→ Foreword → Foreword
→ Profile → Profile
Co-CAs: Jonathan Leader Maynard (Oxford) and Shafiq Bazari (UT MARA)
DCAs: 5 DCAs to be appointed through an open application process incorporating regional representation. We would hope to allocate the five slots as follows:
2) Africa and the Middle East
3) Continental Europe
4) The Americas
5) A slot open to candidates of exceptional quality regardless of regional background.
The DCA appointment process will involve extensive consultation with the world debating community - feedback from debaters and judges on short-listed candidates will play a major role in DCA selection.
Adjudication policies at WUDC don't need a revolutionary overhaul – what they do need is sustained innovation and improvement every year. We intend to do this in seven main ways:
we will (with the permission of their current authors) expand the outstanding debating and judging briefings compiled initially for De La Salle Worlds, and refined for Berlin Worlds. We will turn these into an extensive manual for debating and judging at Malaysia Worlds 2015, which will also serve as a valuable coaching resource for new institutions and new debaters in advance of the tournament.
we intend to substantially revitalise Worlds Masters. We would like to turn it into a larger and more prestigious competition which is also integrated into the coaching support provided for new institutions, debaters and novice judges, providing a chance to see some former greats of debating in action and practice judging in advance of the main preliminary rounds.
as this suggests, we wish to significantly develop and expand the advanced coaching sessions for judges and debaters. We envisage two days of workshops on adjudication combined with debate workshops for new institutions and observers, all integrated, as noted above, with the early rounds of Worlds Masters. Workshops will be delivered by the adjudication team themselves in tandem with internationally esteemed debaters and judges from across the world.
we want to remedy the remaining frustrations generated by judge allocations at Worlds – judging panels dominated by one region, a lack of transparency in how judges are evaluated and rotated, and so forth. We will investigate ways to automatically diversify judging panels in the tabbing software and we plan to publish a rolling "Top Judges" tab during the preliminary rounds based on debater feedback. This would have many uses, providing an incentive for judges to maximise their feedback and support to the debaters, and deservedly raising the profile of new but high quality judges.
we intend to build the most advanced feedback monitoring software to date – giving the adjudication team clear short-lists of high performing or low performing judges so that debaters' and judges' feedback will genuinely shape rotation and room assignments.
we will have genuine and dramatic rotation at the tournament – both to maximise the enjoyment of all judges at the tournament and to ensure that all debaters across the tournament have access to the highest quality of feedback and the fairest possible decisions. We intend to build this into the tab hardware, but could also institute it via the feedback monitoring software.
and most importantly, UT MARA are providing fantastic resources for us to bring in an adjudication pool of unparalleled quality and diversity. With at least US$65,000 for judge subsidies, we will subsidise a minimum of between 50 and 70 independent judges. As resources increase, raising this figure is our joint top priority alongside reductions in the registration fee.