. However, the way it is worded, it would be completely topical to act as a different country and ratify an international treaty that also happens to be pending in the US Senate.

Like seriously a plan with Iran as the actor and the mandate being "ratify the CTBT" would be completely topical under this rez so long as the treaty being ratified was pending in the US Senate. The immense breath/unpredictability would be horrible for 90% of the debaters in the league. Instead of prepping for different treaties, everyone would have to prep for different countries/organizations ratifying the treaties. TP would become Parli (which isn't necessarily bad...but they are two different styles for a reason :D).

Interesting thought, I didn't realize that. Usually I would agree that a res needs an actor but in this case not really. Any treaty pension in the us senate would have language specific to the US such that no other country could logically pass it.


What do you mean by that? For example, when the LOST Treaty or the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities were pending in the US Senate, nothing stopped other countries from ratifying that very same treaty.

I actually would really like rez 3 if people couldn't mess around with the actors...but I don't quite see how no actor will have no impact on super crazy cases with random actors.

_________________
STOA 2014-2015| Team Policy - Hasegawa/VonHelms | Veritas CA
STOA 2013-2015| Parli - Hasegawa/Ludlam | Veritas CA


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
kitkathasegawa wrote:
LocutusofBorg wrote:
kitkathasegawa wrote:
So uh...just wondering...has anyone noticed that TP rez 3 happens to like have no actor?

Resolved: One or more treaties pending in the United States Senate should be ratified.

There is definitely good intent backing the idea of the resolution. However, the way it is worded, it would be completely topical to act as a different country and ratify an international treaty that also happens to be pending in the US Senate.

Like seriously a plan with Iran as the actor and the mandate being "ratify the CTBT" would be completely topical under this rez so long as the treaty being ratified was pending in the US Senate. The immense breath/unpredictability would be horrible for 90% of the debaters in the league. Instead of prepping for different treaties, everyone would have to prep for different countries/organizations ratifying the treaties. TP would become Parli (which isn't necessarily bad...but they are two different styles for a reason :D).

Interesting thought, I didn't realize that. Usually I would agree that a res needs an actor but in this case not really. Any treaty pension in the us senate would have language specific to the US such that no other country could logically pass it.


What do you mean by that? For example, when the LOST Treaty or the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities were pending in the US Senate, nothing stopped other countries from ratifying that very same treaty.

I actually would really like rez 3 if people couldn't mess around with the actors...but I don't quite see how no actor will have no impact on super crazy cases with random actors.

I can't wait for the day that the people who write resolutions for both NCFCA and Stoa figure out that resolutions need an agent of action. Two years in a row for the NCFCA, now probably next year for Stoa. You will notice A doesn't have an agent of action either.

It depends on what you consider to be part of the treaty. Quickly glancing at a couple of these treaties, the text itself is admittedly non-specific to any country. However, the document that is pending before the Senate includes a few pages written from the Secretary of State or President to the Senate in addition to the treaty itself. This includes language that is specific to the US and would be nonsensical if passed by other countries. I would argue that the entire packet of papers makes up the treaty, not just the treaty text itself.

Also, I don't think it would be a big problem for a few other reasons:
1) Debaters are lazy and usually won't go to all the effort.
2) The majority of the neg cards will be why the treaty itself is bad, which would apply no matter what country is passing it. Going with your example of ratifying CTBT, way back in India year that was a fairly popular aff. About half of our cards were about how the US specifically shouldn't pass it, but the much stronger part of the brief (and what won us every round against CTBT) was why the treaty itself is a horrible idea and not specific to the US.
3) Many of the treaties can't be passed by many countries, because the topic of the treaties don't apply to a lot of countries
4) There won't be a whole lot of literature for non-US countries passing most of these treaties, so it would be really hard to write an aff
5) Even if there is literature for "random" countries passing treaties, most of it won't be in English (does any English-speaking country care if Azerbaijan passes The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels?) and therefore not accessible/usable by debaters. I will grant there may be a couple articles about small Western countries passing treaties in English, but honestly I don't think that would be a huge deal. Also, I think most judges would be willing to listen to that T.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:42 pm
Posts: 21
Home Schooled: Yes
LocutusofBorg wrote:
kitkathasegawa wrote:
LocutusofBorg wrote:
kitkathasegawa wrote:
So uh...just wondering...has anyone noticed that TP rez 3 happens to like have no actor?

Resolved: One or more treaties pending in the United States Senate should be ratified.

There is definitely good intent backing the idea of the resolution. However, the way it is worded, it would be completely topical to act as a different country and ratify an international treaty that also happens to be pending in the US Senate.

Like seriously a plan with Iran as the actor and the mandate being "ratify the CTBT" would be completely topical under this rez so long as the treaty being ratified was pending in the US Senate. The immense breath/unpredictability would be horrible for 90% of the debaters in the league. Instead of prepping for different treaties, everyone would have to prep for different countries/organizations ratifying the treaties. TP would become Parli (which isn't necessarily bad...but they are two different styles for a reason :D).

Interesting thought, I didn't realize that. Usually I would agree that a res needs an actor but in this case not really. Any treaty pension in the us senate would have language specific to the US such that no other country could logically pass it.


What do you mean by that? For example, when the LOST Treaty or the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities were pending in the US Senate, nothing stopped other countries from ratifying that very same treaty.

I actually would really like rez 3 if people couldn't mess around with the actors...but I don't quite see how no actor will have no impact on super crazy cases with random actors.

I can't wait for the day that the people who write resolutions for both NCFCA and Stoa figure out that resolutions need an agent of action. Two years in a row for the NCFCA, now probably next year for Stoa. You will notice A doesn't have an agent of action either.

It depends on what you consider to be part of the treaty. Quickly glancing at a couple of these treaties, the text itself is admittedly non-specific to any country. However, the document that is pending before the Senate includes a few pages written from the Secretary of State or President to the Senate in addition to the treaty itself. This includes language that is specific to the US and would be nonsensical if passed by other countries. I would argue that the entire packet of papers makes up the treaty, not just the treaty text itself.

Also, I don't think it would be a big problem for a few other reasons:
1) Debaters are lazy and usually won't go to all the effort.
2) The majority of the neg cards will be why the treaty itself is bad, which would apply no matter what country is passing it. Going with your example of ratifying CTBT, way back in India year that was a fairly popular aff. About half of our cards were about how the US specifically shouldn't pass it, but the much stronger part of the brief (and what won us every round against CTBT) was why the treaty itself is a horrible idea and not specific to the US.
3) Many of the treaties can't be passed by many countries, because the topic of the treaties don't apply to a lot of countries
4) There won't be a whole lot of literature for non-US countries passing most of these treaties, so it would be really hard to write an aff
5) Even if there is literature for "random" countries passing treaties, most of it won't be in English (does any English-speaking country care if Azerbaijan passes The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels?) and therefore not accessible/usable by debaters. I will grant there may be a couple articles about small Western countries passing treaties in English, but honestly I don't think that would be a huge deal. Also, I think most judges would be willing to listen to that T.


Yeah the more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that the no actor thing shouldn't be a problem. As I've said before I think TP3 is our best choice for this year. It's narrow enough in scope to be manageable but broad enough in variety. I mean take any two treaties both equally topical to ratify under this rez and they would be completely different. For example take Convention on Biological Diversity (Which is a convention of the use of natural resources) and compare it two something like The International Criminal Court, do you really think any neg evidence would cross apply between these two cases? No there wouldn't be. Meaning teams would have to research the specific treaties. Unlike the sanctions topic the generic international law bad evidence would be there to supplement the specific evidence, not replace it.
So it's broad enough to allow a interesting variety of cases and narrow enough for teams to prepare for those cases. To me that's that's the hallmark of a great resolution.

_________________
Psalm 40:2 He lifted me out of the slimy pit,
out of the mud and mire;
he set my feet on a rock
and gave me a firm place to stand.

Stoa NC

2012-13 Hackendorf/Smith
2013-14 Hackendorf/Herrera
2014-15 Hackendorf/Young


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Actually, the actor problem was an extremely good point, and as a result, that topic has been reworded.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:50 pm 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1378
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
DrSraderNCU wrote:
Actually, the actor problem was an extremely good point, and as a result, that topic has been reworded.

Nice. I was already leaning toward that rez but adding the actor confirms it. Vote rez #3! :)

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
DrSraderNCU wrote:
Actually, the actor problem was an extremely good point, and as a result, that topic has been reworded.

Boom. Nice to see a league be sensitive to the voice of the members.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
I know I could google this, but when is the resolution announced?

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited