1

WSDC LTD TOURNAMENT COMMITTEE MEETING WSDC DUNDEE 2011 Meeting Part One: 24 August 2011
Meeting opened: 18.10 BST

Members present: Chair: Beth James Secretary: Hayah Eichler (Israel) Ade Ayeni – Nigeria Alam Ishraq Chowdhury – Bangladesh Ali Sultan Almuftah – Qatar Ana Maria Tomassini – Chile Anna Karolin – Estonia Bojan Marjamovic – Croatia Cheol Ja Jeong – observer Christopher Sanchez – Germany Dana Schottlaender – Argentina Derek Lande – observer Dick Wafer – Ireland Gladstone Thompson – Bermuda Grant Smith – UAE Inatunmane Ngama – observer Irene Pampallis – South Africa Johana Skrt – Slovena John McKee – Serbia John Meany – USA Jonathan Leader Maynard – Wales Josh Judah – Canada Joshua Park – observer Julije Ravaityte – Lithuania Kallina Basli – Greece Kate Shuster – observer Kip Oebanda – Philippines Kithmina Hewage – Sri Lanka Kiyozumi Hamano – Japan Krishna Kumar – India Lewis Iwu – observer Loke Wing Fatt – China Mark Gabriel – Singapore Mark Webber - Mexico Matej Pilat – Czech Republic Mert Onen – Turkey

2

Michael Evershed – Hong Kong Michael James – Sweden Mirjam Mbango – Namibia Nick Pacheco – England Prof. M Oterma – observer Roger Hatridge – Korea Ronit Prawer – observer Rosemary Dixon – New Zealand and Australia Simona Mazilu – Romania Sixto Ramos – Peru Taimur Bandey – Pakistan Thepparith (TJ) Senamngern – Thailand Vitri Sekarsari – Indonesia Zaynab Al Nasser – Kuwait Ben Woolgar – observer Andrew Marshall – observer Malcolm Smart – observer Irene McGrath – Scotland Simon Quinn - observer
Chair: Call meeting to order. Two agenda items are as follows: 1. Report on WSDC 2012 from South Africa. 2. Bids for 2013 bids and any further interest in bidding. South Africa: Basic update – everything is on track! Have enough money to host. 17th – 27th of January, which is summer in Cape Town. Looking forward to sunny weather. Financial update – we had full funding last year from Standard Bank South Africa, but they had to scale back on their funding by 75%. We had to raise registration fee. Since then, we have gotten a good price from the original hotel we were going to use – they are now cheaper than the university dorms. We have also found some minor sponsorship from local publishing companies for prizes. Registration update – it is open. Open until the end of this month. There is a problem with the netpals list, so some countries have not received the registration information. Anyone not receiving the mails should turn to Irene and ask to be added to the contact list. We have secured 270,000 Rand for bursaries for countries that can’t afford to come to worlds. This has been provided by the Open Society Foundation. Jessica Price (organizing committee), Kris Ade (Board of Directors), and a representative from their foundation will be processing the applications. Applications will be open soon. Bursaries based on need, with a focus on new countries and on countries that hold wide and representative selection processes. Website update – up and running. www.sa-debating.co.za Accommodation update – a 3 star hotel on the sea front. Close to Table Mountain and the touristy area. Venues update – hosting debates at UCT on the Sunday but at three different sets of schools on the other days. Cape Town schools, the wineland regions (about 40 minute drive), the township debating league schools (in and around Cape Town). We want them to be exposed to debating and we want you to be exposed to a wide spectrum of South African debating. Break rounds will be at more high profile venues. Finals in city hall. Volunteers update – final year of high school and university volunteers, similar to the OVT this year. Environmental policy of our tournament – attempt to reduce impact on environment. Focus on recycling papers, use of tap water, and other small things we can do to help.

3 Hong Kong: Registration fee for team managers – is it different than the other fees? South Africa: policy is that if the team manager is not coaching or judging, they pay the observer fee. 9000 Rand is the observer fee. We prefer active contribution of people at the tournament. Serbia: Does “new nations” include relatively new nations or only completely new nations? South Africa: haven’t attended in the past 10 years. Bursaries will cover debaters and coaches but not judges. Kuwait: Team manager fees? South Africa: Can send coach and judge. Netherlands: How many people are we allowed to send in total? (per delegation?) South Africa: guarantee 5 debaters, 1 coach, 1 judge. Can apply to send as many as want, but we might say no. CAs will choose which adjudicators we accept. Sri Lanka: Possibility for on arrival visas? South Africa: Need to apply well beforehand Bangladesh: we don’t have an embassy. Not much time. Any help? South Africa: Will look into this issue. Bermuda: Does the registration fee take care of accommodations? If so, how many rooms will that be? South Africa: Fee covers accommodations, all transportation, all big events, some meals. Rooms – the kids will share double or triple. The adults will share rooms but not with kids. Can request a single room if we have any available, but possibly subject to a surcharge. Israel: Judging pool? Very expensive and very soon – how will you get enough experienced judges? South Africa: The standard is the same as Irene, Joe, and Tom, who have all judged break rounds. So, we expect them to be very good. Wales: Geographical representation of judges? South Africa: Teams that are genuinely struggling with fees will be able to apply for bursaries, which will help them be able to send judges. Because registration is still open, we don’t know yet how many judges have applied. Bermuda: When do you need payment and information? South Africa: deposit on 7 October 50% of cost. After that, non-refundable. Balance is due by the 18th of November. Ireland: Question to the chair – the adjudication question is a more general question. Can we discuss this on a more general level at the meeting tomorrow? Chair: fair enough. Can add that to the agenda for tomorrow. China: if pay the full sum all at once – is that ok? South Africa: we would love for you to do that! Argentina: When will judges find out if allowed to attend as judges?

4

South Africa: Mid-September Chair: Thank you very much to Irene Pampallis. And now for the 2013 bid, I invite Mert to present the Turkish bid. Turkey: Proposed city – Antalya. This is where Koc WUDC was hosted. Dates – January 27 – February 6. Proposed reg fee – 475 euros. We hope to reduce that. Running under the umbrella of ESU Turkey. The Turkish Private Schools Union is also co-hosting. Biggest NGO that represents schools in Turkey. They are State recognized in certain areas. They have the power to open schools to us. Proposed venues – 5 star hotel which regularly serves 5 meals a day, buffets, drinks. Team cap is 80, so extra judges or observers are welcome. Finances – we have just received a letter of support with more money than noted in the bid. Hotels are pretty cheap but because of the corporate culture they can’t give us the cheaper price until later on. We expect a significant amount of the accommodation cost to lessen. Budget is currently balanced, including a 10% contingency fee. This does not include any sponsorships, so we are able to host even if sponsors pull out in the future. Advisory board: Chris Erskine, Effie Giannakouri, Geetha Creffield, and Bojana Skrt have agreed to be on an advisory board to help us with hosting. Ben Woolgar and Taimur Bandey are our co-CAs. Aside from the five CAP we are flying in, we will also fly in 10 adjudicators. This is the minimum. With further funding, we will bring in more judges. Hopefully we will have up to 30 judges. Aside from that, Chris Erskine, Effie Giannakouri, and Kalina Basli have all provisionally agreed to fly in early and teach local adjudicators. We have a significant university circuit and we have been running a high school circuit as well recently. We plan to increase the number of local judges involved in the high school circuit. Foreign Minister is being approached to be the patron of the tournament. We hope to encourage new nations. We cannot currently promise bursaries but we hope to secure funds to devote to this purpose. China: If expand the number of teams, would you expand the break? Turkey: Council’s decision. Chair: Valid question in the context of an 80 team cap. But the question of expanding the break is for the Tournament Committee UAE: Assuming more funds, is your priority 30 judges or lowering reg fees? Turkey: Balance. Depends on number of teams registered, etc. UAE: Is there a ratio of teams to number of judges you want to fly in? Turkey: Rough estimate is that if current size, leave at 15 judges. Ireland: A lot of implications of going from 40 teams to 80. This is another question that has much larger implications. More rounds, power pairing, etc. The current structure wouldn’t really work, so we would have to look into changing the rules. Turkey: Logistically, we can host another break round, but we can’t extend the tournament to another day. Slovakia: Estimate of what the reg fee will be?

5 Turkey: 475 euro. Wales: Endorse local debate circuit. Some concerns about no cap and 80 teams. 15 famous judges, does that include the CA and the cap? Turkey: yes Wales: Even if 80 teams bring one judge who aren’t shadows, need a huge number of judges beyond the 15 you’re bringing in. How many can you possibly develop locally? When will you have the information about how many judges you can fly in? Turkey: Sponsorships should start coming in next month. The more teams coming, we have a significant amount of “misc” budget, so we have more money to spend on flying in more judges. New countries – we attract local teams, like Morocco, Bahrain, etc. Wales: Quite a lot of teams won’t even be able to bring a judge, because we’re encouraging new teams. Turkey: Most established nations, however, send more than one. And the more teams=>more money=>more judges we can fly over. Being stretched for adjudication might be something we sacrifice for a larger tournament. Mexico: The schedule is shifting back and forth between Northern and Southern hemisphere. We have two tournaments back to back in favour of Southern hemisphere. Why is Turkey hosting in January? Turkey: This was the case for Greece and Qatar back to back. Chair: generally only the exception is the Northern hemisphere summer. Turkey: organizationally, this is when we can do it. Most suitable for us. Greece: Effie, as a former convener, would like to state that she is happy to help out with future bids. Criteria for the judges? Turkey: open and transparent criteria, similar to the Qatari criteria. Geographical representation and WSDC experience. Greece: If the number of judges is based on the amount of registration money you have, how do you reconcile in advance? Turkey: People pay in advance. Or we reopen applications if we have more money. Germany: With regards to the team cap, do you have a list of 80 countries that are actually active and interested in coming? If so, what happens with bids beyond Turkey? Do we have to accommodate all these teams? Turkey: 80 is the upper number. We don’t have a list. No restrictions. We hope that future bids be able to accommodate as many teams as possible. Nepal: I understand that 80 is the cap. Do you expect to find 80 nations? Do you expect they will be able to attend without bursaries? Turkey: that’s speculation I can’t comment on. It could be reasonable to expect 60, 70 teams. Chair: there should be no expectation for future hosts to be able to host 80 teams. Qatar, for example, did not require Dundee and South Africa to raise their cap to the same number of teams. Turkey: we should be encouraging countries to come, so large caps are good.

6 Slovenia: Turkey makes it very easy and cheap for many Eastern European, Middle Eastern, etc. countries to come. UAE: New countries are great. In terms of non-financial support for those new teams, is there anything you hope to offer these teams? Sessions, guidance, etc.? Turkey: Some new countries have gotten in touch with us. These are countries that have already asked for help. We do hope to host workshops for new nations a couple of days in advance of the tournament. Ireland: We’re spending a lot of time worrying about what happens if it reaches 80 teams. If it’s not likely, why are we discussing it now. We’ve identified the problems we need to address if registration is that high. Let’s move on. Netherlands: Would you turn down new nations if you felt there weren’t enough experienced judges? Turkey: We would prioritize new nations over good judging. In the off chance we get high registration and low funds for bringing out judges, we will turn to the advisory board and council. Wales: Where is the funding for judges on the budget? Turkey: Miscellaneous (12000 euros, not solely for that) Wales: catering seems lower than expected. How many meals do we get? Turkey: hotel costs covers all the meals in the hotel. Either school meals or hotel meals for the most part, so it’s covered under other parts of the budget. Slovakia: with regards to the free training for new countries, is that with a cost? Turkey: no cost for the training because people have volunteered to give their time to do that. Only small amount of accommodation cost for those from abroad. Slovakia: so this won’t cost you anything? Turkey: nothing from reg fee will go towards this. Peru: You have university organization experience. If goal is up to 80 teams, which is fantastic, this would be the first time that too many teams attend. But if we think of all the factors we need to take into consideration – registration, accommodation, transportation, venues, judges, etc. The difference between university tournaments and high school tournaments is significant. These are high school kids. Turkey: Yes. We are running regular high school tournaments in Turkey, for example, the Turkish debating league. We ran that with 58 teams, all high school students. EurAsian Schools Championships – student run tournament earlier this year. We are very carefully considering this. The people handling the participants are people with past experience handling minors. Serbia: Your supporter list includes Turkish Airlines. How are they expressing their support? And, I attended the EurAsian championships, which was in Istanbul. I did not attend Koc WUDC. Is there any advice on debaters or adults who are LGBT or other types of social issues. Turkey: Turkish Airlines was our supporter for Qatar and we have received explicit oral support. They can’t sign anything until next quarter but they will support us. Antalya is the biggest Turkish tourist destination. Large and cosmopolitan city. It is a very liberal city, perhaps the most liberal in Turkey. Full of night clubs, discos, hotels that cater to foreign clients. Mexico: The online discussion group discussed power pairing. One of the most prohibitive issues was the number of venues used for the tournament. Would you be able to have less venues if we decide to move to power pairing?

7 Turkey: We used power pairing at EurAsians. It is theoretically possible for us to accommodate power pairing but for a more specific answer, we would need to know well ahead of time if that is a requirement. We also can’t guarantee it right now, 100%. Theoretical, but not binding yes. Bermuda: Temperature there? Do we need visas? Turkey: Around 14 degrees. As for visas, need to check. Most can get on arrival. EU passport visas should be fine. Wales: often have to pay for visa upon arrival for an EU passport holder. When will we know about the Turkish Airlines situation? Turkey: expect it this quarter. Another sponsor should be getting back to us this month. UAE: does that depend on them not having losses this quarter? Turkey: not necessarily. Wales: What’s Engin’s role on the organization committee and will he be judging? Turkey: He is involved. No specific role right now. Wales: What is the role of the local university? Turkey: they have pledged institutional support, for example early training in their venues. There are specific names in the bid from that university as well. Greece: Thank you for all the information. From all the questions, it seems as though there are still some issues about the implications of having an expanded tournament – not with regards to your capacity, but with regards to council matters/rules. Would you be open to the possibility of accepting a lower team cap until we decide, as a council, how to cope with the issue of a larger tournament? Turkey: We’d be happy with that. Slovakia: In your schedule round zero comes after break night. Turkey: obviously that’s a mistake, will be changed. Round zero will be on the first day, after the adjudication test. Slovakia: Suffering from jetlag? Disadvantage those teams? Turkey: This could be easily changed. Slovakia: Are we open to voting tomorrow on the bid itself, since some of us would like to discuss it a bit further? Singapore: One aspect of the provisional schedule worries me. The last four days of the tournament have the teams knocked out doing nothing debate related. Not only is that boring for them, they also get up to mischief. Is there no possibility of shifting things to a more traditional timetable? South Africa: If have all four days of debates and then the break day, it might be very tiring for the teams. Turkey: We agree there are some problems. We’re still flexible with the schedule and we will look into things, but we can’t add an extra day right now for financial issues. Singapore: If we shift the entire schedule by a day, we could avoid this whole issue. Turkey: We will certainly look into this. Wales: As a friendly suggestion, there are some crucial bits of information that you’ll have in about a month from now – things like sponsorship. Would it be useful for us to postpone the vote by a month?

8

Turkey: It could make things harder for us. This is our bid, and any sponsorship we get from today on, will only make the bid better. We don’t want to rely on the sponsorship – we want a vote on the current bid, based on registration fees alone. Sponsorships are extra. Wales: It would be important to have a regular stream of information from now on. Turkey: Absolutely, we agree. Korea: We are asking some very specific questions. What are your newsletter plans? Turkey: We will start a flow of newsletters soon. A lot of the sponsors we’re going to want a something solid to hang on to. If we don’t have our bid accepted, it’s harder to get anything from them. UAE: Is there a plan to get school kids to watch debates? Turkey: We have 264 schools in Antalya. We are working with schools that know they will have to bring students. We are trying to get students in from Istanbul and Ankara, through the private school system. New Zealand: The CAP isn’t in place yet. Are there any thoughts on that? Turkey: One of the things we’re considering is open applications for the CAP rather than just choosing. In terms of running the tab, we will use Simon’s system. There is also a working three on three tab, which is simpler to use than Simon’s tab and we might be able to adapt that for WSDC. Chair: this is something we might discuss tomorrow – the idea of choosing the CAP and taking responsibility for the tab in terms of transparency. Turkey: we’re eager to bring in a tab master. We have experienced tab masters in Turkey. We are investigating the opportunity of a live tab, where judges will put their own points into a computer. Chair: James Probert has asked me to represent one point. The directors would like to establish a binding contract between the bidding nation and the directors. This is to your discretion as to whether we would like to vote now or after the contract has been established. Ireland: Most years get two years to prepare. Unfair to wait, since it’s already a year and a half away. Israel: Agree with Ireland. But could we postpone until tomorrow? Chair: after an open vote, we have decided to postpone the vote until tomorrow. Thank you very much to Mert, Taimur and Ben for their bid. Meeting closed: 19.30 BST ***************************************************************

Tournament Committee Meeting Part Two: 25 August 2011
Meeting opened: 09.45 BST Members present: (see previous list) Chair: Open the meeting. Over to Turkey for a few last words.

9 Turkey: We'd like to add one thing in light of last night's discussion. We will limit the team cap to 60 teams, and only raise it to 80 if council decides there is a way to deal with such a large tournament. Hopefully this removes most of the worries. Nigeria: About the training. The WSDC management should be in charge of running the training. Turkey: Training is very important. We have an advisory board, who are all involved with WSDC. Any team can get free training if they come early. Wales: There are upcoming guidelines for future hosts. One guideline is that the convener must be from the city hosting the tournament. Who on the organizing committee is from Antalya? Turkey: Engin's hometown is Antalya. And someone involved with the schools. Wales: Institutional structure behind the bid? What about Mert's own personal company? Turkey: ESU Turkey, Private Schools Union of Turkey and the universities around Turkey that have expressed support. Scotland: Difficult remark, but I feel I must make it. As both a member of the executive and the current convener, Turkey has been very bad at replying to emails. Not a personal comment, but this can effect a tournament, so it must be raised. Turkey: On a personal level – apologies to Irene about the inconvenience. However, there were reasons for being late, such as visa issues. We have a communications officer on the bid and deputy conveners. We also have the institutional structure of the ESU. We have a team of individuals who have access to the main email – one of whom is dedicated to this job alone. Ireland: Clarification re: ESU Turkey. What type of organization are they? Liability insurance, limited, etc? Turkey: ESU Turkey is called an association. Not sure of the legal terms, but it is a recognized as its own legal entity. Ireland: In terms of liability, is there insurance? Turkey: We are covered in every single venue by the owners of the venue. The hotels have to take full coverage, transport takes full coverage of you, etc. Public liability insurance every place we are. Slovenia: This is the only bid, we shouldn't have so many questions. We should encourage people who want to host a tournament. We should trust them and leave them alone. Israel: No reason not to ask questions – need to make sure the kids are safe and will have a good time. We like the bid but we want to make sure it's the best it can be. Chair: Some questions are a bit nit-picky but we only got the bid yesterday. Korea: recommendation – can you let us know when you're planning on releasing the newsletter? Turkey: Second half of September. Applause for Turkish bid. Chair: Dick Wafer and Joshua Judah, our returning officers, will distribute the ballots. During that time we can hear from those standing for the various committees.

10 South Africa: We are appointing Chris Sanchez from Germany and Keri Cloete from South Africa as our complaints officers. Each nominee for the different positions introduced themselves briefly. England: There is a South African running for the motions committee. Since South Africa can nominate two people for the committee, why should we vote for a third? Hong Kong: A lot of the candidates have spoken about the balance in motions. It is our view that the processes used in the past need to be revised because we feel this tournament had some unbalanced motions. Chair: That discussion will be revisited a bit later on in the meeting. South Africa: We have appointed Daniel De Kadt (South Africa) and Taimur Bandey (Pakistan) for the motions committee. Chair: Does anyone want to express interest in future bids? Thailand: 2014 Bangladesh: 2014 Peru: 2014 Nigeria: 2014 Singapore: 2015 Chile: 2015 Chair: Rather than circulating the report from the Executive, we will hear verbal summaries. Israel: Adjudication working group spoke about a number of issues but came to very few consensuses. For a detailed report, see the netpals email with the summary attached. We encourage nations to submit rule changes if they feel strongly about an issue. Korea: Draw working group discussed power pairing and how fair it would be, how educational it would be, and how feasible it would be. Generally, the more rounds, the more fair power pairing is. What about power pairing every second round? The statistical analysis showed this wouldn't work very well. Simon's statistical analysis of Doha, it seems as though a true power pairing system would not be better than the random pairings. Logistically, it is very difficult because it means having everyone together for the afternoons. South Africa said it could be possible for them to arrange this. Another option discussed has been a four four split – four random rounds and four power paired. That would require only two days of being together. Educationally, we reach less schools. Also more discouraging for the weaker teams. Need some more discussion about this issue. The calibration of rankings was also discussed, for example, Singapore broke very low this year but has reached the final – that should be factored into their ranking for next year. Chair: Hosting working group was a bit inactive this year. One of the issues that was raised was in context of a team cap. This might be something we need to revisit this year. Additionally, we would like to ratify the hosting working document as part of the rules. We don't have representation from the other groups, so I will move straight to the chair's report. We have had positive changes this year in terms of the structure of WSDC. Some of it is still not understood by everyone, but the general direction is great. We do have discretion to make certain amendments, predominantly to the tournament and debaterules. Because of the nature of the e-AGM, we need to re-ratify the rules. I suggest we

11 set up a working group to clean up the rules so we can vote on them officially in Cape Town. This will give us an opportunity to examine the rules closely. We facilitated two postal ballots this year. The change that was accepted was the shadow judge rule. I ask the committee to officially thank Claire Ryan, who has stepped down as Chair and couldn't make the tournament this year for her huge contribution to WSDC. (Applause) I would also like to thank the rest of the Executive Committee members for their hard work over the past year, some of whom have contributed more than others. I would now like to invite Irene and Malcolm, our current hosts, to report on this year's tournament. Scotland: Due to Scotland's strong performance yesterday in the debates, this is less organized that I would have liked! We've had very positive feedback from all the schools. The students are very keen to come and watch the final and they are enthused about debating in general. So, thank you all for bringing such delightful children. We managed 48 teams. One of the remarks we'd like to make is that team managers must be very communicative people. The job includes responsibilities both before and during the tournament. Team members shouldn't be contacting us individually and team managers should be in touch with us. It is crucial to choose an appropriate person for the job – someone who will be in touch with us, someone who is familiar with the tournament rules and knows who is eligible to compete and/or coach teams, etc. Bank charges have to be at your end – it might sound like not a lot of money to you, but when you add it up times 48 teams, it's a huge loss for us. Unfair to get snippy about that. This has always been a tournament run for volunteers by volunteers. Malcolm and I have real jobs, in addition to organizers. Please keep that in mind for future tournaments and send information on time, don't treat us like travel agents, etc. We do this for the love of young kids debating, but we are volunteers. The bigger the tournament gets, and the worse you treat the conveners, the less people will want to host. The booking form was more problematic than we foresaw but most teams managed it. A few teams didn't even bother to try. For the benefit of future conveners – there is no point turning up on day one and letting us know about special requirements you have for your team. It is incredibly hard to organize these things even with notice. That said, the vast majority of teams have been very cooperative and we thank everyone for that. China: Many thanks to Irene and Malcolm. This is the kind of exemplary conveners we love. General applause in appreciation of the organizing committee. Wales: We would like to extend the thanks to Scotland for hosting. As recent hosts, we want to stress how remarkably well Scotland has upheld the important aspects of WSDC – bringing us to local schools etc. This is an exemplary example of what WSDC should look like. We don't need fancy hotels, etc. General applause in appreciation of the organizing committee. Chair: It has been a pleasure to work with the org comm at this tournament. They certainly deserve all the thanks we are extending today. And now onto the CA report. Andrew Marshall (co-CA): Transparency of the draw. Thanks for finding the cutest school kids for the draw video. Getting enough adjudicators – thanks for those of you who came. Our job was to train the judges who came to get them up to the standard of the tournament. We had a briefing based on the feedback from last year's CAP. We split the groups into two – those who have and those who haven't judged at this tournament before. We had a quiz to make sure

12 everyone was familiar with the rules. We based our rankings on both the quiz and the adjudication test. We also focused on giving oral adjudication, as we had heard some complaints about that from last year. Shadow judging – we had someone sit with them during debates and then give feedback. We took that all into account and promoted those that proved they could judge, and kept as shadows those who needed some more guidance. We also read every feedback form that came in and we changed judges rankings accordingly. Generally we had positive feedback about the efficacy of this process. We had two particular senior judges, one from the CAP, who worked closely with those shadow judges. Overall, we tried to be as available as possible throughout the tournament. A few big thank yous. To the CAP – Eirianna, Taimur, and Hayah. To Irene for all her help and her trust in us. Thanks to the OVT who were fantastic help with the ballots and the tab. Thanks to Simon, a previous speaker and CA, who spent the entire week sitting in a room at his computer making sure that everything was running smoothly. Thanks to Malcolm for being both on the CAP and being a co-convener. Thanks to Beth James, who put an amazing amount of time and effort into this tournament. She was serving both as Chair of the executive and as CA. (General applause in appreciation of Beth and the CAP) Bermuda: Adjudicators all did their absolute best. One word of caution, it sounds as though some of the shadows had an opportunity to go further in the tournament and therefore succeeded, does that mean that the others failed? Andrew: We wanted everyone to be able to provide feedback on everyone else. This allowed us to give extra amounts of feedback on every judge. Shadow judges were in the best position to receive lots of individual feedback from other judges. No one was written off, no one failed, we were very open about the feedback we had received about everyone. Korea: Great adjudication feedback. The only comment is that sometimes props and opps were split up for lunch but then we couldn't get feedback from both judges. Maybe in the future different debates could go at different times, but we could keep teams and judges together. Chile: There is a blog and website and it has been managed very efficiently. The kids' parents have been following very closely and they have gotten information very quickly and we would like to thank you for that. The online streaming of the break parties etc. was great. And the OVT were great. Andrew: Huge thanks to Simon for the technological aspect of the competition. Serbia: Thank Andrew and Beth for your accessibility, in particular. Some of the more senior judges were also highly instrumental in the running of the tournament. That meant it was difficult to get feedback from them, because they were busy with organizational responsibilities. This can't always be avoided, but it is important to note and to encourage as much availability as possible. Scotland: Part of the problem was that many nations couldn't bring a judge. This meant that we had to draw on volunteers to judge – and we were very lucky that we were able to draw upon that pool as experienced judges. It is important for nations to think about that and remember that bringing judges is important. Bermuda: As a first time adjudicator at this tournament, I don't think people realize how intimidating it is. Other judges could be a little more supportive of first time judges. It can be a discouraging experience. Estonia: Maybe we need more out reach to new judges before the tournament – online training and such? Israel: The adjudication working group agrees with that and would like to provide these materials. Please see Hayah if you can help put this together. Slovenia: On-line judging test, like university tournaments would help with that. Further, having so many BP judges this year, the stress on the judging has changed. We either need to incorporate that into our rules or be clear about

13 not changing that. Additionally, there is an understanding that judges shouldn't be involved in training the teams. Why is this rule not respected anymore? Let's either change that rule or stick to it. Beth: (speaking as Co-CA) On-line tests – I agree personally but it was voted against. It was considered a form of accreditation. If we want to revisit the issue, that is a discussion we could have. As for BP judging, there was very specific judge training to change their mindset from BP to WSDC. As more university debaters are joining the judging pool, we might want to stress the difference more in the judges briefings. The judges not coaching rule is very lax. Not a new issue, maybe we should change. One issue we did have this tournament was the number of judges having to strike themselves from teams because they had judged a “friendly” debate before an actual round. This is difficult for the randomization of the judging pool. England: Institutionally, we have gotten better with dealing with judges. The last two years, in particular, have improved things. The randomization has helped a lot. One improvement we could make – we could have an “answer sheet” so people know what range you expect from speakers. Beth: We did show a speech that we felt was a benchmark average sheet. Online training could also help – having some debates up online with the range of marks that we find appropriate. Ireland: Online adjudication tests – one of the downfalls of this system is that people tend to get the “right” results from other adjudicators. Suggestion – this should be at the discretion of the CA. Additionally, it is important to get some clarity on the rules. We should send a stricter message about judges judging other teams in friendlies during the competition. This is something you shouldn't be allowed to do as a judge. On the other hand, judges from your own team should probably be allowed to help their own team. Many judges are actually assistant coaches. Netherlands: Agree with Ireland. Nations without a lot of funding have judges who are hugely committed to the tournament and that often involves coaching the team, at least before the tournament. New Zealand: As a judge, you cannot turn up for a debate with an open mind if you have been working with the team on building one side or another. There seems to be a misunderstanding about what the rule actually means. Ireland: have to be consistent. If you can help before the tournament, then why not help during the tournament. Dick Wafer and Joshua Judah (returning officers): Need a run off vote for 5th place for the motions committee. The run off is between: Chris Erskine and Kip Oebanda. Motions Committee: Ben Woolgar Joe Roussos Eva Spoor Will Jones Lunch Break Israel: motion of thanks to everyone involved in the running of WSDC in general and this tournament in particular – especially Beth James, who has served both of those functions. Passed by general applause. Beth (as CA): Need to address the issue of how coaches interact with adjudicators. Sometimes very aggressive, and sometimes uncomfortable accusations of judging debates based on things other than the debates themselves. Judges give time and money to come here and dedicate time for the kids here. You can disagree with adjudication, but being aggressive in front of kids is unfair. Thank you to all the adjudicators for all their hard work. Could the few countries/delegates who are very aggressive please take note of this. Dick Wafer (returning officer) Ballot results:

14

Turkey's bid for 2013 – 43 in favour, 1 against, 1 abstention Chair of Tournament Executive Committee – Beth James (Wales) Vice Chair – Taimur Bandey (Pakistan) Secretary – Roger Hatridge (Korea) Tournament Executive Committee: Joshua Park (Korea) Hayah Eichler (Israel) Derek Lande (Ireland) Irene McGrath (Scotland) TJ Senmargern (Thailand) Ben Woolgar (England) Motions committee: Ben Woolgar (England) Joe Roussous (South Africa) Will Jones (Scotland) Kip Oebanda (Phillipines) Eva Spoor (The Netherlands) Complaints Committee Taimur Bandey (Pakistan) Ronit Prawer (Israel) Roger Hatridge (Korea) Passed by general applause. Chair: vote of thanks to the returning officers, Dick and Joshua and to Pardip Chopra who acted as the returning officer before this meeting but was unable to attend today. Passed by general applause. Peru: the time keeper used to communicate the times of each speech. Did that happen this year? Israel: Yes, we were handed a sheet of times after each speech. Hong Kong: sometimes teams were going up to 8:40 for a speech. At what point should speakers be made to sit down? And how do adjudicators take that into account? Beth : timekeepers were given a script to follow. After a certain amount of time, they are supposed to persistently knock. Adjudicators were told in the meeting that any new information after 8 minutes has to be ignored. Can dock strategy mark. UAE: show debates with a range of accents could help with standardization of marking range. Greece: With regards to judges helping coaches, I think that newer and smaller countries have less people to rely on, so that is unfair to them. Second, with regards to multiple coaches, there is a question as to whether or not that is allowed. Korea: Perhaps a lot of these issues could be referred to the adjudication working group. Netherlands: Agree with Hong Kong with regards to time management. The students don't feel comfortable to clap them down, maybe we need a more structured penalty system.

15

Chair: Can we vote first on accepting the rules as they stand? Vote: all in favour – the rules are now applicable until South Africa. Chair: Any other rule changes? Slovenia: I propose we reinforce the rule that judges are not allowed to coach their teams. Israel: that's already in the rules. Ireland: The current rule is that we don't allow judges to coach teams at their tournaments. I would like to move a motion to amend rule 14.4 to “a judge may only assist coaching a team with which they are affiliated” Korea: Can we add “during the tournament” to make it clear that coaching before the tournament is allowed regardless. Ireland: “once the championship commences, a judge may only assist the coaching of a team with which they are affiliated”. This will make it explicitly clear that judges cannot help coach other teams but they can coach their own. Kuwait: we second the motion. Australia: need to remember fundamental principle of keeping judges and coaches separate. We want the judges to be completely impartial when they sit in a debate and decide on a winner. Slovakia: judges have judged most motions anyways. I don't think we're compromising impartially. Kuwait: Coaching doesn't just mean prepared motions – there is much more to it and we need all the help we can get. Wales: There is a difference between certain forms of bias. Difference between judging a debate before and actively researching a motion. This will benefit the biggest delegations here. Chair: Call to vote: those in favour of voting on this issue today – 17 those in favour of postponing the issue – 17 Singapore: I propose moving this to a working group. England: Second that motion. Chair: Vote on; proposal to refer this issue to a working group, with a postal ballot before Cape Town those in favour – 20 those oppossed – 15 abstaining – 2 The issue has been referred to a working group. Ireland: in that case, we need to hear from next year's adjudication team as to their interpretation of the rules. Wales: motion to introduce conferral judging to WSDC. This is not consensus judging, rather conferral. In annex 3 to judging guidelines section E, where it says “the judging”: replace the section with the following:

16 Replace Annex 3, Section E with: 17.1 At the end of the debate, the judges shall retire for a brief private discussion before completing their ballots. 17.2 Such discussions shall be time-limited, to 15 minutes for preliminary rounds and 30 minutes for knock-out rounds. Judges may end the discussion before the time limit should all agree to do so. These time limits may be changed at the discretion of the Chief Adjudicator, provided that all debates are permitted at least 10 minutes for judges' discussion. 17.3 The purpose of the discussion is to enable judges to individually make as considered a decision as possible, and to agree on the central elements of feedback to be given to the debaters. The discussions are not aimed at achieving consensus between the judges over the result. 17.4 It is the responsibility of the Chair judge to ensure that all judges are able to contribute equally to the discussion. 17.5 At the end of the discussion, the judges shall individually fill in their ballots to record their speaker marks for the debate and judgement of who won. There should be no further discussion during this process. 17.6 All ballots shall be counted in determining the result of the debate and, in preliminary rounds, determining the amount of total judges and speaker points each team receives for calculating the break. 17.7 After completing their ballots and handing them to the chair, judges shall return to the debate room so that one judge can give a short adjudication on behalf of the judges. 17.8 [As current 17.4] 17.9 [As current 17.5] Good to hear how others have seen the debate to clarify certain issues. It will also produce much better feedback. It will also help judges learn over time. Shadow judges will improve much quicker when they understand other judges better. UAE: second the motion. Chair: Previously we’ve needed one month between a proposal and a rule change but we are no longer bound by this but we could maintain this clause if people want further discussion and treat this as the start of the one month. Singapore: Propose tabling this issue and having a longer discussion and raising it at some point in the future. Chair: Wales has the right to give one month notice. Hong Kong: Is there significant sentiment to change the status quo? Chair: Could we have a one month discussion period and then a one month notice period? Wales: I encourage those against it to come and talk to me about it (Jonathan Leader Maynard). I think that postponing the discussion for more than one month just leads to discussion dying down. That said, I am happy to propose this again in one month's time after some discussion. Chile: Since we don't have time to discuss topics, would it be possible for South Africa to consider extra time for their committee meeting? South Africa: I'm sure we can accommodate that. Pakistan: Since many votes are going to postal ballot, I would like to note that the current rules need 2/3rds majority of all delegates to pass a postal ballot. Proposal: postal ballots would require a 2/3rds majority only of those delegates who send in a vote. Turkey: second the motion. Singapore: Unless we have the exact rule you want to change and the new wording, we can't vote on it. Slovenia: We need more time to consider votes.

17

Motions Committee Report: Simon Quinn (chair of committee): Thanks to the Tournament Committee Chair for this opportunity to respond to concerns about motions: I specifically wish to respond to concerns about the quarter final motion: The committee members were; Eva, Mevesh, Christopher, TJ, Simon. No one sought election but agreed to be on motions committee. It can sometimes be difficult to volunteer for world schools. Andrew was nominated by the host nation with Cameron and Beth helped out in an ex-officio capacity because she was the co-CA. All members shared a google doc to discuss potential motions and cross comments about issues and motions proposed. We held three skype meetings. Cameron became the external checker. About 5-10 hours was spent individually on the google doc. About 8 hours on skype. Difficult to hold more than this amount of time. Time differences and jobs etc. make it hard to schedule meetings. Every decision was reached by consensus. Personal view – they were good and creative motions. Particular objectives: balance between normative and empirical motions, gender as a topic, provocative and topical, and more. Quarter final motion – personal view, this isn't the forum to discuss particular motions. Happy to discuss in personal or here if you wish. Reasonable issue and reasonable motion, particular when the tournament takes place in Dundee, part of the EU. We considered others, example “increase quotas on immigration”. I see why the motion might be difficult for the proposition but I don't feel impossible or weighted. Not convinced by the opp sweep, as four is a small data sample. That said, many experienced debaters, coaches, and judges, and there is some general feeling that the motion was unfair. I cannot speak on behalf of the entire committee. Personally – I regret the feeling of unfairness. Second, I regret not encouraging a longer discussion on the balance of this motion. Third – it falls to me to take responsibility, and so I apologize and have withdrawn my nomination for next year's motions committee. We could have a larger committee or have more meetings. However, we have to remember that even this small committee had trouble getting together online. For the past two years, we have had two internal checkers on the motions committee. Perhaps you want to formalize a different procedure. Ireland: I have never seen a perfect set of motions and I thought this was a very interesting set of motions and most were very balanced. Every tournament has some motions that don't work out. Simon and his committee has put in an enormous amount of work over the past year and it is unfair of us to expect perfection. Thank you to the committee. General applause in appreciation of the motions committee. Slovenia: No individual problem in the committee. Not just the quarter finals, though, that weren't balanced. The problem is that within the motions committee, there are no teachers – people who are directly involved with high school students. Many of the motions were too geared towards a university crowd. The wording involved words like “all”. Simon: Agree on teachers. But motions can have absolutes in them – that is recognized in the rules. Statistically speaking, only round 8 was bias. Estonia: I oppose Slovenia's thoughts on the motion, in fact these motions were too simple. But I am happy to accept the motions. We should be happy with the work done and not complain. England: As coach of one of the quarter-finalists knocked out, thank you, Simon, for that statement. It is impossible to pick a perfect set of motions for an entire tournament. This should not turn into a attack on specific motions.

18 What we should think about is how we can move forward. Thanks to the motions committee for a generally good time. Bermuda: We shouldn't diminish the victories of the teams that won – they were good! And thanks to the motions committee for their hard work. Hong Kong: Going forward, I am attracted to the three motion strike out model – having three options for a motion and each team can veto one of them. Please refer this to a working group. Further, one thing we can do is rely on past experiences. The quarter finals motion was the finals motion at EUDC 2009 in Newcastle and produced a similar reaction. Could the motions committee track results from previous tournaments? UAE: Maybe have the committee run similar motions on local circuits and see how they go. Czech Republic: Motions were balanced. The problem was that impromptu motions had one side with more predictable and obvious cases. The question isn't if there are arguments on both side, rather how easy it is to come up with them – that's what needs to be weighted. Wales: We need to understand what motion fairness consists of. Just because more sides win than the other, doesn't mean the motion was the problem. Generally the motions were good. Philippines: could we get some form of documentation for the next motion committee? This would be very helpful for us. Thailand: We second Hong Kong's proposal to discuss the idea of three motions and vetos. Chair: This will be discussed on a working group. After a month, Hong Kong and Thailand will resubmit for a postal ballot. Korea: There has been a trend of improvement on the motions committee, the way it works, and the results is has produced. Thank you to Simon and the committee. General applause. New Zealand: With regards to the three motions and strikes issue, that works best when teams don't know sides. That should be discussed. Chair: Simon did a huge amount of work this year assisting the CAP and as Chair of the Motions Committee. Thank you very much for all that hard work. General applause. Beth : (as Co-CA) Award announcements: Best EFL team – Breaking third, reaching octo-finals, The Netherlands Best ESL team – Breaking sixth, reaching octo-finals, Korea. Best New Nation – (of Serbia, Barbados and Poland) with two wins, team Barbados. General applause. Chair: Are there any other issues that people would like to discuss in working groups? Serbia: In terms of the email discussions, is there a format? Chair: there is a main netpals email lists. Should register on schoolsdebate.com website. Individual working groups are hosted on topica.

19

Kuwait: Who can join the working groups? Chair: The more the merrier. One final matter – we need to ratify the two nominated CA s for Turkey – Ben Woolgar and Taimur Bandey. Vote: Passed, all in favour. Thanks to all for your contributions and to Hayah for taking the minutes. The meeting is now closed. Meeting closed. 13.50 BST

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful