PEDOMAN
INDONESIA BATTLE OF INGENIOUS GENERATION
IN INTELLECTUAL DEBATING ACTIVITY
(INDONESIA BIG IDEA)
PRODI BAHASA INGGRIS
STKIP AL AZHAR DINIYYAH JAMBI
TAHUN 2016KATA PENGANTAR
Lomba debat dalam bahasa Inggris bagi siswa/i Sekolah Dasar, Sekolah Menengah Pertama dan Sekolah Menengah Atas Serta Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan se-Indonesia ini merupakan usaha dalam memperkuat daya saing bangsa di arena global. Lomba ini menuntut kemampuan berpikir kritis dan kemampuan berkomunikasi secara efektif. Dua kemampuan ini sangat penting diabad 21. Dalam debat ini siswa tidak hanya dituntut mengetahui isu-isu nasional tetapi juga isu-isu global, dan menganalisisnya.
Menyadari pentingnya lomba debat bagi peningkatan kualitas pendidikan Indonesia, maka STKIP AL Azhar Diniyyah Jambi dengan rekomendasi dari Direktorat Pembinaan Sekolah Menengah Atas Propinsi Jambi dan Direktorat Pembinaan Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan Propinsi Jambi serta bekerjasama dengan komunitas Debat jambi, padang, dan medan dalam hal penjurian serta Rumah Kepribadian House of Brillian Achievement mengembangkan kegiatan Indonesia Big Idea secara reguler setiap tahun. Lomba ini bertujuan meningkatkan kemampuan komunikasi siswa Indonesia di tingkat internasional, dan mengembangkan kemampuan siswa dalam membangun jejaring dalam rangka meningkatkan daya saing bangsa.
Pedoman ini disusun agar penyelenggaraan Indonesia Big Idea dapat terlaksana dengan baik. Kepada semua pihak yang membantu tersusunnya pedoman umum ini kami mengucapkan terima kasih.
Jambi, Januari 2016
DAFTAR ISI
KATA PENGANTARDAFTAR ISI
I. PENDAHULUAN
A. Latar Belakang
B. Tujuan
C. Sasaran
D. Pengertian
II. SISTEM LOMBA DAN TAHAPAN SELEKSI
A. Sistem Lomba
III. PESERTA
A. Persyaratan
B. Pendaftaran
IV. PENJURIAN
A. Adjudicator/Dewan Juri
B. Mekanisme Penilaian
V. ACARA, KEPANITIAAN, DAN JADWAL KEGIATAN
A. Acara
B. Kepanitiaan
B. Jadwal Kegiatan
VI. KODE ETIK PESERTA DAN JURI
A. Yang harus dilakukan oleh para peserta dan juri
B. Yang tidak boleh dilakukan oleh peserta dan juri
C. Perilaku selama ronde debat
D. Hubungan
VI. PENGHARGAAN\
LAMPIRAN
I. PENDAHULUAN
A. Latar Belakang
Tingkat persaingan sumber daya manusia (SDM) di pasar kerja nasional dan internasional terus meningkat seiring dengan peningkatan pemanfaatan ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi baru pada berbagai bidang usaha, serta kebutuhan tingkat profesionalisme (knowledge, hard skill, soft skill) yang semakin tinggi.
Kegiatan debat Bahasa Inggris sudah menjadi kebutuhan dunia akademik siswa. Tuntutan kompetensi penguasaan pengetahuan global menjadi salah satu alasan mengapa debat Bahasa Inggris perlu menjadi bagian akademik. Di saat negara-negara berkembang mewajibkan muatan debat ke dalam kurikulum pendidikan mereka, Indonesia perlu terus menjadikan debat Bahasa Inggris sebagai bagian kajian akademik, dalam bentuk apapun. Kegiatan debat Bahasa Inggris menuntut siswa tidak hanya mampu mengungkapkan ide dalam Bahasa Inggris, tetapi juga menuntut siswa mampu menguasai pengetahuan global, menganalisis, membuat judgement, dan meyakinkan publik.
Di dalam debat Bahasa Inggris, siswa akan dihadapkan persoalan-persoalan nyata yang dihadapi suatu masyarakat atau bangsa. Siswa harus mampu mempertahankan posisi dan meyakinkan publik bahwa posisi mereka benar dan tepat. Oleh karena itu, debat Bahasa Inggris merupakan media yang tepat dalam melatih kemampuan argumentasi siswa dalam skala internasional. Maka karena itulah STKIP Al Azhar Diniyyah Jambi melaksanakan lomba debat Bahasa Inggris siswa SD, SMP, SMA, SMK se-Indonesia atau Indonesia Big Idea (Battle of Ingenious Generation in Intellectual Debating Activity) dalam rangka internalisasi semangat kompetisi positif yang bermuatan tuntutan kemampuan komunikasi dan argumentasi.
B. Tujuan
1) Meningkatkan daya saing siswa
2) Meningkatkan kemampuan bahasa Inggris lisan, dan menciptakan kompetisi yang sehat bagi siswa.
3) Meningkatkan kemampuan berpikir kritis dan analitis, sehingga siswa mampu bersaing di tingkat nasional maupun internasional.
4) Mengembangkan kemampuan siswa dalam menyampaikan pendapat secara logis dan sistematis.
C. Sasaran
Sasaran Indonesia Big Idea adalah semua siswa SD/SMP/SMA/SMK/Madrasah Aliyah (MA) negeri dan swasta di Indonesia.
D. Pengertian
1)Debater adalah tiga orang peserta yang mengikuti perlombaan.
2) Convener adalah orang yang mengatur jalannya perlombaan.
3) Chief Adjudicator adalah ketua juri yang mengatur mekanisme penjurian.
4)Deputy Chief Adjudicator adalah wakil ketua juri yang ikut membantu tugas ketua juri dalam penjurian.
5)N1 Adjudicator adalah calon juri yang dikirim oleh tim, untuk diikutkan dalam akreditasi.
6) Invited Adjudicator adalah juri yang diundang oleh STKIP Al Azhar Diniyyah Jambi
7)Tabulator adalah orang yang bertanggungjawab terhadap tabulasi penilaian dalam perlombaan.
II. SISTEM LOMBA DAN TAHAPAN SELEKSI
A. Sistem Lomba
Sistem yang digunakan dalam Indonesia Big Idea adalah sistem NSDC (National School Debating Championship) atau World Style yang juga digunakan di lomba debat tingkat dunia WSDC (World School Debating Championship).
Tahapan perlombaan dalam Indonesia Big Idea adalah sebagai berikut.
a. Preliminary Rounds/Babak Penyisihan
Terdapat tiga kali babak penyisihan di Indonesia Big Idea, artinya semua tim akan melalui tiga kali debat wajib dan enam belas tim terbaik hasil dari penyisihan akan maju ke babak berikutnya.
b. Octofinal Rounds/Babak Perdelapan (16 besar)
(keputusan pengadaan babak octo akan disesuaikan dengan jumlah maksimal seluruh peserta)
Final Babak ini merupakan sistem gugur, artinya tim hanya melakukan sekali perdebatan dan delapan tim terbaik hasil dari babak ini akan maju ke babak berikutnya.
c. Quarterfinal Rounds/Babak Perempat Final (8 besar)
Babak ini merupakan sistem gugur, artinya tim hanya melakukan sekali perdebatan dan empat tim terbaik hasil dari babak ini akan maju ke babak berikutnya.
(Untuk peserta SMP, pada hari kedua akan langsung ke babak ini)
d. Semifinal Rounds/Babak Semi Final (4 besar)
Babak ini merupakan sistem gugur, artinya tim hanya melakukan sekali perdebatan dan dua tim terbaik hasildari babak ini akan maju ke babak berikutnya.
(Untuk peserta SD, pada hari kedua akan langsung ke babak ini)
e. Grand Final Round (Babak Final) (2 besar)
Babak puncak yang mempertemukan dua tim terbaik, yang akan memilih Champion dan Runner Up.
III. PESERTA
A. Persyaratan
1. Peserta Indonesia Big Idea tidak terbatas, bisa Warga Negara Indonesia atau Warga Negara Asing.
2. Satu tim harus terdiri atas tiga debaters dan satu N1 adjudicator.
3. Debater adalah siswa aktif SD/SMP/SMA/SMK/MA
4. N1 Adjudicator adalah guru/pelatih dari sekolah asal team debat
5. Debater wajib mengikuti Seminar on Debating dan N1 adjudicator wajib mengikuti Seminar on Adjudicating dan Adjudicator Accreditation.
6. Anggota tim tidak boleh diganti dengan alasan apapun selama perlombaan.
B. Pendaftaran
1. Pendaftaran bisa dilakukan melalui online lewat email, dan transfer atm
2. Pendaftaran juga bisa dilakukan langsung ke STKIP Al Azhar Menemui panitia pendaftaran (harap konfirmasi sms/telepon sebelumnya agar bisa bertemu langsung dengan panitia pendaftaran)
IV. PENJURIAN
A. Adjudicator/Dewan Juri
Adjudicator di Indonesia Big Idea terdiri atas Chief of Adjudicator (CA), Deputy Chief of Adjudicator (DCA), Invited Adjudicator, Accredited Adjudicator, dan Trainee Adjudicator.
1. Chief of Adjudicator (CA)/ketua juri dipilih oleh STKIP Al Azhar Diniyyah Jambi
2. Deputy Chief of Adjudicator (DCA)/wakil ketua juri dipilih oleh STKIP Al Azhar Diniyyah Jambi.
3. Invited Adjudicators/juri undangan dipilih oleh Adjudication core atas dasar kompetensi dalam debat atau pengalaman menjadi adjudicators.
4. Accredited Adjudicators/juri hasil akreditasi terhadap N1 adjudicators pada awal perlombaan. Terdapat tiga jenis akreditasi, yaitu A, B, dan C.
5. Trainee Adjudicators adalah N1 adjudicators yang tidak lulus akreditasi namun masih diberi kesempatan untuk ikut belajar menjadi juri.
B. Mekanisme Penilaian
1. Penilaian ditentukan berdasarkan aturan dalam sistem World Style.
2. Penilaian terdiri atas penilaian substantive speech dan reply speech;
3. Penilaian berdasarkan pada ketentuan berikut:
V. ACARA, KEPANITIAAN, DAN JADWAL KEGIATAN
A. Acara dalam Indonesia Big Idea adalah sebagai berikut:
1) Upacara Pembukaan.
2) Seminar on Debating. Merupakan pertemuan teknis antar tim peserta. Materi seminar adalah penjelasan sistem dan strategi perlombaan.
3) Seminar on Adjudicating. Seminar ini merupakan ajang akreditasi bagi calon adjudicator. Materi dalam seminar ini adalah tata cara penilaian. Seminar ini diikuti dengan tes bagi calon adjudicator. Seminar ini diadakan bersamaan waktunya dengan Seminar on Debating.
4) Tiga Preliminary Rounds.
5) Octofinal
6) Quarterfinal
7) Semifinal
8) SD dan SMP Grand Final
9) SMA/SMK/MA Grand Final dan Penutupan
B. Kepanitiaan
a) panitia Steering Committee (SC)
b) Organizing Committee (OC).
Panitia OC terdiri atas:
1) Ketua
2) Sekretaris
3) Convener
4) Adjudicators
5) Liason Officers,
6) dan seksi-seksi lain yang dirasa perlu.
C. Jadwal Perlombaan
SEMINAR DEBAT & STAND UP
1) Kamis, 18 Feb 2016
- Workshop dan seminar tentang Stand Up Comedy
- Stand Up Comedy Round 1
- Stand Up Comedy Round 2
- Stand Up Comedy Round 3
- Stand Up Comedy Round 4
- Stand Up Comedy Show oleh Reggy Hasibuan
2) Jumat, 19 Feb 2016
- Workshop dan seminar tentang Debate
- Workshop dan seminar on Adjudicator
- Debate Exhibition/simulation
- Adjudicators acreditation (verbal test & written test)
LOMBA DEBAT & STAND UP
1) Sabtu, 20 Feb 2016
- Debate Preliminary Round 1
- Stand Up comedy Round 5
- Debate Preliminary Round 2
- Stand Up Comedy Round 6
- Debate Preliminary Round 3
- Stand Up Comedy Round 7
2) Minggu, 21 Feb 2016
- Debate Quarterfinal Round 1
- Stand Up comedy Round 8
- Debate Semifinal Round 2
- Stand Up Comedy Round 9
- Debate Grandfinal Round 3
- Stand Up Comedy Round 10
VI. KODE ETIK PESERTA DAN JURI
A. Yang harus dilakukan oleh para peserta dan juri Selama turnamen berlangsung, semua peserta dan juri wajib:
1) Saling menghormati terhadap peserta lain di dalam acara, terhadap para tamu, dan sponsor dari turnamen, dan juga terhadap khalayak umum yang menghadiri berbagai acara dalam turnamen.
2) Patuh terhadap hukum yang berlaku di lingkungan STKIP Al Azhar Diniyyah Jambi (mengenakan pakaian yang sopan/islami tidak menunjukkan bagian tubuh manapun)
3) Patuh pada setiap peraturan, pedoman dan larangan yang ditentukan oleh panitia pelaksana untuk menjaga keteraturan dan keamanan para peserta.
4) Peserta wajib mengenakan kaos Indonesia Big Idea dalam setiap babak (kecuali babak eliminasi).
5) Peserta dan Juri wajib mengenakan pakaian bebas sopan/ formal casual selama perlombaan.
B. Yang tidak boleh dilakukan oleh peserta dan juri Selama turnamen, peserta dilarang:
1) Mengeluarkan komentar, gurauan, ejekan, dan atau pelecehan yang menghina budaya, ras, agama, jenis kelamin maupun orientasi seksual orang lain atau perilaku lain yang dapat dianggap merendahkan orang lain, tanpa mempedulikan apakah tindakan itu dilakukan di depan maupun di belakang orang tersebut.
2) Melecehkan secara fisik individu lain.
3) Turut serta dalam segala bentuk tindak kekerasan maupun ancaman untuk melakukan tindak kekerasan.
4) Turut serta dalam segala bentuk pelecehan seksual
5) Mengambil atau menggunakan barang individu lain tanpa ijin
6) Dengan sengaja mengakibatkan kerusakan terhadap individu lain atau lokasi lomba
7) Mengkonsumsi bahan-bahan yang dilarang untuk dikonsumsi oleh hukum
8) Mengkonsumsi atau berada di bawah pengaruh alkohol atau obat-obat terlarang yang dimana akan dapat merusak reputasi dari turnamen.
9) Peserta bertanya mengenai motion kepada orang dewasa yang berperan sebagai pelatih, juri, juri N1, pembina atau panitia dan observer yang memiliki hubungan keterkaitan selama turnamen.
C. Perilaku selama ronde debat
1) Peserta di turnamen, terutama pelatih, pendamping, dan peserta dilarang untuk melakukan konfrontasi kepada juri dengan menggunakan pendekatan yang agresif setelah selesainya suatu ronde debat.
2) Masukan, atau feedback, antara tim debat dan juri harus diberikan dan diterima dengan semangat yang konstruktif dan tidak dengan sikap konfrontatif.
VII. PENGHARGAAN
Penghargaan Indonesia Big Idea adalah sebagai berikut:
1) Sertifikat keikutsertaan diberikan kepada Debaters dan Adjudicators.
2) Beasiswa diberikan kepada semua Pemenang juara 1, 2, 3, 4.
3) Piala dan piagam penghargaan diberikan kepada juara 1, 2, 3, 4.
4) Sertifikat penghargaan diberikan pada 1 orang debater terbaik & 1 orang N1 Adjudicator terbaik.
LAMPIRAN
CONSTITUTION OF THE INDONESIA BIG IDEA
(BATTLE OF INGENIOUS GENERATION IN INTELLECTUAL DEBATING ACTIVITY)
ARTICLE 1: FORMAT
a. The format for debates in the Championships is three speakers a side with only two teams in each debate, one as a proposition, and the other as opposition.
b. After all speakers have spoken once, the first or second speaker for each side gives a reply speech, with the opposition reply going first and the proposition second.
c. Speaking time for speeches is 7 minutes, and for reply speeches 4 minutes.
d. The method of giving timing signals to speakers is at the decision of the Chief Adjudicator and/or Committee.
e. In addition to Article 1 (d), shall no specific methods are announce, in general team members both in the debate or in the audience may give time signals to a speaker provided that the signals are polite and do not disturb the flow of the debate.
f. Before a debate begins, each team must inform the chairperson of the names of their three speakers and the order they will be speaking in.
g. The only persons who may speak in a debate are the three speakers for each team announced by the chairperson at the start of that debate.
h. During a debate, speakers may not communicate with their coach, other team members who are not speaking in that debate, or any person in the audience, except to receive time signals in accordance with Article 1 (e).
i. Without reducing the bound in Article 1 (g), if, during a debate, a speaker declares that they are unable to make their speech, another speaker from that team who was announced by the chairperson as speaking in that debate may give a speech in substitution.
j. If a substitute speech is given in accordance with Article 1 (i), judges shall award that speech the lowest possible score within the Marking Standard, regardless of the quality of the speech. (If such a situation occurs, the marks for this speech shall not be used in the calculation for any individual speaker rankings or awards).
k. Article 1 (j) shall not apply in the case of reply speeches provided that, in accordance with Article 1 (b), the reply speech is delivered by either the first or second speaker on the team.
l. Further information and specific details regarding debating rules and regulation shall refer to the Debating Regulation by Indonesia Big idea Committee.
ARTICLE 2: ELIGIBILITY
a. Each school may send more than one team to compete at the Championship.
b. A member of a debate’s team must:
1. have been a full-time student in the school
2. ensure that they have not been enrolled at a university or post-secondary school institution(s) where their first semester of study begins on
c. The selection and composition of a provincial team should refer to the regulations prescribed in the Indonesia Big Idea regulation
d. A team may only have three members.
e. Each school which sends a team to the Championships shall appoint a person that shall serve as their n=1 adjudicator, who shall follow all the provided protocols for n=1 adjus in compliance with the Indonesia Big Idea regulation.
ARTICLE 3: THE DRAW
a. Every team shall debate three other teams in the preliminary rounds. The draw for the preliminary debates shall use a method that has been pre-determined by the Chief Adjudicator and his/her adjudication core.
b. As far as possible, each team shall have the same number of debates on any day as any other teams. A team may not debate more than three times in a day in the preliminary rounds unless the team agrees prior to the start of the Championships.
c. At the end of the preliminary rounds, teams shall be ranked according to the number of wins. If teams are tied on the same number of wins, they shall be separated where practicable by elimination debates and otherwise on the following priority:
1. Number of adjudicators in favor of the team; then
2. Average judges’ scores for each team.
d. The top 16 teams shall debate in Octo-Finals as follows:
Octo A – Rank 1 vs Rank 16
Octo B – Rank 2 vs Rank 15
Octo C – Rank 3 vs Rank 14
Octo D – Rank 4 vs Rank 13
Octo E – Rank 5 vs Rank 12
Octo F – Rank 6 vs Rank 11
Octo G – Rank 7 vs Rank 10
Octo H – Rank 8 vs Rank 9
e. The winners of the Octo-Finals shall debate in the Quarter- Finals as follows:
Quarter A – Winner of Octo A vs Winner of Octo H
Quarter B – Winner of Octo B vs Winner of Octo G
Quarter C – Winner of Octo C vs Winner of Octo F
Quarter D – Winner of Octo D vs Winner of Octo E
f. The winners of the Quarter-Finals shall debate in the Semi-Finals as follows:
Semi A – Winner of Quarter A vs Winner of Quarter D
Semi B – Winner of Quarter B vs Winner of Quarter C
g. The winners of the Semi-Finals shall compete in the Grand Final debate.
h. All other teams shall be ranked according the round of the championships the team reached and, where equal, their preliminary round ranking (in accordance with Article 3 (c)).
ARTICLE 4: JUDGES
a. All championship debates shall be judged by an odd-numbered panel of judges, with the ideal number being at least a panel of three.
b. If the number of accredited judges do not suffice to have a panel of three for all debate rounds as regulated in Article 4 (a), the Chief Adjudicator reserves the right to decide which rounds may be judged with a single judge, considering that judge is deemed capable to serve as a single judge.
c. A judge should behave, act, and present themselves in a proper and mannerful decorum
d. Judges shall not judge a team in which they have affiliation with; both professional and personal, the paramater of which shall be the discretion of the Chief Adjudicator.
e. A judge shall not be a coach of a team at the championship.
f. A judge may judge the same team more than once, provided that the judge does not judge that team a disproportionate number of times.
g. A debate is won by the team which has a majority of the votes of the judges, where in the case of a single judge, the method of how to reflect a unanimous and/or split judge votes shall be determined by the Chief Adjudicator.
h. The marking standard, rules of debate, and principles of judging, are set out in the Indonesia Big Idea regulation which is used as the single reference to this Constitution.
i. The Indonesia Big Idea regulation is part of this Constitution and may be amended in the same way that these Articles may be amended.
j. The Chief Adjudicator and/or Tournament Committee shall ensure that judges are familiar with the Indonesia Big Idea regulation and any guidelines and instructional material authorized by them.
k. All judges shall judge in accordance with the Adjudication Handbook and any guidelines and instructional material authorized by the Chief Adjudicator.
l. To be eligible to judge at a championship (“an eligible/invited judge”) a person must:
1. hold an acceptable Adjudication accreditation score in which the standards and source of accreditation shall be nominated by the Chief Adjudicator,
2. be experienced at judging at the highest level of senior school or university debates and have judged such debates regularly during the two years prior to the Championship.
m. The Chief Adjudicator may accept a person to be an eligible invited judge at a Championship who does not meet the requirements as stated in Article 4 (l) if
1. that person has been invited as a judge at some debate Championship (whose competition standard is widely acknowledged by most of debate communities in Indonesia) previously, or
2. in the opinion of the Chief Adjudicator, the person is sufficiently experienced and competent to be an eligible invited judge.
n. Judges for all Championship debates, including the GrandFinal, are to be selected for their ability to judge, not because they hold any particular office or occupation.
o. The Chief Adjudicator may at any time, as a result of an assessment during the course of the Championship, decide that that judge should not judge any debates, or should not judge any further debates without a further assessment if the Chief Adjudicator is satisfied that there is sufficient doubt about that judge‘s ability to judge competently or impartially.
p. In undertaking an assessment in accordance with Article 4 (o), the Chief Adjudicator may take into consideration:
1. whether the judge has been able or unable to give sufficient reasons for awarding the debate to one team as against another;
2. whether the judge has misdirected himself or herself as to some or more of the rules of debate to a significant extent;
3. whether the judge has made remarks to a team or other participant at the championship in a way that casts significant doubt as to the judge’s competence or impartiality;
4. whether as a result of excessive consumption of alcohol or other substances or tiredness or sickness or other such factors, the ability or perceived ability of the judge to judge competently is seriously in question;
5. whether a complaint has been upheld against the judge in pursuant to Article 5 (g);
6. any representations made by the judge in question;
7. any other matter the Chief Adjudicator considers relevant.
q. Before deciding whether a judge should not judge a further debate or debates, the Chief Adjudicator in conjunction with the Chief Adjudicator‘s core shall determine whether the matter
could be more appropriately resolved by counseling or other appropriate procedure.
r. In undertaking an assessment provided for the judge in question, the Chief Adjudicator shall:
1. inform himself or herself of evidence and facts as he or she deems fit; and
2. consult with the Chief Adjudication Core.
s. Notwithstanding Articles 4 (o) – (p), no result of any debate shall be overturned.
ARTICLE 5: THE CHIEF ADJUDICATOR AND THE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
a. There shall be one Chief Adjudicator for each Championships.
b. The Committee and/or Organizing team from the Directorate for Secondary Education of the Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs shall determine the process of appointing the Chief Adjudicator.
c. In accordance with this Constitution, the Chief Adjudicator is responsible for:
1. determining the eligibility of judges,
2. training judges prior to the start of the championship,
3. assessing whether eligible judges are competent to judge debates,
4. assigning judges to debates,
5. recording results of debates,
6. determining the team rankings at the end of the preliminary rounds,
7. determining the draw for the Octo-Finals, Quarter-Finals, Semi -Finals and Grand Final, and;
8. any other matter connected with the adjudication of debates at a championship.
d. Prior to start of a Championship the Chief Adjudicator may nominate a panel of senior and experienced judges from different provinces to assist his/her responsibilities, who will hold status as Deputy Chief Adjudicator in the Championship.
e. In pursuant of Article 5 (d), this only applies if the Deputy Chief Adjudicator have not been appointed beforehand.
f. A member of the Chief Adjudicator‘s core may advise and assist the Chief Adjudicator, but may not independently carry out any of the Chief Adjudicator‘s responsibilities or exercise the Chief
Adjudicator‘s powers.
g. Any complaint about a judge in a particular debate shall be made to the Chief Adjudicator:
1. Within 24 hours of the alleged incident giving rise to the complaint, by:
a. a judge or judges accredited by the Chief Adjudicator for the tournament and who were on a panel of judges with the judge who is the subject of the complaint; or
b. the official and registered coach or team manager or teacher of a team participating in the tournament who shall make the complaint in writing.
h. Complaints shall include but are not necessarily restricted to one or more of the following:
1. Upon receipt of a complaint pursuant to Article 5 (g), the Chief Adjudicator shall determine:
a. whether the complaint can be resolved without further investigation; or
b. whether the complaint requires further investigation in which case the Chief Adjudicator shall undertake such further investigation including but not limited to talking to:
1. the judge who is the subject of the complaint; and
2. other judges on the panel with that judge; and/or
3. Coaches, Teachers present at the debate; and/or
4. such other persons as the Chief Adjudicator shall deem appropriate.
i. In conjunction with the Chief Adjudicator’s Core, the Chief Adjudicator shall determine the complaint by:
1. dismissing the complaint; or
2. upholding the complaint; or
3. taking no further action; or
4. counselling the judge; or
5. any other actions deemed necessary by the Chief Adjudicator to resolve the situation.
j. No determination pursuant to Article 5 (i section 2) shall be made without the further investigation to which Article 5 (h section 1a) refers and in particular, without first speaking to the judge
who is the subject of the complaint.
k. Where a complaint has been determined according to Article 5 (i section 1), the Chief Adjudicator shall advise the following people:
1. The person or persons who made the complaint, either in writing if the complaint was in writing or verbally if the complaint was made verbally.
2. Where the determination according to Article 5 (i section 1) is the result of the further investigation to which Article 5 (h section 1a) refers, the judge who was the subject of the complaint shall be advised in writing.
l. Where any complaint has been determined pursuant to Article 5 (i section 2), the Chief Adjudicator shall advise the following people in writing:
1. The person or persons who made the complaint;
2. The judge who was the subject of complaint;
m. Notwithstanding Articles 5 (g) – (l), no result of any debate shall be overturned.
ARTICLE 6: MOTIONS
a. The Chief Adjudicator along with his/her Core shall select all motions for debate at the Championship.
b. At latest four weeks prior to the start of the championship, the Core shall forward to the Committee the list of motions it has selected for prepared debates including the Grand Final.
c. The Committee shall notify all teams of the prepared motions for debate.
d. At least one day before the start of the Championship the Core shall already prepare a set of motions for the impromptu rounds.
e. The number of impromptu motions that shall be prepared by the Core in pursuant of Article 6 (d) should be at least one more motion than the total number of impromptu rounds.
ARTICLE 7: IMPROMPTU DEBATES
a. At the discretion of the Committee, up to one-half of the debates for any team in the preliminary rounds may be impromptu debates, provided that every team has as close as possible to the same number of impromptu debates as every other team in the preliminary rounds.
b. The preparation time and procedure for impromptu debates are in the discretion of the host, provided that:
1. both teams in an impromptu debate receive the topic (or choice of topics) at the same time,
2. insofar as possible, each team shall have the same number of affirmative and negative sides in impromptu debates, and
3. both teams in an impromptu debate are given similar preparation rooms and conditions.
c. A person taking part in the preparation of an impromptu debate may not take into the preparation room a telephone, computer or any other device capable of communicating or accessing information outside the preparation room.
ARTICLE 8:AWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS
a. Special awards shall be given at the conclusion of each championship to:
1. all teams which reach the Semi Finals or Grand Finals of the Championships,
2. the 10 highest ranked speakers,
3. the 5 highest n=1 accredited judges,
4. the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd best teams.
b. The form of the awards described in Articles 8 (a section 1 – 3) shall be wholly at the discretion of the Committee.
c. The host may also decide to acknowledge or give awards to other teams or speakers.
d. In respect to punishments on the accounts of any violation on either one or more or all of the Articles written in this Constitution, it shall be within the discretion of the Chief Adjudicator and/ or Committee to prescribe appropriate and proportional punishments towards any and/or all violators.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar