(This review is written on the basis of the data collected via feedback forms given out to debaters after the tournament, and aims to reflect their opinions.)
Quality of Teams - 4.5 /5
The team quality seemed well above average, with multiple strong teams breaking to the out rounds, resulting in numerous brilliant match-ups. Being an open-tournament, the presence of multiple cross teams increased the average standard of debating by a mile, so much that three out of the four semi-finalist teams were non-institutional.
A separate novice break allowed freshers a chance to progress in the tournament, and get a taste of post break debating at high quality tournaments.
Quality of Adjudicators - 2.71 /5
Quality of judging seemed to be a spoil sport in an otherwise well run tournament. With over 70 teams, the tournament saw a lot of dependance on the internal judge pool, which was criticised openly. Debaters went on to term the same as “very very shady”, and accusations of adjudicators who were “unaware of the technicalities behind judging PDs” flew throughout the campus. Speaker score marking was another area where the judge pool was seen as incompetent, with no real uniformity.
Running of the Tournament - 3 /5
The OC was helpful and friendly across the “LONG” waits in the auditorium for tabs and matchups. The issue of not sticking to the pre mentioned schedule by quite a margin meant rounds stretching into the night, and most post debate plans had to take a backseat. The post breaks ran comparatively on schedule, with four rounds not extending beyond the 7 PM mark.
Accommodation and Hospitality - 3.2 / 5
The accommodation was a minor issue throughout the tournament - with certain contingents being put up in reception hallways, and other shady halls. The debate venues ranged from average to amazingly comfortable (Moot Court and Lecture Halls - Check), and the After Party was an absolute hit, with everything a debater needed post 4 days of endless debating. Minor issues like the availability of water bottles and chairs during prep time were reported, and could be looked into for future editions.
Prizes and Subsidies provided - 3.57 /5
The organisers paid the winners in cash at the end of the debate, a step much appreciated by the entire debating circuit. The awards seemed generally satisfactory, and were not an issue. There were suggestions of a better split of the amount used to subsidise adjudicators though, to accommodate numerically more adjudicators and help with the problem of judging in the preliminary rounds of such a big tournament.
To provide feedback for other tournaments, click here.