TRIVIUM 3

Souradip Sen from the IITB Debating Society has sent in his review of PEC's tournament Trivium 3...

"Trivium 3 - a review

The good:

• Reputed, competent adj core comprising Yaman, Uttara, Eashan, Prasun and Ritwik.
• Large number of competent subsidized adjes. Also, the PEC internal pool exceeded my expectations by some distance.
• Transparency in adj allocations in post-break rounds. The numerical breaks were generally the basis for further allocations. Conflicts were few and well-managed.
• Innovative motions: One of the rounds had motions which everyone assumed would be joke motions- took 5 minutes to sink in that they were for real. By general consensus, that was the best round in the entire tournament, especially for the lower rooms, since it required imagination and application of 1st principles alone. Another round defined alternative prop and opp models to attain the same goal- a policy s policy debate.
• A “burger girl” food stall near the briefing room was the lifeline for the participants.
• Moreover, the org com provided food at strategic points in time.
• Low registration-fee (INR 1200), excellent accommodation- comfortable, not very shady, and with food and alcohol available nearby at reasonable rates. More than what most tournaments manage to provide.
• Decent break night: Over –crowded, but decent food and alcohol so no complaints.
• Incredibly well- managed post-break rounds. The octos and quarters were held at the acco - efficient and convenient.
• Prize and subsidy money was handed out to everyone concerned at the closing ceremony itself.

The bad:

• Random speaker scores- Both the top two speakers had two instances of 80/81 and one 79/81. This was seen throughout the tabs with a large standard deviation in the scores- both in terms of scores received by an individual speaker across 6 rounds and in terms of scores given out by various adjudicators.
• A clear bias against whip speakers was also reflected in the tabs.
• Similarly, we had the usual problem of certain extra-vindictive teams handing out 1s to adjudicators. The adj. break, by general consensus was contingent on avoiding vindictive teams (luck) as much as it was about clarity of feedback. Also, there was a clear bias with regards to Chairs getting marked consistently higher by teams than panelists, disproportionate to the actual difference in feedback-quality (if any).
• The field was relatively shallow at the top. Many last-minute pullouts by major cross teams and institutions cost the tournament badly in terms of prestige and quality.
• The final was a dud, though not matching up to the standards set at RVDT last year.

The ugly:

• The adj test was almost entirely a farce. Two of the adj-core members hadn`t reached, leading to the fairly ludicrous situation of a non adj-core member taking interviews. This was not what the adjudicators had signed up for.

Disclaimer- The review is based on my personal experience of the tournament. I have attempted
to be as objective in my assessment as possible. Discrepancies, if any, may kindly be brought to my
notice.

Souradip Sen
souradips0@gmail.com"

Uday Singh Rana adds...

"Motions quality overall was pretty good, especially the last few prelims and postbreak motions. But the "joke" motion round was a little unnecessary. I don't tink those motions were that great frankly.And I'm also not too sure about general consensus on that round being great. But maybe that's just me. No feedback in post breaks was a little uncalled for. No negative reinforcement for adjes to be thorough with their decision in tight situations. I'm sure there was some valid grounds for that move, but it eluded me. Break Night was a let down from last year. But it still wasn't a bad break night. The org com otherwse did a really good job. Transport from acco to venue, prize money on time, rounds happened more or less on time. Good job on that front."