- Site Feedback
- IDEA Sites
- Digital Freedoms
- International Justice
- 2012 Presidential Debates Guide
- Asia Youth Forum
- Big Apple Cogers
- Debate Changing Europe
- Debate in the Neighborhood
- Debating and Producing Media
- Debating the Future of Youth in Africa and Europe
- Dialogue without borders
- Digital Debating Blog
- Free Speech Debate
- Global Youth Forum
- Global Debate and Public Policy Challenge
- International Public Policy Forum
- Online Mentoring
- Securing Liberty Series
- Youth and Sports Mega-Events
- League of Young Voters
Chennai Worlds 2014 - Initial Team Allocations
Submitted by Colm Flynn on 29 May 2013
We want to thank you all for your interest in Chennai Worlds. We apologize for the delay in releasing initial allocations. The magnitude of interest required a few extra days to ensure all of the information submitted during registration was processed accurately.
We have initially allocated 354 teams in accordance with our registration policy. The initial allocation and wait-list are included in the document below:
We strongly expect that many institutions that have been offered a spot will forfeit them and all institutions on the waiting list will be allocated teams in either mid June or mid July (when deadlines for FastRego details and the first rounds of payment are due). We also expect that some institutions will be awarded second teams and perhaps third teams.
Institutions that have been allocated teams, judges or observers 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. To set up an account, visit chennai2014.fastrego.com. Full instructions on how to set up an account are available on the website (http://chennaiworlds.blogspot.in/2013/05/given-below-are-instructions-on-how-to.html) and will be emailed to institutional representatives. Details on how to pay for registration will follow shortly.
Judging AllocationsWe have initially allocated 82 judging spots. The spots have been allocated to the institutions that are most likely to receive 2nd teams and thus send judges to meet their N-1 requirements. Therefore they are allocated according to the registration priority list. We expect to offer more N-1 judging slots as institutions decide not to attend.
We had hoped to allocate more judging slots at this time. But we had 395 institutions request at least one judge, and we are planning to bring in 90 additional independent adjudicators (including the adjudication core). In order to ensure consistent judging quality, manageable panel sizes, and productive deliberations during preliminary rounds, we do not feel it is advisable to exceed a ratio of 3.5 judges per room (i.e. about 350 judges). Given that, we could not in good faith guarantee that every institution that wants to send a judge will be able to do so.
As such, we will be allocating non N-1 judging slots on the basis of a very brief application process. Our hope in employing this process is to maximize the chance that judges have BP experience, and we will also prioritize regional diversity. Full details on the application process of extra judges will be released by 3 June.
We recognize that this leaves institutions in even more limbo about how many individuals they will be able to send to Worlds. We apologize for that inconvenience and will push back the payment deadlines for any judges awarded through this brief application process. But the options, as we saw them, were to do one of the following:
1. Register more judges than we think is healthy for the functioning of the tournament. In addition to the debate-related reasons not to adopt this approach, this would introduce significant additional hotel and logistical hurdles.
2. Continue to use the registration priority list to allocate judges. Our concern here is that this would simply compound the effects of chance - the institutions fortunate enough to be ranked highest in receiving their first team would similarly be prioritized for getting to send judges. This seemed to go above and beyond the value of the prioritization supported by Council.
3. Use a very brief application procedure to decide on judge allocations. Our thinking in adopting this option is that the quality of adjudicators matters a great deal to the success of the tournament, and so a simple application process that ensures we select individuals with BP experience will both improve the judging quality and allow us to achieve a manageable number of judges. This seemed like the best option.
Observer AllocationsWe will be allocating observers following the first round of payments in mid July. The reason for the delay is that we want a more accurate idea of which institutions are attending before allocating observers from institutions to the competition.
If you now need to change you contact details or reduce your team, judge or observers requests please contact us on email@example.com. We would appreciate that any institution that no longer can send teams (irrespective of whether they have been allocated them), contact us as soon as possible.
As always if you have any other questions please get in touch with either of us.
Subscribe to IDEA