Day 3 of IDC at JOVED 2019, June 16th 2019

Dhila : We’re going to discuss first whether the JOVED BP change should be
institutionalized or just as a test run. Does anyone have any opinion on this? Maybe the one who
proposed it?

VM: We’ll discuss first.

Dhila: Okay

VM: We propose this as a trial format to accomodate those who disagree’s interests and to clarify
whether the benefits we promised are true.

Dhila: Anyone wants to argue about this? No opinion? If there are objections please say so. If no, we
can assume everyone agree and there’s no need for a vote.

Leon: Question. What’s the basis of this trial? As in, when will this be discussed again?

VM: Just like IVED UMB’s discussion about prepared motion, we see again on next year’s council.

Leon: Does that mean it’ll be on JOVED 2020?

VM: Yes.

Tasya: If we just use one trial it won’t be enough to know the benefits or not. Probably three years?

Kael: To respond to that, one year is enough. Participation can be evaluated next year.

Kushay: To respond to the concern about three years, I think a one-year trial allows greater flexibility
to accomodate the possibility of an extended trial, or a permanent system or even revocation based
on whatever happened next year.

Dhila: Thank you. Anybody else wants to defend a more trial time? Do those who agree with the
extended time still defend it? If you do, we’re going to have a vote. .... So we make it just a one year
trial then. So we go to the next agenda.

Andree: I would like to say something. JOVED as BP does not have predefined rule, so Binus and
BIPEDS made a draft as to how the constitution of this new BP constitution looked like.

Andree: What I infer from promoting JOVED in adjureceh was that JOVED sounds Java-centric and
we think rebranding it to a name less Java-centric should be adopted, but this motion to be
discussed is up to the council.

Dhila: Do this want to be inputted to the constitution?

Andree: If yes, we’ll brand JOVED 2020 as NIBP 2020.

Kushay: What about putting what’s attached on the doc as a temporary article in the constitution?

Leon: Does amendments needs supermajority vote?

Dhila: No, we changed that on the last IVED.

Andree: To add, the reason why we made this entrie draft is because we agree that JOVED as BP is a
very radical move, so things like criterias for A-core and so on, so we say that NUDC standard should
be just utilized here.

Leon: I propose this draft not to be discussed today because it involves a lot of clauses for people to
read in detail. Ideally we are provided time to go through this. Regardless of this draft is published or
not it’s so detailed with small letters, we don’t have the time to read now.

Andree: We propose that this is discussed on IVED 2020, since we have not much time to discuss this
in full detail tomorrow.

Dhila: Everybody agrees to it? Ok. Next agenda is a motion from UI. Two separate motions: a)
Increase registration for Java institutions and b) Cross-subsidy.

Leon: I want to talk the first motion to increase rego fee for Javan institution. We talked with a lot of
people who participated in IVED and JOVED are Javan, and this makes it hard for non-Javan
institution to participate. So we propose to make it easier for non-Javan institution to participate.

VM: Is it possible for us to get a clear mechanism about the percentage and all that?

Dhila: Yes.

Leon: I have a question for council. Can we combine the two motions as one?

Dhila: Yes.

Jessica Andriani: The reason why we proposed this motion is because of the continuously declining
amount of intitutions who participated in classics. We identified several reason for this; competition
saturation, lack of regeneration; people being deterred because of the overcompetitiveness. But we
think that the biggest tipping point is price.

Jessica Andriani: The reason why we make the system cross-subsidy is to reduce the burden on the
organizing committee in hosting. The amount of cross-subsidy funds will be flexible to how many
teams are participating.

...

Levina: Can I have the file to be given to Atma?

VM: I also have to questions. First, who gets to decide the rate given that it’s flexible? Second, how
do we determine the change since it is contingent to how many teams participating? Lastly, wouldn’t
make this hard for the orgcomm to determine breakeven point and the likes?

Leon: There rules are not set in stone. All of the details and mechanism here are up to discussion.
What UI wants to discuss here is that whether or not everyone is on board to this.

Leon: Additionally, we just want to show that this is just a small sacrifice for those who want to send
more than one teams.

....
Hendra: Is this mechanism going to be permanent if passed? And also is this going to be a fixed-rate
for every non-Java institution?

Leon: This is going to be permanent if passed. As for the non-Java teams receiving continuous
subsidies, at first it’ll be permanent but if there’s a change of trend we can always amend it.

Richard: If a non-Java institution host JOVED, will the subsidy persists?

Leon: Yes.

Noni: Just to make things clear, will the amount of rego fee increase imposed up to the orgcomm?

Jessica Andriani: How I imagined it is that it;ll be adapted to as the competition progresses.

Noni: I think the benefit of getting non-Java institution is contingent on those institutions knowing
whether or not the subsidy they receive is enough. Secondly, I know this sounds petty but it’s just
reality that classics are not funded by the individuals, but by the institution. And it’s not like
institutions have a lot of money so even if the overall increase is small it’ll still be a burden. So I think
it’ll be better if there are a clearer mechanism of percentage increase.

Andree: To add to Noni’s point, in this year’s classics I tried to have certain mechanism to make
institutions go to this year’s JOVED; a small deduction rate, non-constitutional yet I still see people
bailing-out opinion. My personal opinion, bail-out exists. Initially it’s 40 teams it became 24 teams.
It’s going to be hard for the convener to adjust to all the budgeting change.

Jessica Andriani: We understand. We hosted IVED 2015 and it was the worst IVED ever. But what I’m
trying to say here is that this is worth a try. And my two cents, by this policy we’re going to have
better certainty. I also felt that people bailing out have a lot externalities involved apart from rego
fee. Since the externalities are a lot we can’t just assume that it’s solely because of rego fee. We
don’t know whether this policy is passed or not, but it’s worth a try and can be evaluated further in
the future.

Leon: The point is I hope you can look past tecnicalities, regarding mechanism as to how we set the
percentage is something we can discuss after we fundamentally agree to the idea.

Aya: Since the goal is to get more institution coming, I think what Andree did is good. And it’s better
since there’s a lot of institutions who are new participating that came from Java that’s also going to
be subject to this.

Dhila: So are you proposing this is extended to all new institutions?

Livina: Can this mechanism be delegated to the orgcomm? Since the budgeting proposal given to
universities tend to not tolerate changes.

Jessica: In concept we think is okay, but we felt that there should be an accountability report after
the event is over.

Dhila: Currently what we have on the constitution is a scholarship program whose recipient is
selected by orgcomm, we want to extend that.
Bobby: If some institutions are willing to go to java most likely they’ll be prepared to splurge anyway.
And just a thought, is it possible for the orgcomm to hire a travel agent to reduce transportation cost
of the participants?

Jessica: I felt that in practice it’s okay if the one handling this is orgcomm but in principle what we
suggested is that newly participating teams receives help in funding.

VM: Would UI be fine with the current JOVED system we have of deducted rego fee?

Jessica: In SQ the system is a fixed rate, what we desired is flexibility to have increase rego reduction
as the team registrating increases.

VM: So UI want a cross subsidy based on percentage, not afixed rate, and also to always wait how
many teams participating then we calculate it?

Jessica: When do people bail? Why?

Andree: Atma bailed because of UAS, STBA because of absence of plane tickets, UNILA and no
reason received, UNJ, UAS. UB, no clear reasons. USU, no cheap tickets. UIR, from two to one teams,
no reasons. Manado, no reason.

Jessica: On the uncertainty convener faces, what we suggest is that a fixed increase, and if there’s
more participants we can adjust to that.

...

Dhila: We’re not setting the percentage on the constitution, but just a fixed general mechanism of
cross-subsidy.

...

VM: Katakan saja suatu institusi menurunkan tim A tim B tim C. Kalau ada tim B, berarti tambah 60
ribu. Kalau sama tim C, jadi 120 tambahnya. Tapi, kalau dengan sistem N-2 akan meskipun satu
institusi kirim tiga tim akan tetap ada N1 yang harus bayar 600 ribu.

Leon: Bukannya itu SQ?

Livina: I feel like I could not have kept track soal institusi mana aja yang ngirim tim B dan C, and I feel
like the focus that we’re doing right now when we share the burden to all established institution is
much more easy on the budgeting. Karena gw lebih gampang ngatur jumlah peserta nya yang fixed
berapa.

Jessica: Tapi bukannya uncertainty will still exist? As in, kalau tim B partisipasi nya tentatif berarti
besar final cashflow nya juga tentatif?

Livina: Maksudnya pas gw bikin keuangannya, gw emang gatau jumlah tim B dan C yang fixed turun
berapa. But it’s easier for me to equally share the burden to all teams participating by having a fixed
registration fee.
Leon: Kalau begitu ini ga berhubungan sama proposal institutional judges dong? Ini cuma
berhubungan sama proposal yang ingin menshare burdennya equally to all participants?

Livina: Yes, we think that the SQ is enough daripada harus ada penentuan tim B dan C ini.

Leon: And what we want adalah ok institutional judge rule masih go on, but what we want is still
imposing an additional fee ke tim B sama C. With all due respect, we do understand bahwa ini
memang susah ngitungnya. But we believe on changes in mindset and make improvement. Karena
fokus disini tu juga in the spirit of people yang mengeluhkan bahwa established institution kirim
banyak banget tim, dominate the breaking, mereka ngerasa demotivated to join unless there are
leniency of fee given to them.

Jessica: To add to this, permasalahannya kan adalah kita ga bisa predict nih jumlah tim yang akhirnya
dateng berapa. Makanya bisa ga sih kita kasih disklaimer bahwa tim yang daftar harus fixed tim yang
mereka daftarin berapa, karena ini penting banget nih.

Andree: I can testify that it doesn’t work.

Leon: I think kalau masalahnya uncertainty, kita bisa coba ga return rego fee yang udah dibayar
kalau participation nya dicancel. Itu diatur di konstitusi ga?

Andree: Itu ga diatur di konstitusi. Di JOVED taun ini, yang batal participate rego fee nya dibalikin.

Leon: I don’t know if this can be a motion but whatever, but I think that those who have paid have
responsibility to give certainty to the convener dan kalau batal partisipasi ga dibalikin aja uangnya,
dan payment period nya dicepetin.

Andree: And it’s going to be in force on IVED 2020?

Livina: Can I ask, what is your argument against sharing the burden to all institution instead of those
who send B and C teams?

Jessica: Karena kita gabisa strictly define apa itu established institution. Definisinya sangat vague,
and the only reliable metric is the amount of teams they send to the most recent competition.

Leon: In the spirit of making debating more inclusive, I also think it’s bad to label an institution as
“established”. We’re trying to break that down, hence this proposal.

Jessica: We can also draft a worst-case scenario, best-case scenario budgeting. Optimist, pessimist,
and realist. Then adjust the subsidies based on that. Also, I agree that uncertainty exist. But I think
that the mechanism right now accomodates to that.

Noni: Apa peraturan tentang committee rugi means cancelling scholarship bakal dimasukin ke
konstitusi juga? Just to avoid the concerns of potential conveners. Does the same go with profits?

Andree: CMIIW, but we don’t have that for loss. Kalau untung, biasanya masuk ke scholarship.

Leon: Again, we invite you guys to evaluate this proposal based on it’s value, not implementation.
Karena kalau implementation bisa diadjust dan didiskusikan nanti enaknya gimana. Moreover, kalau
uncertainty, 1) itu ada di SQ anyway, but we can find another mechanism to skirt around that.
Soalnya I felt the optimist realist pessimist budgeting model itu bakal tetep ada regardless kita adain
motion ini atau engga.

Jessica: Yes. And to add to that, we do recognize that the implementation might be not completely
ideal. And that’s okay. Because we agree on this concept biar kita ada consideration and
improvement in the future.

VM: Ini gw nambahin sedikit aja on why the budgeting will be more difficult if the system is B and C
instead of equally spreading the burden to all participants. Karena, like, generally kalau sistem nya
projection best case worst case itu, kita masih bisa menentukan secara rigid subsidi yang bisa
diberikan di setiap skenario nya berapa. In comparison to B and C which is more fluctuative, bahkan
so-called established institution pun kadang-kadang bail kirim tim B dan C, it’s much simpler that
way.

Leon: Tapi bukannya exactly jumlah tim B dan C yang might bail in a given competition juga
uncertain ya?

Dhila: Any comments?

Andree: Concern gw adalah, dari orang-orang yg gw kontakin, gw takutnya adalah, this might sound
harsh, but regardless how many institutions yg ngirim 3 tim it’s fairer to share the burdent to
everyone because the question should not be about established or not established but rather about
overall responsibility.

Leon: But there’s still the problem of returning underpriviledge institution who still cannot break. I
feel like that’s the problem. Mereka ngerasa bahwa banyak institutions that can send all those
teams, dominates the break, dan at the same time mereka tetep burdened with the additional rego
fee increase.

Leon: So mending kita vote aja sekarang, since everyone already knows the pros and cons of this
anyway.

Dhila: So now we’ll first vote on whether or not we should give subsidies, and if it passes, we’ll vote
on how we should give such subsidy.

Andree: A question. If this passes, apakah bakal in force ke JOVED 2020 aja atau IVED 2020 juga?

Dhila: Dua-duanya.

Livina: Can I ask the council to exempt IVED 2020 if this motion passes? Karena proposal pendanaan
nya udah diajuin, dan changes will be met will constant questioning all over again.

Dhila: Iya bisa. We’ll vote first apakah subsidi nya pass, then we’ll vote apakah IVED 2020 can be
exempted from this rule or not.

(voting process)

Dhila: Simple majority, the motion passes. Then we’ll vote on whether or not the burden of giving
subsidy should be equally distributed to all participating teams atau yang kirim tim B and C aja.
(voting process)

Dhila: Simple majority on the B and C option.

Batara: I revoke my motion, about judge accreditation standards.

Dhila: Oh, okay. Apakah ada yang masih mau propose motion ini?

Kushay: Can I ask why you revoke it?

Batara: Initially I was made aware on the change of accreditation range of IVED 2020, initially it was
17 adj that got an A but it got lower after the tab is published. But after rechecking I saw the change
was done to make the range more reflective to the average scores of the judge in that particular
tournament. Some tournaments are hard to get an A, some are easy. So even though the standard
are often arbitrary, the arbitrariness is necessary to be fair on the overall participants’ performance
in the tournament.

Batara: But there are still unanswered concern about why there was no announcement regarding
the change of the score range. I don’t know about it, but that concern is not related to the motion
even if it is relevant.

Dhila: Ada yang mau komentar? Okay, so the motion is revoked.

Dhila: Next we’ll define what “new institution” means. Any ideas?

Andree: I propose the policy implemented on this JOVED, which defines new institution that has not
participated on the last 5 edition of classics. Or one that came in one of those, but come because of
scholarship.

Dhila: Any comments to that?

Andree: And this only applies if you send teams, not if you send judges.

Kushay: Just the classics include ALSA UI, or just IVED or JOVED?

Andree: Just IVED and JOVED.

Dhila: Apakah ada option lagi?

Boby: Just a question, so the moment I join JOVED I no longer become a new institution and be
subject to this rego fee deduction?

Kushay: Yes, except if you don’t participate in IVED/JOVED until JOVED 2023.

Dhila: Okay, apakah ada option lagi? Kalau engga, we’ll just have to confirm this one option.

Batara: Apakah sending an institutional judge doesn’t mean you don’t become a new institution
going to be inserted into the constitution?

Dhila: Yes. We’re going to explicitly define it.

Dhila: Last vote of the session, we’ll vote on whether or not IVED 2020 should be exempted from this
rule.

Livina: No, we revoke the request.

Dhila: Oh, okay then.

Kushay: Apparently we have no other agenda, so that’s the end for today.