INDC 2013 SEEDING PROCESS

By -

The metric for determining the 8 slots for INDC 2013 are as follows:

1) 6 slots will be allocated based on cumulative institutional achievements and 2 wild card entries based on team achievements.

2) The seeding for the 6 institutional slots will be done in the following manner:

The top 12 applications will be short listed by the Adj Core based on preliminary inspection and then ranked based on the following point system;

International Tournaments:
Win 15
Finals 12
Semis 10
Quarters 8
Octos 6

Tier 1 Tournament: 2X
Tier 2 Tournament: 1X
Win 5
Finals 4
Semis 3
Quarters 2
Octos 1

The list of Tier 1 tournaments:

1) IIT Bombay National Debate
2) Mukh Mem (Stephen's College, DU)
3) NLSD
4) NUJS PD
5) Premchand Memorial (Hindu College, DU)
6) RVDT

The rest are all Tier 2.

{A maximum of 15 debate achievements from (and including) Jan 2012 till present date must be submitted. Only achievements of institutional teams at debating tournaments will be considered and not cross team achievements. Also, no best speaker, adj breaks etc.}

Once the teams have been ranked; the Adj Core will then, using the rankings as guidelines subjectively deliberate on the debating achievements of the contending institutions in order to obtain the final seeding order for the 6 slots. Additionally, the adj core will produce a report to justify the subjective interventions in the point based ranking in order to insure both greatest transparency and the seeding of the best possible institutions.

Once the institutions have been seeded, they will be asked to nominate a team from within their institution. The debating achievements of the individual speakers in the nominated team will be reviewed by the adj core and ratified accordingly. If the nominated team fails to obtain ratification, the institution will be asked to nominate another team, failing which the slot will be handed to the next seeded institution. This is in order to avoid "flunky" teams from seeded institutions.

3)The finals 2 slots will be allocated based on team achievements solely. These teams must still be Institutional Teams. However, these slots won't be deliberated on the basis of the net achievements of the institute but on the sum of individual achievements of the 3 speakers on the team.

The process of seeding these two teams will begin once the institutional slots are seeded. The two teams applying for these slots must not belong to the institutions that have already been seeded.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THW completely ban smoking.

By -
Image
Motion :- THW completely ban smoking. House :- Western Liberal Democracies. Opposition Case: [Courtesy - Vishakha Wijenayake ] Each and every individual has a right to decide those matters that are most intimately connected one’s well-being, including the duration and quality of one’s life and the circumstances of one’s death. According to this view, the right to smoke, or engage in any kind of self harm stems from a deeper right to self-determination, a right to shape the circumstances of our lives so long as we do not harm or imperil others. The State as an external party lacks sufficient knowledge of an individual’s own chosen structure of values and preferences to make an informed decision to coerce an individual to comply with the values of the Government. An influence can be categorized as undue only in circumstances where it is deceptive, and where it is aggressive to the extent that it blocks out contradictory sources of information, making it impossible for an individual
Read more

Tournament Review - IIT Bombay Mood Indigo Intervarsity 2014.

By -
Touted as the warm-up to the WUDCs in Chennai, the IIT Bombay Parliamentary Debate turned out to be a mixed experience for most participants. 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 - 5/5 This was a no brainer. With quality participation from most debating institutions in the country, competition in the tournament was excellent. The presence of multiple international participants as competitive debaters added to the “Pre-WUDC” image of the tournament, and ensured the out rounds were high quality match ups. Quality of Adjudicators - 4.3 /5 Multiple subsidised adjudicators from across the world ensured good decision making in most rounds. A high quality core meant debaters were largely satisfied with the feedback and constructive, and had lots to learn. The internal adj pool however, did not match the tournament standards. Some debaters believed
Read more

The Case of Speluncean Explorers (In a nutshell)

By -
Image
HYPOTHETICAL: THE CASE OF THE SPELUNCEAN EXPLORERS FACTS: Five cave explorers got trapped underground, whilst on an expedition, following the collapse of a cave wall. Any scope of rescue was at least 10 days away and the last radio transmission received by them was from a doctor (following which the radio; their only means of communicating with the outside world ran out of battery), conveyed to them that the only manner in which they could survive till the arrival of the rescue team would be if they were to consume one of their own, given that they had run out of food and water supplies. One of the explorers, Whetmore, suggested that they throw dice to determine (i.e. random probability) who amongst them should be the sacrifice. This was held as reasonable by everyone after which, they all agreed to follow through with the plan of action. However, just before the dice was thrown, Whetmore backed out of the agreement. He was outvoted, and a dice was thrown on his behalf.
Read more