I.

Purpose

The 3rd Damodaram Sanjivayya National Parliamentary Debate 2022 tournament (here forth
referred to as "tournament") is committed to providing an environment that is fair and accessible
to all participants including but not limited to being free from discrimination, harassment,
bullying and vilification, and which fosters equity, inclusion and respect for diversity. This Equity
Policy aims to ensure that all participants and individuals involved in the tournament are treated
with dignity, fairness and respect. It broadly deals with expected behavior from participants and
all other individuals involved in the tournament, and procedure for redressal in case of violation
of rules and penalties that will be imposed. Equity is committed to upholding the sanctity of the
tournament.

To this end, the Equity policy is brought into effect as a code of conduct, governing all parties to
the tournament. For the purposes of this policy, the Equity Team for the tournament comprises
of Leauren, Sucharitha and Antara. The contact details of the Equity Officers are attached
at the end of this Policy.

This policy outlines what conduct is prohibited and outlines the procedures for raising
complaints when participants feel that their equity has been breached. The objective of the
Policy is to secure the victim, whose dignity and safety will be prioritized over the state of mind
of the accused.

Equity is a body that exists independent of the Core Adjudication Panel and the Organizing
Committee.

The committee would also like to express their gratitude towards the CDPT Equity Committee
(especially Mallika), for working on the original version of this document. The committee has
also referred to the policy used by the RVDT’ 21 Equity Committee and credits them for
updating the standards of equity.

II. Scope

This policy applies to all participants at the tournament including but not limited to:
● Debaters;
● Adjudicators;
● Coaches;
● Observers; and
● Members of the Organizing Committee.

III. Period of Operation of Policy

This Policy applies to the entire duration of the Tournament, that is:
● During rounds organized by the OC
● The time between the rounds
● During any formal event organized by the OC as part of the Tournament
● During any social event organized by the OC as part of the Tournament
● In transportation organized by the OC as part of the Tournament
● In accommodation organized by the OC as part of the Tournament
● To any and all interactions between participants on all social media platforms.

Any interactions that may occur in the context of the Tournament prior to or subsequent to the
dates of the Tournament, may also be taken cognizance of, subject to the ability of the Equity
Committee to investigate and make an objective determination of the facts.

IV. Definitions

i. Bullying

Bullying is the unreasonable behavior by an individual or group, directed towards another

individual or group, either physical or psychological in nature, that intimidates, offends, degrades
humiliates, undermines or threatens. This includes pressuring another person or group of people
to do something that they are uncomfortable with.

ii. Direct Discrimination

Direct discrimination is treating an individual or group less favorably than another individual or
group on the basis of a protected attribute in the same circumstances or circumstances not
materially different.

iii. Harassment

Harassment is any unwelcome, offensive, abusive, belittling or threatening behavior that

humiliates, offends or intimidates an individual or group on the basis of a protected attribute.

iv. Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment means any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors or any other
unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that humiliates, offends or intimidates a person and which
a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would anticipate making the person
humiliated, offended or intimidated.

v. Intimidation

Threatening behaviour towards any individual who is part of this Tournament (including
volunteers and support staff) in the nature of heckling, yelling, harassing, threatening, acting in a
physically or verbally aggressive fashion, degrading public or private tirades, deliberate insults
related to a participant’s person, identity or competence, threatening or insulting comments,
whether oral or written (including by e-mail or any form of social media), deliberate desecration
of religious and/or national symbols.

vi. Victimization

Victimization is to cause detriment to a person because that person has made a complaint of
discrimination or taken part in complaints proceedings.
vii. Vilification

Vilification is the public incitement of hatred, contempt or severe ridicule of another individual
or group on the basis of a protected attribute.

V. Protected Attributes

It is important to note that different individuals experience different barriers to successfully

engaging with competitive debating. It is a violation of this Equity Policy to treat individuals
differently on the basis of differences in one or more of the protected attributes listed below.
This policy prohibits any participant or group of participants from bullying another participant
or group of participants. The use of offensive language that perpetuates stereotypes, the casual
or insensitive use of potentially triggering language (particularly including the language of
violence or sexual assault) is also expressly prohibited. It is important to bear in mind that when
making in-jokes or engaging in friendly teasing and banter, this is done in such a way that no
individual in earshot is injured.

Protected attributes listed herein are meant to protect those who are oppressed or disadvantaged
as a result of the same which would mean privilege being called out is still acceptable in debate
rooms. This treatment could include, but is not limited to, any of the prohibited behavior above.

The list of protected attributes are as follows:

1. Age or age group
2. Indigenous/Cultural identity
3. Caste
4. Debating ability or institutional affiliation
5. Disability (including but not limited to past, present and future disabilities, a genetic
predisposition to a disability and behavior that is a manifestation of a disability)
6. Gender identity (the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender
related characteristics of a person, including but not limited to how people express or present
their gender, recognizing that a person’s gender identity may be an identity other than man
or woman)
7. Infectious disease (for example, HIV status)
8. Language status or proficiency
9. Marital or relationship status
10. Race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, or ethno-religious background
11. Religious affiliation, belief, views or practice
12. Political affiliations or beliefs
13. Sex or Intersex status
14. Sexual orientation
15. Sexual practices or experience (for example, previous partner(s) or lack thereof)
16. Socio-economic status and background
17. Any other attribute where discrimination:
a. Causes or perpetuates systemic disadvantage; and/or
b. Undermines human dignity; and/or
c. Adversely affects the equal enjoyment of a person’s rights and freedoms in a serious
manner that is comparable to discrimination on a protected attribute listed above.
This list is non-exhaustive, and the final decision with regard to the consideration of a ground
shall lay with the Equity Team.

Notably, debate rooms can seldom protect debating ability and political affiliations of participants by nature of the
sport hence they are conditionally protected attributes.

Conditionally Protected Attributes

In the context of debate, a small range of attributes (Conditionally Protected Attributes) may be
open to respectful questioning or challenge but outside of debates will be treated as Protected
Attributes. These include:

● Debating or adjudicating ability.

● Political affiliations, beliefs, or ideologies.

In the case where these are questioned in the context of debate, the challenge must be directed at
the ideas presented. For example, it might be appropriate to say, “While the opposition believes
Democracy to be prima facie good, we think that a democracy is only legitimate if it provides
utilitarian benefit to its citizens”. However, it is less advisable to say, “Given this was your
second debate you can be forgiven for not understanding…”. Ad hominem attacks based on
identity may constitute breaches of equity. Caution should always be taken in referencing
Conditionally Protected Attributes and individuals should be constantly aware of how their
words may affect others.

VI. Code of Conduct

(Conduct and Matters Regarding Debates)

Please note that this is a non-exhaustive list of guidelines and behaviour standards. Any and all
behaviour that goes against the standards of fairness and accessibility of the tournament will be
deemed to be a violation of the Equity policy and shall be treated as such.

i. Language Guidelines

Debaters and adjudicators must treat each other and the adjudicators with respect by:
● Respecting the rules of the competition;
● Refraining from disrupting or distracting other debaters or adjudicators, whether through
words, sounds, conduct, or misuse of technology;
● Accepting the decision of the majority adjudicator(s);
● Refraining from insulting or non-constructive commentary on speeches or speakers.

To ensure that the tournament is inclusive to the maximum possible extent, every participant
must showcase sensitivity and consideration while interacting with others, which includes using
appropriate language while discussing sensitive issues. While we recognize and understand that
achieving such inclusiveness involves not just good will but also a fair amount of learning, we
encourage participants to work towards this end by learning on their own and from each other.
A few guidelines have been provided below for the reference of participants
 (a) GENERALIZATIONS
Avoid generalizations on the basis of protected attributes when referring to groups of people.
Generalizations may be offensive to both adjudicators as well as other speakers and/or observers
of the debate. As a general principle, phrase everything as if you are talking about someone in the
room.
If you feel that what you say might offend them, rephrase it.

Statements should be phrased as "some members of X community" rather than "all X people".
Recognize that many conditions are externally imposed.

For example, instead of saying "X people are bad at long-term planning." say "X makes long-
term planning difficult for some individuals." Put people's humanity first. There is a subtle but
important difference between the phrase "X person" and the phrase "person who is X." The
former presents the protected attribute as a defining characteristic, while the latter leads with a
recognition of personhood Members of a certain group might make jokes about their own
"attributes". It is important to note that you must wait for them to open that door and be
proportional with respect to what you say after that.

As a general principle, phrase everything as if you are talking about someone in the room. If you
feel what you say might offend them, then rephrase it. If what you seek to say is indeed true, this
should be possible. If you cannot make it inoffensive, then simply start with a sincere and pre-
emptive apology. However, this is not to be used as means to breach equity. Saying things like, "I
don't know how to say this in a non-equity violating manner but..." will not automatically excuse
a participant if the resulting statement is found to be a breach of equity.

(b) GRAPHIC LANGUAGE

Using vivid or graphic language to illustrate the impact or truth of your argument is a common
and effective rhetorical tool in debating. However, we urge participants to be considerate in their
choice of language, especially since aggressive rhetoric may be traumatic for other participants.
We especially urge speakers to think about language when motions involve bodily integrity,
minority cultures, class, war, gender and sexuality issues. Unnecessary graphic descriptions of
traumatic events run the risk of violating this policy and should be avoided. Trigger warnings and
content warnings are HIGHLY advised.

(c) PERSONAL ATTACKS

Stating that a person doesn’t have the appropriate background to have a valid argument in the
debate (i.e., “what do you know about policy X, you’re from Y!) is almost always of no
argumentative value. That is also the case for personal attacks (i.e., “people like you shouldn’t
even be saying things like X because you’re Y”). Such statements do not address the content of
an argument, nor do they address its logical structure. Such conduct may traumatize a person,
since you are referring to their background and/or other attributes as holding relevance to their
chances of winning or losing the argument. This is a policy put in place to protect individuals
who face DISADVANTAGES due to their identities.
 (d) SLURS/RECLAIMED LANGUAGE
A slur is a term designated to insult others on the basis of certain protected attributes, such as
race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.
The use of slurs, epithets, derogatory and insulting terms are not allowed. Moreover, the use of
slang is context-specific and all participants are advised to exercise extreme caution while using
them.

This policy recognizes that certain derogatory words may have been reclaimed by members of
that community (such as f*g, the n* slur, etc.). This does not make the usage of these words by
members of other communities appropriate. In order to ensure sensitivity, this policy prohibits
the usage of such reclaimed terms during the tournament, as communities are not cohesive in
their usage of such language and this can be perceived as offensive and derogatory.

ii. Gender Neutral Language and Gender Pronoun Policy

This tournament will be implementing a policy of non-gendered language. All participants are
encouraged to use gender-neutral language, with phrases such as “the previous speaker”,
“members of the panel”, “the Prime Minister”, etc., instead of “Madam/Mister Speaker/Chair”.
When asking points of information, kindly refrain from adding any gendered prefix (Sir/Ma’am,
followed by question) prior to asking your question.
At all instances, participants are encouraged to use the gender-neutral pronoun “they”, unless
specific consent/knowledge exists as to the preferred pronoun of the individual you are
addressing. Any participant may choose to state their pronouns while introducing themselves,
either during a round or at any other point in the course of the tournament. Kindly refrain from
presuming the gender of any participant. Should you misgender anyone accidentally, immediately
apologize and move on with your speech or conversation. Intentionally misgendering as well as
deliberately mocking the importance of using respectful language to address each other will be
seen as an act of degrading a person’s or a group’s identity, thereby violating the Equity Policy.

iii. Sexual Interactions and Positive Consent

Positive consent must be affirmative, unambiguous, conscious, voluntary, continuous, and

enthusiastic; and can only be given by someone who has attained the legal age of consent i.e., 18
years of age. Participants are required to seek positive consent when engaging in any conduct of
a sexual or potentially sexual nature, including but not limited to sexual intercourse, physical
intimacy, flirting, making sexual jokes, or suggestive bodily contact (e.g., dancing). A failure to
acquire positive consent will be a breach of this Policy and may constitute sexual harassment.
Positive consent requires a person to actively affirm that other parties in any physical, sexual or
romantic interaction are freely and voluntarily agreeing to what is occurring. All parties should
enquire as to what other people are feeling (e.g., “are you ok with this?” “Are we going too
fast?”). If you cannot determine the consent of the parties involved, you should not be in
physical, sexual or romantic interaction with them. Additionally, consent can be withdrawn at
any time, and the consent to one interaction (e.g., flirting) does not mean consent to further
interactions (e.g., kissing, physical intimacy or sexual intercourse).
iv. Misuse of Technology

Using your technology, specifically microphone, in such a way that other speeches become
inaudible for the rest of the debate hinders fair competition and is therefore not allowed. Always
mute yourself unless speaking. Please use the Zoom Chat to express technical difficulties. In the
event there is no acknowledgement to your texts on the zoom chat please feel free to reach out
to the tech team on Discord. With regard to asking PoIs, let the speakers specify before starting
their speech how they would like to receive PoIs - you must adhere to such specifications. In the
absence of such specifications the default is Zoom chat. Non-consensual recording of both
speeches, and feedback is strictly prohibited.

Misuse of the chat: PLEASE be mindful of who you are texting on the Zoom chat. We ask you
to not say offensive or overly negative things within a chat when you are in a debate or watching
a debate. Violations of this will be treated in a similar way as bullying, direct discrimination,
unwanted (sexual) advances and other forms of prohibited behaviour as mentioned above. This
applies to both public chats as well as private chats when people would report these.

Additionally, all of these guidelines apply equally to your behaviour on Discord as well. Please be
respectful of your co-participants on all text and voice channels at all times. All conversation on
the Tournament's Discord server is a part of the Equity Committee's jurisdiction.

v. Heckling

Heckling during a round may take the form of repeatedly offering POIs in a consecutive fashion
(less than 15 second gap between POIs) which has the effect of distracting a speaker, especially
when a speaker has dismissed such a POI. Chairs are entitled to take ad hoc action to preserve
the sanctity of the debate when they believe a speaker is guilty of heckling such as
reprimanding/warning the speaker guilty of it after a speech is done.

Heckling is also disallowed when an adjudicator is providing feedback, and this may be in the
form of speaking while feedback is being given. Intentionally leaving the room prior to
completion of feedback due to dissatisfaction is also considered offensive and is disallowed.
Participants are required to be respectful while asking any questions to the adjudicator, either as
constructive or general feedback.

vi. Judging Integrity

During the course of the competition, it is important to keep the integrity of judging in order
to create a safe competition that ensures everyone’s voice to be listened to, while maintain
fairness for the competition as a whole. Therefore, judges should be held accountable if they
Intentionally participate in the following behaviors:
a. Discriminate people during the justifications (e.g. Intentionally ignore argumentations
made by WGM, discredit contents delivered in certain accents)
b. Disappear and being uncontactable right before the debate starts, and right before
deliberation starts
c. Give out results/justifications based on their own personal biases (e.g. Reputation Bias
that certain team cannot win/lose certain round)
d. Double judging/Judging while speaking at other competitions

And other behaviors that might be deemed problematic judging practices that significantly
harm the fairness of the competition and/or make people feel disrespected. Should anyone
participate in any of the behavior outlined above and have sufficient evidence in proving that
they have intentionally did these actions, the judges might be subject to suitable punishment
further decided by the Equity Team.

VII. Opt-Out Policy

The tournament is cognizant of having motions that are sensitive to individuals’ lived
experiences. All motions hence, have been made while trying to account for diverse experiences.
Additionally, the motions have also been vetted by the Equity Committee to ensure that the
most accessible arguments on a motion are not inequitable ones. Despite this, we completely
acknowledge and account for the possibility that individuals could have different responses to
motions especially owing to personal experiences. Please note that an Equity opt-out exists
OUTSIDE of the general iron-person policy.

The Equity opt-out policy for the tournament allows for each team to iron-person (have one
speaker sit-out a round) once in the preliminary rounds. If faced with a motion that a speaker has
a personal sensitivity concerned around debating, they are expected to approach the Equity
Committee for a dialogue regarding the same prior to exercising the opt-out iron-person option.
In case both members of a team are uncomfortable with the motion at hand, they may choose to
sit out the round and will be given an automatic loss along with floor speaker scores, but will still
be considered eligible for breaks. If the concern regarding the motion, is one shared by multiple
teams - 3 teams/ 3 adjes (number subject to EC discretion) - in this case, this concern will be
subject to the Equity Committee’s examination and, if found to be reasonable, the motion for
the round will be replaced with a back-up option in its entirety. Any and all decisions with
regards to replacement of motions will be finalized by the CAP.

The opt out policy also applies to adjudicators in the tournament who, in keeping with the
speaker's iron person policy, may recuse themselves from judging a round with a motion that
they feel uncomfortable with and shall be allowed to sit out the round.

Please note that teams and adjudicators are expected to respect this provision, and not misuse
them or casually evoke them only because they do not like a motion or find it difficult. An equity
iron is USUALLY only evoked in rounds with sensitive motions often social justice, feminism,
queer community etc. Each such concern will be subject to rigorous scrutiny by the equity
committee when raised.
 VIII. Complaints - Procedure and Handling

i. Raising an Equity Complaint

If an individual feels that there has been a breach of this policy, they may raise the matter with
any member of the Equity Team.

Equity concerns may be raised in the following manner:

1. Informal Complaint
2. Formal Complaint
3. Anonymous Complaint
4. Suo moto cognizance.

All complaints are treated as confidential, and due regard will be given to the complainant’s wish
as to whether or not a complaint is investigated further. The investigation will be conducted
solely by the members of the Equity Team. Both parties will be invited to participate in the
investigation. Members of the Equity Team will recuse themselves from investigating and
handling complaints that are made against them personally, or where a conflict of interest arises
(for example, if they have a close personal relationship with one of the parties).

An informal complaint is one that raises concerns, but does not require formal responses such as
conciliation or disciplinary action. They may be used to garner advice from the Equity Team in a
situation where the participant is unsure if a violation has occurred, and to seek guidance for the
procedure to be followed. The Equity team will work with the person who has raised such a
complaint in order to solve any queries.

A formal complaint is one where the complainant would like a formal response such as
conciliation or disciplinary action. Formal complaints to any member of the Equity Team will
result in action following an investigation into the merit of the complaint. Complaints can be
withdrawn at any time, ending any investigations into them. Once a complaint is raised, the
complainant is protected as per the rules of this policy.

Anonymous complaints: These complaints may be made using the Equity Complaint Form (the
link for which is attached at the end of this document) wherein the complainant has the option
of anonymity.

Suo moto cognizance: If a violation of Equity standards at the tournament comes to the
notice/is brought to the notice of the Equity Committee they may choose to take cognizance of
the same and act on it like it's a formal/informal complaint.
ii. Procedure to be followed for each complaint:

1. Informal Complaint

An informal complaint is one that does not entail formal responses of investigation, mediation,
etc. An individual may approach the Equity Committee in the event of a breach that they do not
want investigated, but wish that the Equity Committee is aware of. Such complaints may entail
general warnings or such ad hoc actions that are deemed appropriate by the Equity Committee.
They may be used to garner advice from the Equity Team in a situation where the participant is
unsure if a violation has occurred, and to seek guidance for the procedure to be followed. The
equity team will work with the person who has raised such a complaint in order to solve any
queries.

2. Formal Complaint

A formal complaint is one where an individual seeks a specific relief from the Equity
Committee which it may grant under Section IX (Clause iii)

A. General Formal Complaints

i. In order for a formal complaint to be lodged, the individual must state the name of the
accused, the accusation, the facts based on which the accusation is made, and the relief sought (if
any in particular).
ii. All formal complaints may be made orally or in writing, except where the allegation is
pertaining to sexual misconduct, the procedure for which is stated in IX (ii)(2)(b).
iii. Complaints can be withdrawn at any time, ending any investigations into them.
iv. The investigation will be conducted solely by the members of the Equity Team. Assistance
from members outside of the Equity Team will only be sought after seeking express permission
from the complainant.
v. Before any action is taken based on a formal complaint, the person accused will be heard by
the Equity Team.

Where the facts are undisputed by the accused, the Equity Team will make a finding based on
the available facts, and take action under Section IX (iii). Where the facts are disputed by the
accused, the Equity Team shall take the following steps:
a. With the permission of the complainant, the Equity Team shall facilitate mediation between
the Parties
b. Where the complainant is unwilling to mediate, or the process of mediation does not yield a
resolution suitable to the complainant, the Equity Team shall:
1. conduct a hearing (recorded in writing) with the complainant to obtain full details of
the incident
2. conduct a hearing (recorded in writing) with the offending participant to hear their
side of the story.
3. conduct a hearing (recorded in writing) with any other participant(s) as required by the
circumstances. It must be noted that the Equity Team will conduct investigations only
after a round is complete.
Following the investigation, the Equity Team will determine whether or not a breach of this
policy has occurred. At minimum, two members of the Equity Team shall undertake this
process, although additional members may also be involved as required.
vi. Members of the Equity Team will recuse themselves from investigating and handling
complaints that are made against them personally, or where a conflict of interest arises (for
example, if they have a close personal relationship with one of the parties).

B. Formal complaints in relation to sexual misconduct

Incidents regarding sexual misconduct are of a sensitive nature and the Equity Team may not
possess the investigative range that is necessary to provide a satisfactory resolution to the
dispute. Therefore, a different procedure will be followed in this respect:
i. In the event of a formal complaint in relation to sexual misconduct, the complainant will
be required to submit a written statement containing the facts based on which the allegation
is made.
ii. With the consent of the complainant, the Equity Team shall inform the accused that an
allegation has been made. It must be noted that without informing the accused, the complaint
cannot be progressed and accordingly, the relief cannot be granted.
iii. If the accused disputes the facts asserted by the complainant, the accused will be required to
furnish a written statement in their defense, which shall be submitted within one hour of being
notified of the complaint. The statement of the accused is a mandatory requirement, in the
absence of which, the Equity Team will adjudicate based solely on the written statement of the
complainant.

Any interaction of a physical or sexual nature that occurs when either party has consumed any
substances capable of impairing their judgment (including but not limited to recreational drugs,
alcohol, etc.) must be consensual. In the event of a complaint to the Committee falling under
this description, the Equity Team shall presume the absence of positive consent. Any and all
investigation (as enumerated in 2(A)(v)(b) above) by the Equity Team will be limited to
ascertaining whether substances were consumed by the either party.

In the event that the accused admits that they were aware or had reason to believe that
substances had been consumed by either party; consequences as listed in [2(A)(iv)] shall follow.

In the event that the accused denies consumption of any substances by either party, the burden
of proving absence of substances lies on the accused.

In the event that the complainant states that there is a power imbalance between the accused and
the complainant (for eg: the accused is the President of their Society), the investigation (as
enumerated above) of the Equity Team shall primarily be to ascertain whether such a power
imbalance exists. If the same is established, the burden of proving that they are innocent of the
breach of which they are accused shall lie on the accused themselves. This provision is included
keeping in mind that persons victimized by persons who are in a position of power may not
possess the social capital to prove the breach.
3. Anonymous complaints
In order to accommodate the possibility that certain complainants may not be comfortable
revealing their identities while filing complaints, a procedure has been devised to allow them to
register complaints anonymously. In such a situation, the complainant is required to appoint a
Point of Contact who will be able to communicate with the Equity Team on their behalf. This
Point of Contact can reach out to the team using any of the methods available to the
participants. The complaint will then be resolved in keeping with the procedures outlined for all
other complaints, with the Point of Contact being involved at every step to represent the
complainant’s perspective, and relay any required testimonies on their behalf.

4. Suo moto cognizance

The procedure followed by the Equity Committee shall be in line with the kind of complaint
they deem fit to proceed with i.e., formal or informal.

iii. Resolution Mechanisms and Penalties

While resolving the dispute or imposing the penalties, the Equity Team shall have due regard to
the relief sought by the complainant, but may not be limited to the same or obliged to grant the
same in case a breach is found.

If, following the investigation of the Equity Team, a breach of this policy is found to have
occurred, the Equity Team may, entirely in its discretion, do any/all of the following:

(a) Explain the complaint to the offending participant and have a discussion with them about
why their remark or action was inappropriate.
(b) Issue a warning to the offending participant
(c) Request that the offending participant provide an apology
(d) Bring the relevant participants together to conciliate the dispute

In serious cases, the Equity Team may work with the OC and Adjudication Core to take further
action, which may include:

(a) Barring from any formal or informal event organized by the tournament
(b) Expulsion from the tournament
(c) Removal from the tab, either temporarily or permanently
(d) Blacklisting of the team from future editions of the tournament
(e) Approaching the Debating Society of the guilty party with the complainant
(f) Legal recourse

In determining the appropriate resolution mechanism, the Equity Team shall regard factors
including, but not limited to:

(a) The context of the offence

(b) The wishes of the victim, including the impact or likely impact on them
(c) The position of the complainant in society and whether they suffer from patterns of
disadvantage or belong to a group that suffers from such patterns of disadvantage
(d) Whether the violation that has occured is part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour
(e) The application of any relevant laws.
iv. Clash Policy:
It might be the case that, due to personal reasons, you might feel uncomfortable to be or debate
in the same room as someone else at the tournament. You are able to clash this person using the
clash form or by letting any Equity Officer know. You are able to clash someone at any point
before or during the tournament. Clashing is for the purpose of making people feel more
welcome and safer. Clash is based on good faith. We will require people to give a reason for their
clash to ensure that they do not clash individuals for strategic purposes. If you'd like you can
only reveal your cause for clash to any ONE member of the Equity Team. The Equity Team will
honour all institutional and equity-related conflicts as far as possible. Clashes submitted during
the tournament will require approval by the Equity Team, so they might not instantly go into
effect. There shall be no limit to the number of clashes that may be filed by a team or judge;
however, each clash submitted shall be checked by the Equity Team before being confirmed.

Clash that is not in the spirit of debate or fall outside of equity reasons are strictly prohibited for
example, clashing judges tactically. Please use feedback or talk to the CA team about these
matters.

Abusing the clash policy is considered as an equity violation.

v. Strike System:
At most competitions and hopefully at this one too, participants do not commit major equity
violations. However, disruptions or minor violations can be common and can occur regularly.
These disruptions can still disturb the competition and make it run less smoothly. A strike
system will therefore be used so the Equity Team can keep a track of smaller disruptions that
occur. After three (3) reports / incidents, a speaker, team or judge can be banned from the
competition or be made ineligible for the break. The Equity Team operates on a good-faith basis
and understands that the first disruption or minor violation could be a genuine mistake or
oversight which is why there will be 3 strikes. The strike system is in place to ensure that smaller
offences, that are difficult to measure, are dealt with effectively. However, we stress that talking
to the individual(s) is important before submitting an equity complaint if possible. These minor
issues could include but are not limited to barracking, talking through speeches and spamming
chats.

Decisions of the Equity Panel are final and binding and are outside the ambit of interference of
the Organizing Committee and Adjudication Core.

IX. Contact Details

Please note that you can approach any individual member or members of the Equity Team if you
wish to discuss an issue that has caused you concern, even if you are not sure if you want to file a
formal complaint at that stage.
Individual members of the Equity Team can be reached on their Discord IDs as well as other
modes of communication listed below:

Leauren: +44 7529 151062

Sucharitha Rao: +91 9003255006
Antara Ranjan: +91 8700872295