WSDC 1999: London, England
Newsletters
PREVIOUS NEWSLETTER
17 January 1999
From: Trevor Sather
To: World Schools Debating Council Mailing List
Cc: David Bussey
Subject: World Schools Debating Council
Date: 17 January 1999 14:14
For the meeting at 10.30am on 6th February 1999, at Dartmouth House.
AGENDA
1. Recognition of members.
2. Minutes of last meeting.
3. Amendments to Rules as proposed by:
(a) Australia
(b) Canada
(c) England
(d) Israel
(e) New Zealand
4. WSDC Development: Report by EV/JB and TS
5. Venues for 2000, 2001, 2002
6. Any Other Business
In case any of you haven't seen them I am attaching the proposed amendments
below.
On behalf of
David Bussey
Chairman, World Schools Debating Council 1999
Proposed Amendments for Council Meeting, 6th February 1999
AUSTRALIAN PROPOSAL
Remove Rule 7 (d).
Comments: This is less born of the opinion that Octo-Finals are a bad idea and more in order to force a verbal ratification or rejection of the postal ballot already held.
ISRAELI PROPOSALS
Rule 27 (a) to be amended so that four days are sufficient for presenting a proposal to amend the Rules rather than the present one month.
Rule 32 to be amended from "...the start of the next Championships" to "... the end of the next Championships".
Rename Rule 21 as 21 (a) and insert Rule 21 (b) as follows: "The Council will be governed by a body consisting of the Appeals Committee (as appointed under [present] Rule 31). The member elected by the Council will serve as Chairman of the Council."
Should the above rule be adopted, Israel proposes Christopher Erskine as Chairman of the Council for the ensuing year.
CANADIAN PROPOSAL
Resolved that any World Championship adjudicators be disallowed from coaching any teams on World topics after said topics have been released.
ENGLISH PROPOSALS
[1] Amend Rule 8 (a) to read as follows:
"Octo-finals, Quarter-finals and Semi-finals shall be Impromptu Debates."
[2] Delete Rule 13 (b).
COMMENTS: Is this not intended to be the same proviso as Rule 14 (b)? Or am I missing something?
[3] Insert Rule 20 (d) as follows:
"Teams may use written materials during their preparation for impromptu debates (e.g. dictionaries, almanacs etc.). However teams should be provided with similar materials as their opponents (in accordance with rule 20 (b) (iii)) in preparation rooms if, for example, one or more teams are allowed to prepare in a school library or reference room."
Renumber current Rule 20 (d) as Rule 20 (e).
[4] Insert Rule 27 (d) as follows:
"A resolution to amend the Rules may be passed by postal ballot (including post, fax or e-mail) between two World Championships with the following conditions:
(i) The Convenor of the next Championships shall be responsible for the holding of the ballot, and must do so if requested by any two countries (as Proposer and Seconder).
(ii) All countries entitled to vote according to the Rules are notified of the resolution no later than one month prior to the holding of the ballot. All other countries present at the previous World Championships -without voting rights - should be notified of the resolution at this time and invited to give official comments.
(iii) A two-thirds majority of those entitled to vote cast votes in the postal ballot.
(iv) A two-thirds majority of those taking part in the ballot pass the resolution.
(v) A member of the Council is entitled to vote in postal ballots if that country's team has participated in two previous World Championships up to and including the previous Championships (in accordance with rule 27 (c)).
(vi) Any country may submit official comments on the resolutions to the Convenor no later than two weeks prior to the holding of the ballot, which the Convenor must distribute immediately to all countries present at the previous World Championships. Such comments should be marked "for circulation".
(vii) Postal ballots may only be held to discuss business that directly affects the organisation of, or team selection for, the next Championships. All other matters should be considered at the next meeting of the Council.
COMMENTS: This is to allow for progress to be made in amending the Rules between Championships if, as happened at the World Championships in Jerusalem, the Council Meeting takes so long that some items of business may not be considered, and also if new issues arise between tournaments. Rules 27 (d) (ii), (iii) and (iv) should ensure that postal resolutions are not passed by sleight of hand; and (vi) should ensure that all countries are aware of the issues involved.
NEW ZEALAND PROPOSALS
1. Proposed: That a new Rule 9 (a) be added, to read as follows: The Convenor shall send a draw to all teams entered in the Championships no later than one month before the start of the Championships. The draw shall comprise the topics for the prepared debates in the preliminary rounds and the sides each team shall take for those topics. The existing Rules 9(a) to (c) be renumbered 9(b) to (d).
Rationale: There are 4 prepared debates in the preliminary rounds. Not learning the sides until the start of the Championships means that teams have to prepare 8 cases rather than 4, then discard 4 of the cases prepared. This disadvantages teams whose members are spread throughout their country and do not have the resources to meet much in advance of the Championships. In all recent Worlds teams have had 2 to 8 weeks notice of both topics and sides, and teams have therefore only had to prepare 4 cases before arriving. (eg in Wales and Bermuda there were 2 prepared topics, and teams had to debate both sides; in Australia and Israel there were 3 or 4 prepared topics, but several weeks notice of sides). Indeed the rules already contemplate that both topics and sides will be announced in advance- see Rules 8(b) and 9(a), in particular "If a team withdraws after the draw has been sent to the teams, the host may make a new draw only if to do so would not alter the sides nor topics for any team", but given that there is always a danger that what is implicit in the rules and has been long-standing practice may be ignored, New Zealand believes it necessary to make this explicit.
2. That Rule 7 (d) be amended so that 24 reads 31.
Rationale: The amendment to the rules allows for there to be octofinals if there are 25 or more teams in the Championships. New Zealand believes there should not be octofinals if there are less than 32 teams.We believe there is little purpose in having as many as 8 preliminary rounds if after this time as many 64 per cent of the teams remain in the contest, as can happen under the present rule.
3. That the Rules be amended so that there be two divisions for the Championships, one for the more experienced teams and one for the less experienced teams, and that each country have the right to
choose which division its team should enter.
Rationale: There is at present a large disparity between teams whose members have a lot of experience in debating and teams whose members have very little or no experience, some of which teams are also less fluent in English and are therefore penalised by the provision in the rules that all speakers are to be judged as if they were native English speakers. This disparity has led to some teams becoming disheartened; some previous convenors have admitted they have not abided by the rule for the draw to be random but have instead tried to give every team a mixture of harder and easier opponents; some adjudictors have admitted to giving extra marks or even a win to a team which was not as good as another team but 'did so well given its inexperience' etc, despite this being prohibited by the Rules. As the competition continues to expand, New Zealand believes this is a problem which cannot continue to be glossed over with the pretence that there is no significant disparity between any of the teams. Retaining a single division for the Championships is unfair on all teams. To take an analogy from the Wimbledon tennis tournament: some matches can be like putting Steffi Graf against an opponent who has never played or been at a tennis competition before- unfair on the much less experienced player, and unfair on the very experienced players whose rankings after the prelim rounds may partly depend on how many experienced/ less experienced opponents they meet in the prelims. Having different divisions in a Championships to cater for different levels of experience is the norm in sports contests. It is not unusual in debating. In Wellington, the capital of New Zealand, there are 200 teams in the school debating competitions- there are 5 divisions or grades to cater for different age groups, and different levels of experience within those age groups. New Zealand proposes there be two divisions at Worlds. Each country would have the right to decide which division to enter. Thus a new country at Worlds might decide to enter the more experienced division from the start if it has a lot of debating in that country or if e.g. its team has managed to tour overseas/ had some international level debates before Worlds or if e.g. it has a highly experienced coach who has trained its team to a high level. Having two divisions would not discriminate against any country- each country would decide on the level of experience of the particular team it is entering; but it would remove the unfairness inherent in pretending that all teams at Worlds are of similar levels of experience, and would remove some of the inequities which arise when convenors or adjudicators seek to make informal adjustments to compensate for the present situation.
Trevor Sather
Convenor
< 1999 Table of Contents |
