I am a bit jet-lagged after returning from China, but your answer seems
satisfactory. I must say that my concern is shaped by our self interest
because we almost always have 1 or more teams on 17.
Thanks for your answer.
Tuna
Michael: Good job at USU convincing my soph-frosh team that you were
right and they were wrong. That makes my job easier.
On 4/22/13 10:22 AM, Michael Baer wrote:
> 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]
> <mailto:[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 <tel:%28315%29%20781-3182>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[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]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>) or Harish Natarajan
> ([log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[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]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>)
> Harish Natarajan ([log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>)
> Chief Adjudicators, Chennai Worlds 2014
>
>
|
