Tuna, your concerns are certainly valid.  It's something we considered.
 There are several reasons we went with the system we did:

1.  The most important factor is that the system you're suggesting is a
more substantial deviation from what Council advised than we felt
comfortable making.  Given that this is a new system and a significant
change from prior registration mechanisms, we felt it was important to
maintain the key components that were voted on at Council.  Ranking by
average number of teams broken was central to Council's vote.  As we
explain at the end of the email, I would encourage you to explore this
system further and propose it at Council this year if you think it would
improve the process.

2.  Eric is right to point out both the ESL/EFL implications and the
administrability concerns.  Accurately averaging the points for all 350-400
institutions each year, accounting for years institutions did not attend
(and making sure it's not that they registered under a different name), and
keeping track of any fluctuations in language statuts (if we decided to
have some caveat to address the burden this would place on ESL and EFL
institutions), all make this proposal more complex to implement.  I don't
think it is prohibitively complex, but I think taking the step we're taking
this year is probably a good test-run to see if a more complicated
procedure is viable.

3.  One final concern I have is how far down the rankings you propose would
go.  I would not support a system, for instance, that extended its rankings
to the bottom 30 institutions in the world and used that as the basis for
deciding the order in which they are allocated teams.  I think that sends a
discouraging message.

I understand and agree that not all institutions that have not broken a
team during the past 3 years are created equal.  But I think the policy we
have settled on still does a reasonably fair job of allocating teams.  I
hope the reasons above make clear why, for this year, we did not feel it
was appropriate to go further.  I look forward to hearing more thoughts and
additional proposals in the the run-up to Chennai.

Best,
Michael


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Barnes, R Eric <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Tuna raises a good point.  Regulated registration for Worlds (i.e., not
> "fastest fingers" registration) is all very new.  It would be wise to
> investigate several different potential systems for fairness, ease of
> implementation, etc.  The data exists to use the more accurate measure that
> Tuna suggests (team points), but I wonder if it is much harder to use.
>  Also, would there be other unintended consequences, such as making it much
> harder for ESL and EFL team to attend?
>
> - Eric
>
>
> ******************************************
> Eric Barnes
> Hobart and William Smith Colleges
> Philosophy Department
> Public Policy Program
> Debate Coach
> (315) 781-3182
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> On Apr 22, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Alfred Snider wrote:
>
> As I have mentioned to Harish several times:
>
> Making the allocation based only on whether people broke or not is highly
> inaccurate and leads to a far weaker field.
>
> A 17 point team is worth a lot more than a 4 point team.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> Tuna
>
> On 4/18/13 1:49 PM, Michael Baer wrote:
> Dear US BP Debating Community,
>
> Below is the registration policy that will be in place for Chennai Worlds
> 2014.  Please let me know if you have questions or concerns.
>
> Chennai Worlds 2014 - Registration Policy
>
>
> Overview
>
> The consensus from the World Universities Debating Council at Berlin was
> that the registration process for the World Universities Debating
> Championship (WUDC) needs to change. Council voted on an advisory note that
> provided the outlines of a new registration policy. That advisory was to
> serve as a starting point for registration at future WUDC, beginning with
> Chennai. This document outlines how we will implement Council’s advice.
>
> There are several broad points to note at the outset:
>
>   1.  In reforming the registration process, Council was focused on
> balancing the competing concerns of ensuring diverse institutions from
> around the world have access to participate in WUDC and maintaining the
> quality of the competition. This policy is our best effort to reflect that
> balance.
>
>   2.  Unlike previous years, registration will NOT be done according to
> which institutions sign up first. Council resoundingly rejected this
> “fastest fingers” approach. Instead, registration will be open for 24
> hours, with no preference given on the basis of which institutions sign up
> first within that window.
>
>   3.  Our registration policy adopts the mechanism from Council’s advisory
> note, which uses the success of institutions at previous WUDCs to determine
> the order in which institutions are allocated teams. The allocation process
> is outlined in detail below.
>
>   4.  There are two points where we have chosen to add to or modify the
> advice offered by Council. In the interest of transparency, we have
> identified those points. We think these modifications better accomplish the
> goals Council supported at Berlin.
>
>   5.  This is the most significant change to the process of Worlds
> registration in our memory. As such, we understand that it may be
> controversial and that some institutions will fare better in registration
> and some worse than in the past.  We also recognize this is not a perfect
> policy.  We believe, however, that it is an improvement over the “fastest
> fingers” registration policy of the past, and we encourage anyone who sees
> way to improve it to propose those ideas in advance of this year’s Council.
>
>   6.  Please contact Michael Baer ([log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>) or Harish Natarajan (
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>) with questions.
>
>
> Key Details
>
> Initial Team Cap: 384 (potentially rising to 400)
>
> Fees: Rs. 25,000 per debater or adjudicator (approx. 350 Euros, US$460)
>
>          Rs. 57,000 per observer (approx. 800 Euros, US$1,045)
>
> Payment can be made via PayPal, which will be integrated into FastRego or
> via Wire Transfer.
>
> Each institution will shoulder the surcharges and corresponding wiring
> fees of their bank transactions. Institutions may lose their allocated
> slots should they fail to meet payment deadlines. Any payment made prior to
> the forfeiture of slots is non-refundable.
>
>
> Dates
>
> We are opening registration later than we intended. This is because it
> took us longer than expected to finalize our registration system. Given the
> magnitude of the change to the registration process, we wanted to ensure we
> had time to discuss and refine various proposals.
>
> Registration will open on Monday May 20, 2013, at 10am GMT. Registration
> will remain open for 24 hours.
>
> Three weeks prior to registration, on Monday, April 29, 2013, we will post
> a document with a) all of the institutions who have attended any of the
> prior 3 WUDC competitions and b) the number of teams those institutions
> have broken, in any language category, during those 3 years.
>
> When we post that document, please review it and let us know if there are
> any mistakes. The sooner you let us know, the easier it will be to correct
> this information. The deadline for informing us of a mistake will be
> Friday, May 17, 2013.
>
> Initial registration results will be announced as soon as we can, and no
> later than June 1, 2013.
>
> All institutions will be required to create a FastRego account by Monday,
> June 11, 2013 at 10am. Failure to do so will result in institutions
> forfeiting their places.
>
> All institutions will be required to pay a deposit of Rs.10,000 per
> debater or adjudicator (approx 140 Euros, US$183) and Rs. 25,000 per
> observer (approx 350 Euros, US$460) by Monday, July 8, at 10am.
> Institutions can pay the full balance on that date. Any institution that
> has not paid their deposit will forfeit any unpaid places.
>
> Any institution allocated a place after July 8 will have until Monday,
> August 5 to pay their deposits.
>
> Full payment will be required by Monday, September 9, at 10 am. Any
> institution that has not paid in full will forfeit any of their unpaid
> places and may lose their deposits.
>
> Any institution allocated a place after September 9 will have until
> Monday, September 30 to pay the full payment.
>
>
> Team Allocation
>
> When registration opens on May 20, institutions will be allowed to request
> up to 3 teams.
>
> We will initially be allocating 354 team slots. Pending confirmation, we
> aim to allocate another 30 slots through a ‘Scholarship Scheme’ at a later
> date. Details will be released soon.
>
> We may also increase the team cap to 400 at a later date. We first want to
> fully assess our financial position, judging resources and have some room
> to adapt to any unforeseen circumstances.
>
> Institutions that have not sent a team to any of the previous 3 WUDCs will
> only be able to register a maximum of 1 team this year.
>
> After registration closes, all institutions that have requested teams will
> be ordered on a “Registration Priority List.” Institutions on that list
> will be prioritized as follows:
>
>   *   Institutions will be grouped according to the average number of
> teams from that institution that have made the break in any language
> category over the past 3 WUDCs. E.g. an institution that broke 2 teams in
> 2011, 0 teams in 2012, and 1 team in 2013 will have an average of 1.00.
>  This is equally true if those teams competed in the open break, ESL break,
> EFL break, or a combination thereof. An institution with an average of 1.00
> will be ranked higher than institutions with an average of .667.
>
>   *   Institutions with the same average will be ordered within that group
> by random. If institutions A, B, and C all have broken an average of 1.00
> teams over the past 3 WUDCs, a random number generator will determine their
> order in the Registration Priority List. Regardless of how they are ranked
> within the “1.00 group,” all of them will be ranked higher than every
> institution with an average of .667 teams, and all of them will be ranked
> lower than every institution with an average of 1.33.
>
>   *   The Registration Priority List will be the source of the mechanism
> by which teams are allocated.
>
> NB: For institutions that have hosted WUDC during one of the previous 3
> years, their average will be for the 2 years they did not host. We believe
> this a fair way to use the same time window that applies to everyone else
> but not punish an institution for choosing to host Worlds.
>
> Teams will then be allocated in the following manner:
>
> Allocation Step 1 – Each registered institution will be allocated a team,
> starting with the highest ranked institution on the Registration Priority
> List and proceeding until there are no institutions remaining that have not
> been allocated a team.
>
> Note, as mentioned above, institutions that have not attended any of the
> past 3 WUDCs will only be allocated 1 team.
>
> Allocation Step 2 – A second team will be allocated to every institution
> that has an unresolved team request AND has an average of better than 0.00
> (i.e. has had at least one team break in the past 3 years), starting with
> the highest ranked institutions and proceeding down the list. This will
> proceed until all institutions that have unresolved team requests and have
> an average of better than 0.00 are allocated a second team.
>
> Allocation Step 3 – A third team will be allocated to every institution
> that has an unresolved team request AND has an average of 1.50 or greater.
> This will proceed until all institutions that have unresolved team requests
> and have an average of 1.50 or greater are allocated a third team.
>
> Allocation Step 4 – A second team will be allocated to every institution
> that has an unresolved team request AND has an average of 0.00 (i.e. has
> not had a team break, in any language category, in the past 3 years) until
> all institutions requesting a second team have been allocated one.
>
> Allocation Step 5 – A third team will be allocated to every institution
> that has an unresolved team request AND has an average of below 1.50 until
> all requests for a third team are resolved.
>
> Waiting List – Any institution with outstanding team requests will be
> placed on a waiting list. Teams will be allocated from the waiting list in
> accordance with the procedures outlined above. We expect teams to make it
> off the waiting as institutions decide not to attend Worlds and/or fail to
> meet payment deadlines. Institutions that have not attended any of the past
> 3 WUDCs may request extra teams, though they will be placed at the bottom
> of the waiting list.
>
>
> Modifications to Council’s Advisory Note
>
> At Council, delegates voted on an advisory note to guide future WUDCs in
> selecting a registration policy. That note was passed with the
> understanding that it would not be binding and that improvements could be
> made. We have made two modifications to the advisory note that we believe
> improve our registration policy.
>
>   1.  We have limited institutions that have not sent a team to any of the
> previous 3 WUDCs to 1 team. This is for two reasons.  First, all
> institutions with an average of 0.00 – i.e. institutions that have not
> broken a team at any of the past 3 Worlds – will have an equal chance of
> being ranked at the top of their group. Given this fact, it seems unfair to
> give a brand new institution the possibility of sending a second team
> before an institution that has regularly attended Worlds. We believe that
> institutions that have shown a commitment to WUDC should be prioritized.
> Second, many institutions attending Worlds for the first time (or
> institutions with a long-lapsed record of Worlds attendance) often are not
> able to send as many teams as they initially suspect when they register.
>
>   2.  Our policy likely means that a limited number of institutions will
> be allocated a third team before many institutions will be allocated a
> second team. This decision reflects our commitment to balancing the
> competing principles of access and quality of competition. If we strictly
> followed Council’s advisory note, which requires every institution to
> receive a second team (assuming it requested one) before any institution
> receives a third, plausibly no institution would be able to send 3 teams to
> Worlds. But for institutions that have broken an average of 1.5 teams or
> greater, at least half of their delegation from the past 3 years has broken
> at Worlds. We think these institutions are highly likely to bring third
> teams that would significantly add to the quality of the competition.
>
>
> Judges
>
> We will enforce an n-1 judging requirement. Any institution that sends 2
> teams must also send 1 judge, and any institution that sends 3 teams must
> also send 2 judges.
>
> Given, however, that this new registration procedure will likely result in
> changes to the number of institutions sending more than one team,
> institutions will be allowed to express a desire to send additional judges,
> should they wish to do so.
>
> Since we will not know how many extra judges we can cater for until after
> registration has been completed, institutions will be able to note how many
> judges they wish to send on the registration form.
>
>
> Independent Judges
>
> Individuals that are not affiliated with an institution and want to attend
> Chennai Worlds can apply to do so at a later date. Further details will be
> provided by Monday, June 3.
>
>
> Please let us know if you have questions. We look forward to seeing you in
> Chennai!
>
> Regards,
> Michael Baer ([log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>)
> Harish Natarajan ([log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>)
> Chief Adjudicators, Chennai Worlds 2014
>