Day 2 of IDC at JOVED 2019, June 15th 2019

Dhila: Now we’re going to have two options for today; a time limit or a motion pass limit. Anyone
wants to offer a solution?

Leon: I propose a time limit until 9PM.

Dhila: Everyone okay with 9?

Everyone: Yees.

Dhila: Okay we’ll go with 9.

Dhila: The first thing we should discuss is the rolling bid system, proposed by Central Javan
institution. Anyone from there want to propose specific way we should do this?

Livina: A question. Does the rolling bid list the same for IVED and HOVED or is it different?

Dhila: As far as I know it’s two different lists.

Dhila: This means that we’ll going to list out the regions where the last IVED and JOVED in three
years comes from.

Livina : Another question. If someone from region x that previously attends IVED/JOVED
but does not do so now, what will it become of them?

Dhila : We’ll remain to listing institutions’ regions formally recognized by council.

Andree: How do council recognizes institutions?

Dhila: From participation is IVED/JOVED on the last three years.

Andree: Any list of such institutions, and their regions?

Dhila: Yes. Feri will make it.

...

VM: Is it still possible to ask new motions? If it relates on the rolling bid, would it be better if we
discuss it now?

Dhila: Sure.

Livina: We would like to propose abolishment of rolling bid and return to emergency bid. We think
that it has a loophole in which given the participation rate of IVED and JOVED is declining some
institutions from a certain region to not come to prevent themselves to be listed in rolling bid.

Andree: Talking personally, it isn’t only about declining participation rate, but it’s also about IVED’s
losing relevance in the national circuit. When we put big restrictions to some institutions, people
might think “what is IVED anyway” and decided to just neglect the punishment.

Dhila: Do you think it applies to emergency bid?

Andree: Comparatively emergency bid’s decision is made annually instead of with a rigid standard.

VM: To add, emergency bids allows institutions to justify their current condition.

Dhila: Does anyone wants to comment? Especially those who proposes the rolling bid.

.....

Aya: I just want to remind the argument from IVED that 1 year is too short. With rolling bid, some
regions have way more time (3 years) to prepare.

Leon: I have several concerns for this motion. First, this motion was proposed in IVED with a lot of
participants attending but then now JOVED with an entirely different participants topple that down.
Secondly, the reason why we have a lot of institutions saying “we can’t host” is because they have
other annual agendas. I feel that with a rolling bid these institutions can think in the long run which
agenda should we sacrifice. For the case of UNPAR, for example, which have force majeur of
administration change, the constitution states that force majeure is tolerable.

VM: I think that 2-3 years point assumes that the provinces will prepare for it. For example, for this
year’s JOVED there’s going to be someone to bid. As for point about previous attendees, well we’re
now in a joint constitution so there’s nothing that can be done about that.

Dhila: Any opinions from Central Javan or East Javan institution?

Leon: I understand that we’re in a joint constitution, but it’s about abolishing a motion that just
passed. It’s just unfair that some institutions are fortunate enough to attend this year’s JOVED to do
that.

Kushay: Okay, Boby.

Boby: I think that this rule will burden institutions from new regions that wants to participate in
JOVED, since now they will face an extra burden of eventually hosting the next edition of it. So it
might deter them from joining to begin with.

Dhila: But it’s unlikely for new regions to be put immediately on the top of the list, and we can also
add a new mechanism if necessary to ensure that the concern doesn’t happen.

VM: A question on the mechanism of the rolling bid; how do a certain region gets on the top of the
list?

Dhila: This is exactly what we are determining right now.

VM: If that’s the case, then there’s a possibility for new regions to come out on top? Not a big
likelihood, but one that is there nonetheless. And vice versa, in an emergency bid system if you face
the prospect of hosting but you’re not ready it’s easier for you to defend yourself, saying things like
“it’s our first-time ever participating, we are underdunded and doesn’t has rectorat funding” and the
likes.

Kushay: Anyone else?

Kael: Is there any mechanism to determine the host immediately for the next 2-3 years? And also for
those who want to bid in advance.

Kushay: None so far.

Kael: I don’t know if this helps, but if the concern is preparedness why don’t we just determine the
host for more than one future edition of JOVED?

Dhila: Then what’s the difference with determining the entire list of future host now?

Kael: It gives people more heads-up.

Dhila: Yes, but rolling bids only happens when there’s no one who wants to bid at all. If you want to
bid yourself, the mechanism won’t trigger.

VM: I want to clarify, is the list of regions in this rolling bid rigid or can it be changed on future
editions of IVED and JOVED?

Dhila: It’s rigid, unless the rules is changed.

VM: Then it just adds to the rigidity. Things changes, and a province might be ready in a certain year
but not on the next.

Dhila: Okay. Anyone wants to respond to that? Just to make it clear, the council position right now is
that we’re not saying that raising the motion right now is unfair, as we’re now providing a room for
such discussion to happen. If anyone really wants to propose a motion to abolish this rule, we’ll give
it a go. So does anyone still wants to argue about this?

Batara: Just to note, in an emergency bid a region can still bail out after being chosen. For example,
if Makassar gets chosen they still might eventually abandon their mandate to host. Presumably then,
things will get harder as you have less than one year to chose a new host and restart the hosting
process all over again. If it’s a rolling bid, a province can bail more than one year before the
upcoming event.

VM: Then what’s the difference with that to an emergency bid where you can defend your own
region from being chosen?

Kushay: The shorter time period.

Leon: Yes, and it’s not like we won’t excuse regions that faces unforeseeable changes. But the
difference now is that regions have bigger burden of proof to show that they are unprepared,
instead of just telling it to everyone before they even got the mandate to begin with.

Kushay: Anyone wants to response to that?

Kael: Is it possible to change the sanction for failing to host to non-monetary punishments of
increased rego fee? For example, discounting VPs and speaker scores. This way we might better
deter regions who are supposed to host but bails in the middle.
Kushay: I think that it’s a legit point of view, but I think there are other alternative to discounting VPs
on the end of the prelim, which is reverting back to our past rule which is banning the entire region
to participate in future editions of IVED & JOVED for the next three years. But if you want to propose
a motion about that, it’s okay and perhaps other people can further comment on your proposal.

Boby: How likely is it for regions in the rolling bid to prepare more than a year before they have to
host? Because often you can’t prepare to host two years before it happened. Most often, the way
campus bureaucracy works is that a proposal is given on the new year.

Livina: I can testify to that. On Pro-Ams, the proposal has to be given at the beginning of the new
semesters. So there are often restrictions set by the campus that makes it so that people cannot
prepare for an event way beforehand.

Andree: To add to Livina, I just want to ask a question, this is as Andree not as Binus btw. The
question is that if I plan to bid to host IVED for the next two years, I still have one year to prepare for
it anyway because me hosting is contingent to the absence of new bidders a year before the initially
planned hosting date. And one thing to note is that one year is enough for you to create a 40 teams
tournament at the minimum, this is speaking from my own experience though others might have a
different one.

Kushay: I get the points & concerns. However I think what has not been discussed at all until now is
the rationale as to why the rolling bid is proposed to begin with which is the idea that previously
there are regions that became tumbal in every edition of classics. Some cities just have the privilege
to have good spots to compete, food, cheap accomodation and accessibility from most parts of
Indonesia. Which is why oftentimes when an emergency bid happens the cities that gets the most
votes never varies a lot from around 3-5 cities.

Kushay: This is just me predicting based on intuition, but I’d predict that the cities receiving the most
votes on the last three emergency bids is never other than 3-5 cities. I’d bet that Makassar is always
on the bottom of the list because it’s far from many places. Bandung is always on the top 5, the
same also applies to cities like Semarang and Surabaya.

Kushay: But at the same time I also recognize the concerns from the anti rolling bid camp, so
probably we can have an emergency bid with an additional mechanism of if a city has been chosen
to host, they will receive three or four or x years of immunity from being picked again to host again
in the future? I think it also accomodates the concerns of Central Javan institutions who proposes
rolling bid on last IVED. What do you guys think about it?

Andree: Iya soalnya kita bukan oppose rolling bid gimana gimana, Cuma ada concern tentang
mekanisme spesifik nya aja. We think that it still has several loopholes that might be dangerous for
sustenance of classics in the long run.

Aisyah: We’re from JSDC who proposed the motion in the first place. So why we proposed this is
because of what Kak Kushay said, but if there are new proposals that makes it more fair we’re also
going to accept it. Why do the rolling bid got to be proposed to begin with is because we want
proliferation.
Ditra: I think that proliferation is not a really strong reason for the rolling bid because even now in
Surabaya and the number of institutions from Surabaya compared to ones let’s say, from West Java
is a lot lower. So I’m not sure changing locations of classics is going to affect proliferation.

Kushay: Thank you Ditra. Leon?

Leon: I still support the rolling bid, but I would like to add provisions in the constitution to ensure 1)
new institutions participating in IVED won’t immediately be subject to rolling bid, to not make them
deterred from joining, 2) specifying beforehand what excuses are acceptable for failing to host, e.g.
musibah or administration changes, or other force majeures.

Kushay: CMIIW about this, but AFAIK there are already specific mechanisms as to how the rolling bid
should be implemented. For example, let’s say a new province x wants to join IVED/JOVED, they will
be put on the bottom of the rolling bid list. And also for force majeures, there are some criterias we
have already defined such as death of orgcomms and other disasters.

Dhila: We have that displayed right here.

Kushay: So, anyone else wants to say something about this?

Dhila: Apakah ada yang mau respon? VM dan kawan-kawan, apakah kalian masih push for
revocation or do you want to propose instead a discussion to cover the loopholes that you are
fearing?

Livina: After discussing, BIPEDS would like to revoke this motion because we see that we have a lot
of other things to talk about. But on future editions we would really like to discuss what is the best
specific mechanims of rolling/emergency bid.

Dhila: Berarti rolling bid masih ada, dan kita masih nerusin urutannya?

Livina: Yes.

Andree: I’m not sure if I can say anything about this, I think the council should decide about this, but
my two cents is that we determine the list of regions after we have covered the loopholes in this
rolling bid, probably on the next councils when we have bigger clarity as to how we should do stuffs.

Kushay: So to summarize the discussion, first question: Do any institution wants to propose to
revoke the system of rolling bid?

Dhila: Kalau ada, angkat tangan sekarang. Because what we need to decide now is whether or not
we want to revoke it, and if not, to discuss how should we improve it. But it’s still under the premise
that we still accept the rolling bid.

VM: A question. Does the listing of regions for the rolling bid done right now or after we have
discussed all the other motions?

Kushay: Now.

Kushay: So one wants to propose the motion? Okay then. Now do anyone wants to propose a
mechanism to improve the rolling bid system, or at least initiate a discussion about it?
Kael: IPB proposes the sanctions for regions who fails their rolling bid mandate to be changed to
non-monetary based punishments.

Andree: We propose to postpone the discussion of rolling bid because IVED is going to be held in
Jakarta and we’re going to host next year’s JOVED in ITB anyway. So I don’t think there’s much use in
discussing this especially given we still have motions from ITB, UI and UB all of which are important
and needs time to discuss and we can discuss this when rolling bid becomes necessary, e.g. on IVED
2020 in Jakarta.

Dhila: Thank you. Does anyone wants to second either Kael’s or Andree’s proposal?

Livina: BIPEDS seconds Andree’s motion.

Kushay: Okay. No one seconds IPB’s motion? Okay there’s one, so we’ll have a free vote about it.

(voting process)

Dhila: Unanimous, BIPEDS’ proposal passes. So now we’re going to talk about ITB’s proposal to
change JOVED’s format from Asian Parliamentary to British Parliamentary. Does anyone have a
question, obejctions, supports, or perhaps the proposers themselves would like to talk about this?

Cheryl: Hi, I’m Cheryl from PCU. We have some concerns about the motion, since BP is not friendly
to newbies considering that everyone knows that BP is more complex with presence of closing teams
and whatnot. I understand VM’s argument about declining classics participation but I think that the
debating community has responsibility to try to improve the system instead of just leaving things as
it is. But we still need to consider its value to introducing debating to new debaters.

Leon: To add to that, I want to talk about how there are concerns in Facebook post about how
classics has been dominated by powerhouse institutions every year. I feel like it being changed to BP
will result in even less participation because small institutions will have lesser chances of winning,
and they feel that it’s not worth it to participate and they would rather focus on regional BP
competitions instead that are cheaper. So that’s UI’s stance.

Kushay: Just a disclaimer, I don’t have a strong stance about either BP or AP format so I just want to
be a devil’s advocate for both sides of the argument that Cheryl and Leon talked about. First of all on
the likelihood for small institutions to win, I don’t know whether or not my statement is backed by
statistics, but I think that precedences when underdogs got into grandfinals of a BP competition is
bigger than Asians, for example on NUDC 2018 when UNSRI became the first ever non-Javan
institution to enter GF, and moreover I think that even if it’s still dominated by powerhouse
institutions, I think that the features BP has is that there are four teams in the GF, which means that
there are bigger likelihood for small institutions to enter grandfinals is bigger only by the virtues of
more slots existing.

Aya: In addition to that, I think that it’s easier to get a golden generation to shine. Because often
when there are two potentially great debaters they will eventually have to carry another one in
Asians. On BP, that will not happen. Even if there are only one prodigy from a certain underdog
institution, their burden to carry is lesser in BP than in Asians where there are three people in a
team.
Hendra: Responding to Kushay’s argument, I think that on NUDC you only have one representative,
not in JOVED. So probably in JOVED four UGM teams or other established institutions probably the
four grandfinalists are going to remain the same institutions anyway.

Kael: I think that since BP is more relevant to NUDC, and since we don’t have classics for Asians,
perhaps we can change JOVED to BP and IVED to Asians? Since the relevance of Australs format in
Indonesia isn’t big anyway.

Aya: Just so to note, ALSA is also an Asian classics.

Kushay: I would like to respond to Hendra’s point. As much as I do agree that some degree of
powerhouse domination would still exist I think that there are several things that needs to be noted:
First, is that most of the time even powerhouse institutions doesn’t send four teams, and AFAIK the
team cap that applies in most classics are three teams per institution. So even if all three of it are
going to the grandfinals there’s going to be an additional slot to be filled by non-powerhouse
institution. And even if there are possibilities that the last one slot is going to be filled by yet another
powerhouse institution, I don’t think that’s the point. The point is to say that by the virtue of more
slots existing, regardless of how many powerhouse institution teams exist the likelihood of getting
the slot in GF for non-powerhouse teams is still bigger.

Kushay: Moreover I would argue that the system of BP makes it so that other perspective other in
judging the debate exists. And often this causes things like a team that is perceived to win by most
people being left out, not relevant, or other dynamics that makes them not get into the top two. I
trust that you guys already know the case study about this one, so I’ll just stop here.

VM: I just want to talk about UNPAR’s case. I think that we can’t just say “improve the current
condition”. Because the sad reality is that the participation rate of classics is constantly declining.
And I also understand that it’s harder for newbies to understand BP, but it’s not impossible. There
are many countries which only have BP as the format, such as the UK. So it’s not impossible. And
especially since there will always be institutions gearing up for NUDC and exclusively participates in
BP tournaments.

Zarin: I think the main concern I hear thus far is to change the system because we want more
institutions to have bigger likelihood to win. But I think the reason why people don’t want to join this
year’s JOVED is not because of the competitiveness, though I will address that later but rather
because many institutions right now are having UAS. But talking about competition, this might sound
controversial so I apologize for the language, but if you want to win it’s simply your burden. So just
better prepare, and the value of competition is how they struggle which is why we only reward
people who performs better. Again, I’m sorry about the language but that’s my concern.

VM: I want to add. I think that if the problem is UAS, regardless of the format teams will not come
anyway, so I’ll talk about other reasons why teams didn’t join JOVED. What I talked yesterday and
also needs to be discussed today is about cost. Because many institution might have burden
participating in competitions. Even many established institutions don’t receive money from their
rektorat and are forced to do adjudicating gigs to cover up their transportation or registration cost.
And the crucial thing with BP format is that the cost is significantly less. One judge for four teams,
two members per team instead of three. That means less money for adj fee, accomodation, etc. So
not only the rego fee per person will be cheaper, so this helps the concern of many institution.

Andree: To add, what we propose is not about this year’s JOVED because I as a convener also agree
that the timing of this year’s JOVED is clashing with many institution’s UAS, and this is the lesser evil
that I have to take since on the other dates UADC Australs NUDC nabrak semua so I have no other
choice. What we are talking about is the declining as a whole because on JOVED 2016 UNAIR we
have 44 participants, and from there it declines. JOVED IPB has 30 participants.IVED UMB has 34,
JOVED UGM has 37. IVED Semarang has 31. I think this kinda proves that AP is not as marketable as
it is and it is a hefty burden to make AP marketable again, since it’s hard to convince every
institution who are not leaning to 3-on-3 since lots of their rektorat leans to the NUDC format.

Kael: I want to add, that we can also make it easier for host to hold a BP competition because there’s
going to be less fee spent for consumption.

Hendra: I think that it’s too early for us to say that the amount of participants in Asians is declining,
since there are still many international competitions with Asians format that has high participation
rate. Also, Asians also have KDMI that people also prepare for.

VM: So if we’re talking about similarity, I think that KDMI is less similar to JOVED than JOVED BP to
NUDC. Secondly, when we’re talking about international tournaments with Asians format who has
participation rates that is high, there are. But many teams in Indonesia are simply not interested to
participate in said compeititons. Only right now we have Australs and UADC that is nearby so the
cost is cheaper, but on the next years it will be held farther away and got even less accessible for
Indonesian teams.

Aya: I think that most of those who participates here never participates in international competitions
anyway, probably only around three institutions who participates here do. Moreover, there are also
international competitions held in BP format.

Andree: To add to Batara, it’s not fair to assume that people will lean to UADC or others since
Indonesian teams’ participation in UADC has never been that much anyway, especially from
institutions that also participates in JOVED.

Kushay: Thank you. Anybody else? If no, we’re going to proceed to votings.

Cindy: I want to say something. The main concern from PCU is that JOVED is one of the few classics
accessible to newbies, and Asians adalah format yang paling gampang buat belajar, e.g. argumen
yang lengkap kaya gimana. Kalau BP, ada strategi-strategi dan lebih sulit untuk institusi yang
gapunya pelatih untuk belajar caranya gimana. Ini membantu orang-orang yang mau belajar debat
dari awal, dan kebanyakan format debat SMA itu Asians. Terus, kalau JOVED berubah ke BP
semuanya mungkin ngerasa waktunya semua classics berubah ke BP. IVED berubah ke BP, ALSA UI
berubah ke BP.

Kezia: To add to that, poin tentang powerhouse masuk BP grandfinals masih inherently hoki-hokian,
tapi ini tetep demotivate orang-orang yang mau belajar debat. Karena di BP kasus yang sama di beda
ruangan bisa jauh berbeda hasilnya, it’s all about strategy and framing, kadang-kadang you can be so
good and still got 3rd or 4th, apalagi institusi yang jarang menang. Jadi orang-orang jadi makin
demotivated to learn karena mereka ngerasa memang sesusah itu.

Boby: Just to add about problem of newbies, I think it’s just a problem of habituation. Many high
school debaters are also habituated to BP format. And if the problem is strategy, it is also not very
inaccessible. Many videos, or learning materials exist for people to learn.

Noni: I get that Asians is more important for newbies to learn, but I think that even in Newbies UI
which are supposed to be a platform for new debaters to learn, participation is very low. And I think
it’s more urgent to address the problem of declining participation. For BP, it’ll be cheaper and easier
for us to fulfill the team cap. Moreover, small institutions who don’t participate in debating that
much can also hire coaches to prepare for the competition, hence JOVED can be participated by
those smaller institutions to prep for NUDC.

Dhila: We have three last slots to speak, and then a vote. Since most likely people won’t change their
mind at this point and we’re running out of time today. So UB, UI, and VM.

Batara: Two things. First, most competitions outside of Java are held on the BP format. Sumatra, and
also Makassar. So all the talk about learning, BP is much more accessible for institutions around Java.
Second, we can also talk about trial. IVED used to have a trial to ban prepared motions, people sees
that they like it, and then they make it permanent. We can also try the same system now, since
obviously the host wants to do this and it makes it easier for them if this passes.

Leon: So classic right, we want to increase participation for classics. But on the other hand lomba
Asians di Indonesia itu udah sedikit banget. We can say that Asians are a lot more relevant, but we
have to agree that many people understand Asians better and only have coaches yang ngerti Asians
aja. We also need to understand that most regional competitions right now are held in the BP
format. The thing is, udah ada precedence orang-orang ngerasa relevance lomba Asians turun and
eventually changes to BP, for example PDO. Dulu AP sekarang BP. So I think what’s going to happen
is that JOVED, which is a classics, turned into a BP, it’s going to hard for AP competitions to survive.

Leon: IVED and ALSA will not change to BP? That’s true. But the participation will turun banget to
prop up participation for JOVED, and that doesn’t solve the problem because increased participation
for JOVED comes at the tradeoff of IVED and ALSA UI severely declining karena more insitution bakal
ngerasa why should I invest in AP lagi, it’s all BP now. So, that’s my two cents. But, even if bener-
bener semuanya on board with BP, as a last resort I propose jadi trial aja dulu, ga dimasukin di
constitution.

Noni: Why is in your opinion AP is an important format for us?

Leon: People who learn in debates based on their ability does so based on their high school
experience which mostly have AP competitions. And I know this is receh but there’s this LINE
SQUARE English Debating that has around 1000 people and most of them only understands AP as a
format, not to mention the much higher number of AP manuals than BP on the internet.

Kezia: To add to Leon, PCU thinks that when talking about participation we need to discuss what
kind of participation is good. I mean like if we use JOVED as an NUDC prep it means yang bakal
turunnya adalah NUDC delegates yang udah berlatih sering-sering banget, making the competition
less friendly to those who wants to learn debating. So participation increase, but what’s the value of
it? Dan yang lebih mengkhawatirkan adalah, oftetimes institusi-institusi cuma invest ke dua orang
aja yang mau prep NUDC. Kalau Asians, dua orang ini forced to teach another person that might
continue regeneration on their institution.

VM: On what UI said, BP manuals juga ada dimana-mana. Second, banyak juga comps where people
can practice BP. AO, GO, dll.

Dhila: Times up, we’re going to vote now.

(voting process)

Dhila: Simple majority, the motion passes.

Dhila: So that concludes today.