INTRO

A lot has been written about the “Justin Skarb” evidence that became an issue during TOC and afterwards. This is an attempt to catalogue (1) the known facts, (2) some analysis of those specific facts, and (3) our conclusions about ethics in debate.

FACTS

February 11, 2009 – an article by “John Marburry” appeared in the comment section of a space wordpress blog. http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/time-to-build-a-first-look-at-the-initial-plan/#comment-3059

This article has very good cards specific to several top teams’ affs that are hard to find elsewhere.

April 25, 2009 – Justin Skarb admits he is the author of the article and that Marburry is a pen name. http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/time-to-build-a-first-look-at-the-initial-plan/#comment-3110

April 27, 2009 – Space Review published an article authored by John Marburry. An author’s note at the bottom of the article says Justin Skarb contributed research to the article. The note lists Justin Skarb and John Marburry as separate people. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1359/1

Around This Same Time –

1. The very first comment on the article is by “Disciples of 2A,” who posts “WTF MARBURRY WRITE SOME SPS GOOD ARTICLES.”

2. Another comment is by “Norman Ornstein” and is a fabricated piece of politics evidence.

3. Numerous debaters and/or coaches emailed Marburry about his qualifications in the days before TOC. Justin Skarb replies to these coaches/students as if he was Marburry. No effort was made to alert the community via edebate, NDCA, or cross-x.com about any suspicions.

May 2, 2009 – TOC – At least one team read Marburry evidence. The other team in that debate challenged the evidence, and the cards were dropped. Issues regarding this debate have so far been dealt with “privately.”

After TOC –

1. A Damien debater posted on cross-x.com, “our coaches were responsible for the name

Justin Skarb being attached to the article in the first place.”

2. A new comment appeared on the article under the name “Embarrassing,” explaining that Justin Skarb was the author.

3. No other articles published under the pen name John Marburry can be found.

ANALYSIS

1. Justin Skarb almost certainly knew that debaters would use his article, that they would cite the fake name “Marburry” and that this would obscure his bias.

-It does not make sense that a debater would be the first to read and comment on the article unless Skarb told debaters about it. It doesn’t make sense that debater would think Marburry knows what “SPS good” means unless they knew he was Skarb.

-He received emails from debaters and coaches and knowingly maintained a deception.

-He disclosed before and after on different websites that he was the writer. This suggests to me that Justin didn’t have a legitimate fear or reason for using the pen name.

-Saying contributing researcher doesn’t resolve anything. First, he didn’t say that in February. But second, it maintains the illusion that Marburry is an independent person.

2. At least one team cut this evidence, cited it as Marburry, and read it at the TOC knowing that Skarb contributed to the article. People either ignored the red flags or cut the article knowing it was an ethics problem. Teams that did this also share in responsibility.

3. At least one team was prepared to assert an ethics-based challenge to this evidence at the TOC. However, they did not alert the rest of the community. That means at least one ethics problem occurred that could have been averted if the team challenging the evidence had made an effort to alert the community before the tournament. Teams that did this also share in responsibility.

4. The issue here is not debaters or coaches writing cards. The issue is disclosure. Hiding the name and ties to debate misrepresents the bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Basic lesson: public disclosure and discussion is essential.

1. Debate relies on community enforcement of norms. When the community knows of wrongdoing, it’s good at self-policing. Clearly, now that we all know about it, no one will win a debate on a Marburry card.

2. If you find out about a possible ethics problem, take action to prevent the issue from arising. That means (1) contact the persons responsible, and (2) alert the community. This makes it less likely that others will cut the evidence, innocently or otherwise. It also notifies and protects teams who might have the evidence read against them.

Many people are afraid of burning bridges. Bringing ethical issues to light does not mean you have to accuse people of intent. Do it anonymously if necessary. Resolving issues as early as possible prevents nasty complications later.

Everyone has a right to contribute to ethics discussions because they affect the whole community. Keeping issues private deprives those who are not well-connected from contributing their 2 cents.

3. Ethics and strategy should not overlap. If you are writing up an ethics challenge block for a debate, you probably have not disclosed enough to the community. Just as it isn’t okay to use evidence unethically, it’s also not okay to use an ethics challenge for strategic leverage. Letting these areas blur creates scary perverse incentives.

4. Don’t ignore red flags. If you see something suspicious, investigate it. Don’t ignore possible ethics problems just because it’s inconvenient.

5. If you are a debater or coach and write an article, do not hide your name. If for some reason you must, make sure the community knows that you are the true author.

6. Golden Rule for Citations: disclose as much about cites as you think someone else would want to know. If it’s a blog, comment, message board, or email and you feel compelled to cut it, notate it as such. If you make a mistake, do your best to fix it later.

7. If you’re unsure about an issue, err on the side of caution. Don’t wait to find out if others disagree. Take a proactive approach to both cutting evidence and teaching risk-averse standards to students.

--Kathryn Clark and David Marks

David and Kathryn are former debaters at Dartmouth and coach high school while pursuing law and teaching degrees respectively.