Tournament Review - IIT Bombay Mood Indigo Intervarsity 2014.
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 they were unfortunate to have internal adjudicators in preliminary matchups, and such rounds were accused of bad decision making.
Running of the Tournament - 3.67 /5
Day one of the tournament was a sham in terms of the schedule. The adjudication test in particular proved to be a disaster, with multiple technical glitches that led to innumerable delays, and even a shift of the room for the debate. This meant shifted the entire tournament off schedule, and only one round could be organised, in place of the two rounds scheduled for the day.
The subsequent days showed a marked improvement. The Adj core became strict on timelines, and teams were thrown off tabs for turning up late. This led to a much smoother tournament, and up to 4 rounds were comfortably conducted on day 2.
Accommodation and Hospitality - 1.3 / 5
This was the bummer in what could have been one of the best tournaments in the recent past. The accommodation was way below acceptable standards, especially in light of the steep registration fee charged. The fact that the tournament provided only one meal per day, and the absence of a break night meant the debaters expected their registration fee to be utilised for a good accommodation.
The experience in campus was particularly sour. Debaters were made to wait for even upto 4-5 hours before rooms were given to them, and accommodation was shabby - with 5 people in a room meant for one, and only 2 mattresses. The Organising Committee was accused of being “completely apathetic” to such complains, and the organisers “ran out of accommodation”. Debaters were not allotted rooms for the entire stay of the tournament, even after constant nagging on the part of the participants. The unsatisfied Indian debater turned even angrier when reminded of the hotel accommodation provided to international participants for the same event.
Prizes and Subsidies provided - 3 /5
The prizes and subsidies provided seemed adequate on most counts. Given the scale of the tournament, expectations were a tad higher, but the amounts were satisfactory nonetheless. What determines this rating is the delivery of the prize money, but we’ll have to wait for updates on the same.
To provide feedback for other tournaments, click here.