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
>
>