Blog 5 Source Incorporation

For this blogging exercise I will focus on synthesizing my ideas and the ideas of those who have responded to my emails regarding the topic of Academic Contest moderation. Moderators or readers in the ASU Academic Bowl preside over matches by reading the question packets, prompting participants when more information is required, and informing of them of correct answers. Much of the typical burden of scoring or time keeping in other Quiz Bowl style tournaments is taken over by the panel of judges present at all the matches; however, as the first vestige of authority in the Academic Bowl, their professionalism is integral. Moderators are afforded this commanding presence by virtue of their status as deans within the faculty, but their relative academic standing does not always translate into ideal procedural execution. Both ASU Quiz Bowl president, Ian McCloskey, and champion team member, Wesley Fullmer, note moderators slow paces during this competition as one of this problem’s major symptoms. Given the timed matches used in the ASU Academic Bowl, the pace one reads becomes very important and getting hung up on hard-to-pronounce terms or reading slowly contributes greatly where a team might place in the event. The tournament should be conducted fairly, so alleviating this issue is a worthy yet challenging goal. Readers can really only improve through experience, and at this point can only practice once a year. History Bowl Director David Madden offers the solution of having prospective moderators practice with an experienced moderator and two teams prior to the completion or at least setting up a document detailing proper pronunciation of common yet difficult terms. Steven Fullmer, an experienced reader and longtime quiz bowl supporter, sees mispronunciation as a factor that reduces the competition to a game of luck rather than knowledge. Practiced participants demonstrate a greater familiarity with the material and therefore placed at an advantage through the ability to capture the key elements of a question unlike other competitors who have mentally process a question without prior experience. Fullmer proposes allowing readers to skim packets a few minutes prior to the match and then confer with the judges before beginning

Blog 5

Violence in video games is a controversial issue that has developed in the past few decades with the rapid growth in visual graphics and the rise of more violence in media. While some people say that video games cause the aggressive behavior some children may exhibit, I believe that video games are not the root cause of their violent attitude. I feel too much blame is put on violent video games when other major causes go unnoticed or even ignored. While studies have shown that exposure to violent media does have some sort of effect on children ages 8 and lower because "they have not yet developed the ability to discriminate fully between fantasy and reality in media content" (Bickham), I feel this should not even be a problem since children this young should not be exposed to violent games at all. While some research may point out that children in their teens are still affected by the violence in video games, I believe that their research methodology is inaccurate and thus their results are inconclusive. Douglas Lowenstein agrees with this claim stating, "There is not a shred of evidence in the academic literature to support the allegation that a violent video game leads to aggressive behavior in real life". He also goes on to say that many research groups define an increase in aggressive behavior as "an increase in aggressive play—such as mock battles or running around making believe you're killing aliens—with no intent to injure" (Lowenstein). This goes against the standard psychological definition of aggression and is therefore illogical to draw conclusions to the real world.

I feel an effective solution to the debate is to increase parental involvement in the video games children buy. Since it is nearly impossible for children under 17 to have enough money to buy the latest gaming system and games, parents must be the one supplying their children with this entertainment. While some groups suggest heavier regulation on the sale and production of games, I feel that this is an ineffective solution because legislators can have other motives to pass these laws. Christopher Ferguson gives an example of such a motive saying that if "such legislation is based on "concern for children," politicians can cast their opponents as being unconcerned with children while stripping parents of their rights to decide what media are appropriate for their children" (Ferguson). In addition more regulations only hurt gaming companies and game distributors while not serving their original intent of protecting children. If more parents are aware of what games their children are playing and their ratings given by the ESRB, then the issue of whether games meant for adults over 17 are harmful to an 11 year old is irrelevant. Laws attempting to protect the 11 year old from playing God of War are unnecessary since the power over children ultimately lies in the hands of the parents.

Blog 5 - Source Incorporation

Currently, firearms are not allowed on college campuses.  When a person is a legal United States citizen, at least 21 years of age, is not under indictment for and has not been convicted of any felony, does not suffer from a mental illness, and has demonstrated their competence with a firearm through training, that individual is entitled to apply for a Concealed Weapons Permit (ADFT).  This permit gives permission to the recipient to conceal a firearm on their person.  Although these individuals have proven their ability to handle a weapon, and have been deemed responsible to do so via background checks and other requirements, they currently may not carry their weapon on the ASU campus grounds.  I do not believe that a person qualified to carry a weapon should have to sacrifice their right to protect themselves by stepping on to a college campus.  This is an issue because, by definition, a criminal is a lawbreaker.  As stated by President John F. Kennedy, "The protection of our rights can endure no longer than the performance of our responsibilities” (NRA).  He is saying that our privileges can be no greater than our obligations, so by not trusting citizens, we are slowly losing rights as Americans.   By implementing a gun ban, the only people that will be carrying a gun on campus will be those that are intending to break the law anyway.  Just as a thief would not hold off on a robbery because there is a no trespassing sign, an individual intending to do harm with a firearm will not restrain themself because there is a law against carrying them on school property.  As proven by the District of Columbia, more guns in law-abiding hands means less crime (Guns).  If no action is taken, your personal safety is at risk.  As a citizen of the United States, it is our 2^nd Amendment right to be able to protect ourselves.  

Blog 5 Ryan Kiefer- Response and incorporation of sources

One of the major groups against the growing populations of wolves is the ranchers. They have major concerns because wolves have been preying on their livestock because it is easy prey. As the livestock is the rancher’s form of income, a wolf attack can be a significant setback economically. To avoid these cattle losses ranchers have been shooting wolves, even before they were taken off the endangered species list. When the question to put the wolves on a recovery program came up, the American Farm Bureau Federation even “sued preemptively in 1994 to stop the reintroduction” (Ketcham). Many other lawsuits have since sprung up between the government, ranchers, and biologists/conservationists, but still today ranchers are shooting without a second thought. Shooting and other lethal wolf barriers are going to drive the wolf population back to small isolated packs; Non-lethal methods must be discovered. Thankfully research has begun, like the adaptive computer model on predicting where wolves would be likely to attack livestock developed by Justin Edge (Edge). With these new models better steps can be taken to implement nonlethal wolf barriers to keep wolves away from cattle in a cost effective way.  Possible options being studied include super-sonic alarms that drive the wolves away and better fencing techniques. At one time guard dogs and mounted patrollers were considered, but were rejected because they were not effective either in cost or practice.

 The ranchers cannot be allowed to control what happens with wolf populations just based on what they want. Ed Bangs, the gray wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, addresses the change in demographics of the west: “The West changed. At one time, Montana and Wyoming was pretty much just ranches. Then people who came here came for public lands, wildlife, clean air and water. So wolves weren't viewed only as a negative” (Bangs). The wolves are now seen as a part of the environment and everyone has the right to see them in the wild. If the ranchers are allowed to have too much power over wolves they are taking the rights away from many other Americans who want to see a wolf in the wild.

Blog 4- Source Reactions

The topic I am considering most strongly is the revision of ASU Academic Bowl. I am very excited to pursue this subject and think it will make for a compelling paper; however, it does not come with traditional sources. The discussion of Academic Bowl on Proquest is nonexistent and--based on my luck with similar sites--emblematic of databases at large. The majority of my sources will have come from to be closer to home: ASUnews, testimonials, and perhaps high school coach insight (they are clearly doing something right), but will also ideally include discussions of the NAQT (National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC) rules and other academic bowls nationwide.

Figuring out where to begin is difficult. I feel that the system is imperfect; however, I need to get a better understanding of what changes are feasible. Talking to casual viewers at the event, a simple change that we all agreed upon was getting rid of the term "loser". Matches would start with team introductions often with the stigma of this word. In order to be more professional, the tournament heads really ought to refine their vocabulary. Secondly, that the readers were on occasion subpar was another frequent critique, but changing this is more difficult. According to Kenneth Lan, a past winner and a self-proclaimed AZ Quiz Bowl historian, with the large prize money on the line, only major deans are allowed to read. They often have a number of other duties beyond that of this tournament so training them is difficult. Those with proper training, i.e. members of the ASU Quiz Bowl Club, are unworthy substitutes, but allowing for their participation in some capacity, I feel is a solution to consider.

Controversies that rocked the tournament are also valuable areas for reflection. Wesley Fulmer, a member of this year’s champion team, early on challenged a ruling on the basis that a member of the Herberger team was not recognized. The game and by proxy Fulmer’s subsequent victory may have come down to this question, leaving the Herberger team noticeably nonplussed. This event colored Fulmer’s performance throughout the remainder of the tournament when it could be argued that the tournament heads were more at fault for not actively enforcing this rule.

Hopefully, these insights will add to my paper and many more sources will come. For now I require a purer source to satisfy me with sustenance. Adieu..

Blog 4 - Sources

I have chosen to write my second assignment on campus gun rights.  In our state, anyone over the age of 21 can apply for a concealed weapons permit.  Actually receiving the permit is an entirely different story, but it gives the holder permission to conceal a handgun on their person.  Currently, even people that have gone through the rigorous process of obtaining a concealed weapons permit are not allowed to carry their firearm on ASU’s campus.  Since I have started my research, many of the resources I have found are very opinionated on the matter.  They are somewhat backed by facts, but mostly contain the personal feelings of the author responsible for the article.  Although I respect all of their opinions, I would have to disagree with the most common opinion, which said that concealed firearms should not be permitted on college campuses.  The main argument given against allowing permitted users to carry firearms was that we cannot trust belligerent, drunk, drugged-out college students with weapons.  According to that logic, I should not be allowed to drive a car because some of my peers drive recklessly, or perform many other tasks that I am deemed responsible enough to partake in.  Firearms are used in personal defense over a million a year, while less than 1% of the weapons are actually fired.  One of the other more prominent arguments was that a student carrying a firearm is not formally trained in how to handle it and could possibly injure bystanders in a firefight.  While this may be a possible situation, the latter involves a criminal doing whatever they please without any opposition.  In the Virginia Tech shooting, the criminal committed suicide as soon as he was faced with any sort of resistance.  A qualified student with a concealed weapons permit would have been able to provide that resistance.  I do agree that carrying a weapon is an incredible responsibility, but we should not need to give up our right to self-defense as soon as the invisible border of campus grounds is crossed.

Blog 4 Ryan Kiefer- Source reactions

The basic idea for my second writing assignment is, right now, the detrimental effect of hunting and the delisting of grey wolves as an endangered species in Wyoming and the surrounding states. My research so far has been almost exclusively through the data bases Academic Search Premier by EBSCO and Opposing Viewpoints in Context. For other sources I have an article from NBC News and one from the Huffington Post. I’m not sure if I will use this one because I don’t know if it is a source with enough of a reputation. I would appreciate a comment if this is a source to use or loose, thanks.

So far what I am finding is backing up my views; every source is agreeing that hunting and poaching hurting the wolf population and the entire ecosystem and that it can all be traced to the removal of the wolves from the endangered species list. In almost all areas, including some parks, legislation has made it legal to kill a wolf on sight, without the need for a permit or a certain season. While it is still illegal to hunt in National parks and certain protected refuges, there are wide expanses of land between these havens that must be crossed in order to preserve genetic variation and keep wolf populations healthy by avoiding inbreeding. I have found other opinions as well, just not in such volumes.

The biggest opposers are hunters (obviously) and ranchers who have suffered livestock to wolves. Each one of these views has strong support against it, however, and will be very easy to knock down as there are several sources that demonstrate the harm and immorality of hunting and also sources showing ranchers receiving compensation for livestock losses and innovations for keeping wolves away from livestock.

I have high hopes for this paper and expect it to be highly persuasive.