Changes for page Phoenix Country Day Whitfil Neg
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 18 added, 5 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[97]
- Caselist.CitesClass[99]
- Caselist.RoundClass[81]
- Caselist.RoundClass[95]
- Caselist.RoundClass[97]
- Caselist.RoundClass[102]
- Caselist.CitesClass[104]
- Caselist.CitesClass[106]
- Caselist.CitesClass[107]
- Caselist.CitesClass[108]
- Caselist.CitesClass[109]
- Caselist.CitesClass[110]
- Caselist.CitesClass[111]
- Caselist.RoundClass[103]
- Caselist.RoundClass[104]
- Caselist.RoundClass[105]
- Caselist.RoundClass[106]
- Caselist.RoundClass[107]
- Caselist.RoundClass[108]
- Caselist.RoundClass[109]
- Caselist.RoundClass[110]
- Caselist.RoundClass[111]
- Caselist.RoundClass[112]
- Caselist.RoundClass[113]
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[97]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,17 +1,0 @@ 1 -RVIs must be bidrectional 2 -2. Normative ethic required 3 -3. ROTB spec 4 -4. 1AC Spikes need to be fully fleshed out (voter, violations, paradigm issues) 5 -5. Not reading stupid spikes like neg may only have one unconditional route to the ballot 6 -6. Skep triggers bad 7 -7. NIBs bad/A prioris Bad 8 -8. Descriptive frameworks (like polls) bad 9 -9. Flash, email chain, print, or lose 10 -10. Disclose at least first 3 last 3, tags, and advocacy text(s) in a clear and easy to follow manner within 1 hour post debate 11 -Must disclose plan-text at least 24 hours before the round. 12 -12. The affirmative must specify what constitutionally protected speech they defend in an explicit advocacy text in 1AC. 13 -13. Hidden A prioris bad 14 -14. Must know methodologies of studies (sample size, scope, etc) 15 -15. Miscutting Ev Bad 16 -16. O- Spec 17 -17. Intrinsic Perms Bad - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-25 01:14:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -95 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Phoenix Country Day Whitfil Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0- Neg Theory Interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All
- Caselist.CitesClass[99]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,17 +1,0 @@ 1 -1. RVIs must be bidrectional 2 -2. Normative ethic required 3 -3. If they claim RVIs in the 1ac, must spec conditions of RVI 4 -4. 1AC Spikes need to be fully fleshed out (voter, violations, paradigm issues) 5 -5. Not reading stupid spikes like neg may only have one unconditional route to the ballot 6 -6. Skep triggers bad 7 -7. NIBs bad/A prioris Bad 8 -8. Descriptive frameworks (like polls) bad 9 -9. Flash, email chain, print, or lose 10 -10. Disclose at least first 3 last 3, tags, and advocacy text(s) in a clear and easy to follow manner within 1 hour post debate 11 -11. Must disclose aff 30 mins before round (if broken) 12 -12. The affirmative must specify what constitutionally protected speech they defend in an explicit advocacy text in 1AC. 13 -13. Hidden A prioris bad 14 -14. Must know methodologies of studies (sample size, scope, etc) 15 -15. Miscutting Ev Bad 16 -16. O- Spec Bad 17 -17. Intrinsic Perms Bad - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-12 20:36:33.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -98 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Phoenix Country Day Whitfil Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0- Neg Theory Interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All
- Caselist.RoundClass[81]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -94 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-25 00:28:15.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All
- Caselist.RoundClass[95]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -97 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-25 01:14:09.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All
- Caselist.RoundClass[97]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-12 20:35:53.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All
- Caselist.RoundClass[102]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-04-18 21:26:36. 971 +2017-04-18 21:26:36.0
- Caselist.CitesClass[104]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,18 @@ 1 +1. RVIs must be bidrectional 2 +2. Normative ethic required 3 +3. If they claim RVIs in the 1ac, must spec conditions of RVI 4 +4. 1AC Spikes need to be fully fleshed out (voter, violations, paradigm issues) 5 +5. Not reading stupid spikes like neg may only have one unconditional route to the ballot 6 +6. Skep triggers bad 7 +7. NIBs bad/A prioris Bad 8 +8. Descriptive frameworks (like polls) bad 9 +9. Flash, email chain, print, or lose 10 +10. Disclose at least first 3 last 3, tags, and advocacy text(s) in a clear and easy to follow manner within 1 hour post debate 11 +Must disclose aff 30 mins before round (if broken) 12 +12. The affirmative must specify what constitutionally protected speech they defend in an explicit advocacy text in 1AC. 13 +13. Hidden A prioris bad 14 +14. Must know methodologies of studies (sample size, scope, etc) 15 +15. Miscutting Ev Bad 16 +16. O- Spec Bad 17 +17. Intrinsic Perms Bad 18 +18. If you read presumption in the aff, must spec conditions it is relevant. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-18 21:28:03.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +104 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Phoenix Country Day Whitfil Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0- Neg Theory Interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All
- Caselist.CitesClass[106]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,21 @@ 1 +RVIs must be bidrectional 2 +2. Normative ethic required 3 +3. If they claim RVIs in the 1ac, must spec conditions of RVI 4 +4. 1AC Spikes need to be fully fleshed out (voter, violations, paradigm issues) 5 +5. Not reading stupid spikes like neg may only have one unconditional route to the ballot 6 +6. Skep triggers bad 7 +7. NIBs bad/A prioris Bad 8 +8. Descriptive frameworks (like polls) bad 9 +9. Flash, email chain, print, or lose 10 +10. Disclose at least first 3 last 3, tags, and advocacy text(s) in a clear and easy to follow manner within 1 hour post debate 11 +Must disclose aff 30 mins before round (if broken) 12 +12. The affirmative must specify what constitutionally protected speech they defend in an explicit advocacy text in 1AC. 13 +13. Hidden A prioris bad 14 +14. Must know methodologies of studies (sample size, scope, etc) 15 +15. Miscutting Ev Bad 16 +16. O- Spec Bad 17 +17. Intrinsic Perms Bad 18 +18. If you read presumption in the aff, must spec conditions it is relevant. 19 +19. Must disclose round reports for every round describing each off 20 + 21 +Exact text is syntehtic to round often, msg me if you want them - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 11:29:10.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +106 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Phoenix Country Day Whitfil Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0- 1NC Theory Interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All
- Caselist.CitesClass[107]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,8 @@ 1 +A. interp: miscuts bad 2 + 3 +B. 4 + 5 +C. strawmanning- Mankins doesn’t advocate for intrinsicness perms. He thinks they are a terrible idea. This ev is strawmanned 6 + 7 +Mankins 84, Michael Mankins, University of Kentucky coach, “Broken Beyond Repair Intrinsicness: Theory Headed for Collision” 1984 - Waging War on Poverty WFU Debater's Research Guide 8 +The concept of intrinsicness, …. dated and impractical. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 17:19:14.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Sam Azbel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Oliver Sussman - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +108 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Phoenix Country Day Whitfil Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0- Mankins is miscut - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.CitesClass[108]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,7 @@ 1 +Insulting faith is constitutionally protected. 2 +Volokh 15, Eugene, Washington Post. May 7, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.74ae40cf6b9e. Accessed 4/29/17. JPS 3 +I keep hearing …. that I know of.) 4 + 5 +Pope Francis supports the DA – expression requires limitation. 6 +Topping 15 Alexandra Topping, 1-16-2015, "Pope Francis: freedom of expression has limits," Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/15/pope-francis-limits-to-freedom-of-expression 7 +Pope Francis has …. faith of others.” - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 17:19:15.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Sam Azbel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Oliver Sussman - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +108 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Phoenix Country Day Whitfil Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Jan-Feb Pope Francis Da - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.CitesClass[109]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +The use of personal experience is an unquestionable model for debate that leads to no productive methodology for resistance and propogates whiteness. 2 +DiAngelo 14 , Robin (PhD, Professor at Westfield State University), and Özlem Sensoy. "Getting slammed: White depictions of race discussions as arenas of violence." Race Ethnicity and Education 17.1 (2014): 103-128. 3 +In addition to … from critical analysis. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 23:16:00.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Nick Steele - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Collegiate DM - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +109 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Phoenix Country Day Whitfil Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - Decadence DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.CitesClass[110]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,40 @@ 1 +Interpretation: The word resolved implies a policy. 2 +Louisiana House 3-8-2005, http://house.louisiana.gov/house-glossary.htm 3 +Resolution A legislative ….n nor to governor's veto. ( Const. Art. III, §17(B) and House Rules 8.11 , 13.1 , 6.8 , and 7.4) 4 + 5 + 6 +Violation—very clear in CX that the aff won’t defend passing a prohibition 7 + 8 +C. Standards – 9 +1. Limits— 3 impacts: 10 + 11 +A. Analytic 12 +B. Education—under limited debates make debate impossible for people who have actual lives outside of this activity. Harris 13— 13 + 14 +Scott Harris (Director of Debate at U Kansas, 2006 National Debate Coach of the Year, Vice President of the American Forensic Association, 2nd speaker at the NDT in 1981). “This ballot.” 5 April 2013. CEDA Forums. http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4762.0;attach=1655 15 + 16 +I understand that...in the activity) 17 + 18 +2. Critical thinking: topical switch side debate breaks down ideology and teaches deeper decision making skills. 19 + 20 +Dame 13, John and Jeffrey Gedmin, Three Tips For Overcoming Your Blind Spots, Harvard Buisness Review, http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/10/three-tips-for-overcoming-your-blind-spots 21 +To fight confirmation ... checks you constantly. 22 + 23 +Analytic. 24 + 25 + 26 +D. Fairness first 27 + 28 +1. Unfair activities literally lead to people quitting debate, if the aff is valuable discussion at all it would want to be heard by the most people. 29 +Speice, Patrick and Jim Lyle, 2003, “Traditional Policy Debate: Now More Than Ever”, Debaters Research Guide, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/SpeiceLyle2003htm.htm) 30 + 31 +As with any ... for all participants. 32 + 33 +2. It precludes the AC because the ballot asks who the better debater is and you cannot do that if the AC is unfair. This means don’t allow cross application from the AC because we don’t know if those are true. 34 +Massey et al 14, “Pre-Fiat Arguments”, Emily Massey, Grant Reiter, Geoff Kristof 2/3/14 http://nsdupdate.com/2014/02/03/pre-fiat-arguments-by-emily-massey-grant-reiter-and-geoff-kristof/ 35 +Third, pre-fiat debaters … that pre-fiat layer. 36 + 37 +3. Debate is a competitive game, and rigging that game in your favor denies respect for the participants and prevents meaningful discussion of the aff. 38 +Galloway 7 39 +Ryan Galloway 7, Samford Comm prof, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007 40 +Debate as a ... time and power (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 23:16:01.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Nick Steele - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Collegiate DM - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +109 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Phoenix Country Day Whitfil Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - Defend the Topic T - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.CitesClass[111]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +The affirmative must defend that all public colleges and universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-30 19:55:06.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +113 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Phoenix Country Day Whitfil Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +T- All Colleges - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All
- Caselist.RoundClass[103]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +103 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-18 21:27:32.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All
- Caselist.RoundClass[104]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +104 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-18 21:28:01.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All
- Caselist.RoundClass[105]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +105 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 11:28:57.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All
- Caselist.RoundClass[106]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +106 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 11:29:09.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All
- Caselist.RoundClass[107]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 17:17:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Sam Azbel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Oliver Sussman - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,5 @@ 1 +1AC- Testimonies 2 +1NC- Theory Pope Francis Da Case 3 +1AR- New 1AR Theory 1NC theory Case Pope Francis 4 +2NR- 1NC Theory 1AR Theory 5 +2AR- 1NC Theory - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.RoundClass[108]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +107,108 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 17:19:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Sam Azbel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Oliver Sussman - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.RoundClass[109]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +109,110 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 23:15:56.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Nick Steele - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Collegiate DM - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,5 @@ 1 +1AC- Model Minority 2 +1NC- Defend the topic Decadence Case 3 +1AR- Case T 4 +2NR- T Decadence Case 5 +2AR- Same - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.RoundClass[110]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-30 18:46:15.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Danny Li - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Scarsdale ZE - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,5 @@ 1 +1AC- levinas 2 +1NC- Util NC DA Theory Case 3 +1AR- 3 new 1ar shells Theory Case Da 4 +2NR- Da Case 1ar Shells 5 +2AR- 1 1ar shell - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.RoundClass[111]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-30 18:46:50.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Danny Li - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Scarsdale ZE - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,5 @@ 1 +1AC- levinas 2 +1NC- Util NC DA Theory Case 3 +1AR- 3 new 1ar shells Theory Case Da 4 +2NR- Da Case 1ar Shells 5 +2AR- 1 1ar shell - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.RoundClass[112]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-30 19:54:40.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +X - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quads - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.RoundClass[113]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +111 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-30 19:55:04.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All