Official Rule Book

Official Rule Book

Table of Contents

Preamble: Aims of the Championship .......................................................................2

PART I : Tournament Rules ...........................…............................................................. 3
Chapter 1. Eligibility .................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter 2. Overall Tournament Structure ........................................................................ 3
Chapter 3. Preliminary Rounds ............................................................................................ 4
Chapter 4. Elimination Rounds ............................................................................................. 5
Chapter 5. Equity ........................................................................................................................ 5

PART II : Debate Rules ..................................................................................................... 7

Chapter 6. Overall Debate Format ....................................................................................... 7
Chapter 7. Motion Selection and Preparation Time .................................................... 8
Chapter 8. Roles of the Speakers .......................................................................................... 8
Chapter 9. Adjudication ........................................................................................................ 10

-1-
 Official Rule Book

Preamble: Aims of the Championship

Korea Debate Championship aims to provide an opportunity for students around the nation to engage
in English parliamentary debating. English parliamentary debating is an activity that requires logical
thinking, knowledge of current events and persuasion skills on top of English proficiency. It is therefore
an excellent activity for students to hone their skills and develop themselves to reach further levels of
excellence. Through the events of the tournament, Korea Debate Championship aims to be an
educational platform through which students may learn and develop the various skills that are
associated to debating. Most importantly, Korea Debate Championship aims to be an accessible platform
for all students, regardless of past experience with debating.

Korea Debate Championship further wishes to recognize excellence in debating among qualified
students at the end of the tournament. All teams that qualify to participate in the elimination rounds
will be awarded according to their final results. The winner of the championships will be awarded
‘Champion of Korea Debate Championships’. Individuals with the highest individual speaker points in
the preliminary rounds will also be awarded for their individual success. As debate is an activity that
requires great skill and effort to excel at, Korea Debate Championship aims to reward individuals for the
effort that they have invested into the activity. In particular, Korea Debate Championship wishes to
recognize individuals who had overcome significant language barriers to engage in discourse in a
foreign language. Thus, EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teams and speakers will also be awarded
according to their performance.

*We would like to recognize and thank the following documents and their authors, which were largely
referenced in the creation of this rulebook:
- Rules for the HUFS-YTN Youth English Debating Championships
- Tournament Rules of the United Asians Debating Championships
- WUDC 2018 Debating & Judging Manual
- Tallinn EUDC 2017 Equity Policy
- HDS KIDA National Championships Equity Policy

-2-
 Official Rule Book

PART I : TOURNAMENT RULES

This part of the rulebook will deal with rules regarding the procedural aspects of the tournament.

CHAPTER 1. Eligibility
1.1. The following individuals are eligible to compete in the tournament:
(a) students currently enrolled at a Korean high school;
(b) students currently in an educational curriculum equivalent to high school in Korea;
(c) students currently enrolled at a high school abroad.
1.2. Teams must consist of three individuals to be eligible to compete in the tournament.
1.2.1. Teams may be formed freely as long as all three members fulfill the eligibility clauses mentioned in 1.1.
1.2.2. Teams must follow the registration procedures set by the Organizing Committee before the deadlines that
are set.
1.2.3. All members of the team must sign the Code of Conduct form that regulates the actions of the participants
prior to the beginning of the tournament and submit them to the Organizing Committee to be considered
eligible to compete in the tournament.
1.3. Individuals wishing to be eligible for EFL (English as a Foreign Language) status must meet the following
criteria:
(a) spent NO MORE THAN 1 year at an English-speaking nation after the age of seven;
(b) enrolled at an educational institution where English is the primary language (including, but not limited
to: international schools, schools in English-speaking nations, international classes in domestic special-
purpose high schools) for NO MORE THAN 1 year.
1.3.1. Individuals applying for EFL status must submit their ‘Customs and Border Control Certificate’ and ‘Proof
of Enrollment’ to the Chief Adjudication Panel before the beginning of the championship to prove their
EFL qualifications.
1.3.2. If the EFL status of an individual who has applied for EFL status is ambiguous even with the information
given in the submitted forms, the participant may have to engage in an interview with Chief Adjudication
Panel.
1.3.3. After the interviews are conducted on the first day of the championship, the Chief Adjudication Panel shall
release the list of successful EFL status applicants before the second day of the championship.
1.4. For a team to qualify as an EFL team, all members of that team must have EFL status.
1.4.1. Only EFL teams will be eligible to compete in the EFL league of the championships.
1.4.2. Individual EFL participants that are in non-EFL teams are still eligible for EFL speaker awards.
1.5. If there are any inquiries about one’s own eligibility, participants should contact the Organizing Committee.

CHAPTER 2. Overall Tournament Structure

2.1. The Organizing Committee is responsible for tournament’s logistics, registration processes, schedule,
tabulation and management.
2.2. The Chief Adjudication Panel is responsible for setting the themes and motions of the rounds and ensuring
-3-
 Official Rule Book
quality adjudication.
2.3. No person other than the Organizing Committee, Chief Adjudication Panel, participants, adjudicators, and
other officials may enter the main venue or the debate chambers.
2.4. The championship consists of an educational workshop, 5 preliminary rounds that are held in league format,
and 3 elimination rounds that are held in tournament format. The number of rounds may be adjusted
according to the number of participating teams.

CHAPTER 3. Preliminary Rounds

3.1. The first preliminary rounds are matched completely randomly. The subsequent preliminary rounds are
power matched based on the results of previous rounds. The following are some of the factors employed by
the tabulation program to determine the power matching:
(a) win-loss record
(b) total speaker points
(c) number of times on side proposition/opposition
(d) number of times facing the same team
3.2. In case of an odd number of teams in the preliminary rounds, a swing team will be included in the match-ups.
3.2.1. Any team that meets the swing team in the preliminary rounds will be considered to have won that round,
regardless of the actual result of that debate. The speaker scores for that team will be given based on the
debate against the swing team.
3.2.2. The swing team will be allocated in a manner that would minimize the impact to the break.
3.3. For the efficient running of the tournament and increased suspense, round four will be a silent round. For the
silent round, teams will not receive the results or feedback after the round.
3.3.1. Teams may find their adjudicator and ask for their results and for feedback after the break is announced.
3.4. In cases where one or more team members are unable to participate in a preliminary round, ironman policy
is activated.
3.4.1. When one team member is missing, one of the other two speakers may speak twice. The speaker should
indicate to the adjudicator prior to the debate which speech they would like to get scored on (except for
the reply speech). The missing speaker is given the lowest points possible for the round.
3.4.2. When two team members are missing, the remaining speaker may do all the speeches. The speaker should
indicate to the adjudicator prior to the debate which speech they would like to get scored on (except for
the reply speech). The missing speakers are given the lowest points possible for the round.
3.4.3. When all three members of the team are missing, a swing team will be formed, and the team in question
will be disqualified from the break. The team may still continue to debate in the preliminary rounds.
3.4.4. If a team uses the ironman policy for more than one round, the team in question will be disqualified from
the break. The team may still continue to debate in the preliminary rounds.
3.5. After the preliminary rounds are over, teams will be ranked according to their performance in the rounds.
The top eight teams will be considered to have made the ‘break’ and will proceed to the elimination rounds.
The rankings will be decided according to the following criteria (in the following order of priority):
(1) the total number of wins;
(2) total speaker points;
(3) point differential (sum of all win/loss margins).
-4-
 Official Rule Book
3.6. The top EFL teams will also be decided according to the criteria provided in 4.5. The number of EFL teams
that advance to the EFL break rounds will be decided according to the total number of EFL teams competing
in the championship.

CHAPTER 4. Elimination Rounds

4.1. The top 8 teams from the break will debate in the Quarter-finals as follows:
Quarter-final A: 1st Break vs 8th Break
Quarter-final B: 2nd Breakvs 7th Break
Quarter-final C: 3rd Break vs 6th Break
Quarter-final D: 4th Break vs 5th Break
4.2. The winners of the Quarter-finals will debate in the Semi-finals as follows:
Semi-final A: Winner of Quarter-final A vs Winner of Quarter-final D
Semi-final B: Winner of Quarter-final B vs Winner of Quarter-final C
4.3. The two winners of the Semi-finals will debate in the Grand Finals.
4.4. In the elimination rounds, the sides proposition/opposition will be decided through a random draw.
4.5. In the elimination rounds, spectators are permitted to observe the round. The chairperson of the round
reserves the right to request the spectators to leave in cases where spectators cause a severe disruption in
the round, or where foul play is suspected.

CHAPTER 5. Equity
5.1. The purpose of the equity policy is to ensure all participants at Korea Debate Championship feel and are safe
throughout the events of the tournament, regardless of any personal identities or attributes the participants
may hold.
5.2. The equity policy applies to every person involved as part of the tournament, including, but not limited to
participants, adjudicators, observers, the Organizing Committee and the Chief Adjudication Panel. The policy
extends to all parts of the competition within the venues provided by the tournament and to all interactions
conducted as part of the championship.
5.3. The equity policy restricts any activity that can be seen as attempting to exclude an individual from
meaningfully participating in the debate or other activities of the Championship, or may be threatening to
their safety
5.3.1. Intimidating or threatening behavior toward any individual who is part of the tournament (including
adjudicators, the Organizing Committee, and any staff or volunteers) is prohibited. This includes yelling,
harassing, threatening, or acting in a physically or verbally aggressive fashion.
5.3.2. Any attack against an individual’s identity, personhood or framework of beliefs is prohibited. This
includes derogatory remarks about an individual’s race, class, gender, sexual orientation, mental health,
language proficiency, debate skills, disability, nationality, appearance, educational background, past
experiences, religious affiliation, and political ideology. Such attacks against identity, personhood or
framework of beliefs is prohibited even in circumstances where it is believed that there is no person of
such affiliation present at that time.
5.3.3. Any and all conduct that violates the laws of the Republic of Korea is strictly prohibited in the duration of
the tournament. This includes, but is not limited to, underage drinking, underage smoking and sexual
-5-
 Official Rule Book
harassment.
5.4. There will be a team of ‘Equity Officers’ appointed to deal with issues regarding equity violations at the
tournament. This team will be selected among members of the Organizing Committee and the Chief
Adjudication Panel.
5.5. In case of violation of equity rules, participants may file an equity complaint to an Equity Officer.
Complainants may choose to remain anonymous, or they may choose to identify themselves. Anonymous
complaints are always considered to be informal complaints, whereas identified complaints may either be
informal or formal complaints
5.5.1. All complaints will be dealt with by the Equity Officers with the utmost degree of confidentiality.
5.5.2. Informal complaints raise general equity concerns, but do not require formal responses. These may be
dealt with by the Equity Officers by making an announcement that warns against such conduct in the
future.
5.5.3. Formal complaints require the Equity Officers to take formal responses such as mediation or disciplinary
action. After investigating the situation to determine whether or not a breach of the equity policy has
occurred, if it is determined that a breach has occurred, the Equity Officers may take measures such as
but not limited to:
(a) explaining the complaint to the offending participant;
(b) issuing a personal or public warning to the offending participant;
(c) requesting that the offending participant provide an apology;
(d) bringing the relevant participants together for mediation;
(e) removal from events hosted by the tournament;
(f) reporting to police authorities in case of unlawful acts.
5.5.4. Any participant subject to disciplinary action may appeal the decision within twelve hours of receiving
notification. Complainants also have the right to appeal under the same conditions.

-6-
 Official Rule Book

PART II : DEBATE RULES

This part of the rulebook will deal with rules regarding the debates that happen in the rounds.

CHAPTER 6. Overall Debate Format

6.1. Each debate has two teams of three speakers. The two teams will be debating against each other on a topic
called ‘the Motion’. One team (‘the Proposition’ or ‘the Government’) will propose the Motion, and the other
team (‘the Opposition’) will oppose the Motion.
6.2. Three substantive speeches (7 minutes) and one reply speech (4 minutes) will be delivered by each team in
the following order:
(1) 1st Speaker of the Proposition (the Prime Minister) - 7 minutes
(2) 1 Speaker of the Opposition (the Opposition Leader)
st - 7 minutes
(3) 2nd Speaker of the Proposition (the Deputy Prime Minister) - 7 minutes
(4) 2 Speaker of the Opposition (the Deputy Opposition Leader)
nd - 7 minutes
(5) 3rd Speaker of the Proposition (the Government Whip) - 7 minutes
(6) 3rd Speaker of the Opposition (the Opposition Whip) - 7 minutes
(7) Opposition Reply Speaker - 4 minutes
(8) Proposition Reply Speaker - 4 minutes
6.3. The reply speech must be done by either the 1st or the 2nd speaker of each team. The 3rd speaker cannot do
the reply speech.
6.4. The speakers must end their speech within a 30-second grace period after their speaking time has elapsed.
Any material that is given after the 30-second grace period will be disregarded by the adjudicators.
6.5. Points of Information (POI) may be offered during the substantive speeches.
6.5.1. Points of Information are statements, clarifications or questions that speakers may offer during the
substantive speeches of the opposing team.
6.5.2. Points of Information should only last for a maximum of 15 seconds. A POI that continues on for more
than 15 seconds should be ruled out of order by the chairperson of the debate.
6.5.3. To raise a Point of Information, the speaker should rise from their seat, while gesturing appropriately
toward the debater currently at the podium, and verbally draw attention to the offer. In this process, the
speaker is prohibited from revealing the contents of the POI until the offer is accepted by the debater at
the podium.
6.5.4. The debater at the podium holds complete control over Points of Information that are offered to them.
They may respond by either accepting the POI, declining the POI, or asking the speaker that offered the
POI to wait.
6.5.5. The first minute and the last minute of a substantive speech is considered to be ‘Protected Time’. Points
of Information cannot be offered during this protected time.
6.5.6. Points of Information cannot be offered during reply speeches.
6.6. There will be an odd number of adjudicators in each round. One of the adjudicators will be designated as the
‘chairperson’ and will be given the responsibility to facilitate the debate.

-7-
 Official Rule Book

CHAPTER 7. Motion Selection and Preparation Time

7.1. Each round consists of 30 minutes preparation time and a debate.
7.2. Before the round begins, teams will be shown the matchups, which indicates their rooms, their sides and their
opponent teams.
7.3. At the beginning of the round, teams are given three motions under one theme. After the motions are given,
teams should find their opponent teams to decide which of the three motions will be debated.
7.3.1. Each team should separately rank the three given motions according to their preferences.
7.3.2. After both teams have decided their motion rankings, they compare the rankings to decide the motion as
follows:
(a) The 3rd ranked (least preferred) motion of each team is vetoed and will not be debated
(b) If both teams have the same motion ranked 1st (most preferred), that motion will be debated
(c) If the two teams have the same motion ranked 3rd, but have different motions ranked 1st, they will
resolve this through a coin toss.
7.3.3. This procedure of deciding the motion is included in the 30 minutes of preparation time.
7.4. After the motion is decided, the Proposition team should prepare inside the debate chamber. The Opposition
team will prepare in a separate area outside of the debate chamber.
7.5. During the preparation time, debaters are allowed to use the following:
(a) writing materials (pens, pencils, highlighters, paper, post-its, …)
(b) paper dictionaries
(c) almanacs
(d) clocks/watches/stopwatches
(e) any printed or written material that was prepared before the tournament
7.5.1. Note that when debaters are on the podium, they are only permitted to use their written material. The
use of any printed material on the podium will be considered cheating and will result in disqualification.
7.6. Teams must prepare amongst themselves using only the material permitted in 7.5. If teams are discovered to
have consulted with anyone other than their teammates (ex. parents, teachers, friends, coaches, other teams,
…) or are discovered to have used any electronic devices other than their clocks/watches/stopwatches (ex.
electronic dictionaries, phones, computers, mp3 players, portable computers, …), they will be considered to
have cheated, and will be disqualified from the tournament.

CHAPTER 8. Roles of the Speakers

8.1. The 1st Speaker of the Proposition is called the ‘Prime Minister’ and is responsible for defining and setting-up
the debate, presenting the team position and case, and developing the first part of the team’s case.
8.1.1. The Prime Minister should ensure the debate is adequately defined. This means they may tell the rest of
the people in the room exactly what will be debated. They may need to say whether there is a policy (i.e.
whether someone is doing something) and what that policy is, if there is.
8.1.1.1. The definition is considered to be invalid in the following two circumstances:
(a) it is literally inconsistent with the words of the motion that was set. (ex. the motion reads “THW place
a toll on all roads”, and the Prime Minister claims that they would only put tolls on major motorways)
(b) it excludes a large number of cases to which the literal reading of the motion would appear to imply.
(ex. the motion reads “THW use community service as a punishment in place of prisons, and the Prime
-8-
 Official Rule Book
Minister states that it would only do this for young non-violent offenders – this is a severe restriction of
the motion) ‘Place-setting’, where the motion is restricted to one particular location (such as the U.S.A. or
Korea) or ‘Time-setting’, where the motion set in a particular time fall under this category. Unless directly
implied by the motion, motions are set in an international context, in the present day. Definitions that
arbitrarily exclude certain contexts are invalid.
8.1.1.2. It is valid for the Proposition to exclude anomalous examples. (ex. to exclude burns victims from a motion
that would ban plastic surgery)
8.1.2. The Prime Minister should present the overall stance of the Proposition side, and what the general
direction the Proposition side wishes to go towards as a result of passing the motion.
8.1.3. It is generally recommended that the Prime Minister deals with what is considered to be the main, or the
most important arguments from the Proposition.
8.2. The 1st Speaker of the Opposition is called the ‘Opposition Leader’ and is responsible for challenging the
definition provided by the Prime Minister if necessary, responding to the material brought by the Prime
Minister, presenting the team position and case, and developing the first part of the team’s case.
8.2.1. The Opposition Leader may challenge the definition but should only do so if it is absolutely necessary.
The original definition that was set by the Prime Minister must be invalid (i.e. it must fall under the criteria
given in 8.1.1.1.) for the definition challenge to be considered legitimate.
8.2.1.1. A vague definition does not warrant a definition challenge. If the definition is vague to an extent that it
severely undermines the debate, the Opposition is recommended to explain the vagueness, and to explain
why the vagueness would undermine the persuasiveness of the Proposition. It is also legitimate for the
Opposition to take matters into their own hands and to clarify a vague definition. This does not require a
definition challenge.
8.2.1.2. If the Opposition has challenged the definition, they may proceed to do either of two things:
(a) complain about the definition being invalid but proceed to debate it anyways. This is preferable when
the definition was an unfair reading of the motion but is still debatable.
(b) redefine the motion. They should tell the judge and debaters what a proper definition would be and
then proceed to argue against that case. It is advised (but not required) to engage in an even-if case against
the Proposition’s definition of the motion and the case that stemmed from it.
8.2.2. The Opposition Leader should present the overall stance of the Opposition side. In a policy debate, if the
Opposition wishes to prove that the motion should not be passed, it is recommended that they provide a
substantive case of their own. They may choose to simply provide reasons not to do the policy, or they
may choose to bring a counterproposal. In any case, the Opposition Leader must state the stance in their
speech.
8.3. The 2nd Speakers of the Proposition and Opposition are each called ‘Deputy Prime Minister’ and ‘Deputy
Opposition Leader’. They are responsible for defending their case against the responses brought by the
opposing team, responding to the case presented by the opposing team, and developing the second part of
the team’s case.
8.4. The 3rd Speakers of the Proposition and Opposition are each called ‘Government Whip’ and ‘Opposition Whip’.
The major role of the Whip speakers is to respond to the other team’s case.
8.4.1. The speakers are recommended to focus on the major issue(s) of the debate and the ways in which both
teams approached these major issues.
8.4.2. The speaker should respond to the arguments brought forward by the other team under those issues and
should compare them to the arguments that were brought forward by their own team

-9-
 Official Rule Book
8.4.3. The Whip speakers cannot provide any new constructive content in their speeches. New rebuttals,
clarifications, analyses and examples are permitted.
8.5. The Reply Speakers for both sides are responsible for summarizing the debate in their team’s perspective and
explaining why their team has won.
8.5.1. The Reply speeches happen after the debate is “over” – therefore, they are not allowed to provide any new
arguments, rebuttals or analyses. They may provide new examples to illustrate points that were already
brought up in the debate.
8.5.2. It is advised to think of the Reply speeches as ‘biased adjudications’, which talk about what had already
happened in the debate but focus on explaining why one team had won over the other.

CHAPTER 9. Adjudication
9.1. The adjudication will be conducted by an odd-number panel of adjudicators.
9.1.1. In preliminary rounds, most rounds will be judged by one single adjudicator. In cases where there is a
panel of judges in preliminary rounds, the speaker scores for that round will be the average of the scores
on the ballots in the majority.
9.1.2. In elimination rounds, all rounds will be judged by a panel of at least three adjudicators.
9.2. After the round is over, the adjudicators each fill in a ballot that indicates the result of the round and the
scores for each speaker. Until all adjudicators are done filling out their ballots, adjudicators are not permitted
to discuss the round amongst themselves. The team that receives the majority of the votes will be deemed to
have won that round. Adjudicators should judge on basis of the overall persuasiveness of the speeches.
9.3. The adjudicator will give each substantive speech a score between the range of 65 to 85. Reply speeches will
be given a score between the range of 32.5 to 42.5. The speaker scale is as follows.
85 ⚫ Plausibly one of the best debating speeches ever given
(42.5) ⚫ It is incredibly difficult to think up any satisfactory responses to the arguments made
83-84 ⚫ Well-illustrated arguments that successfully engage with the main issues in the round
(41.5-42) ⚫ Arguments require responses of great sophistication, with only very minor problems
81-82 ⚫ Arguments have strong explanations, and address the core issues in the debate
(40.5-41) ⚫ May occasionally fail to respond to very well-made arguments
79-80 ⚫ Arguments are relevant to the core issues in the debate, with no obvious gaps in logic
(39.5-40) ⚫ May be vulnerable to good responses.
77-78 ⚫ Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, and address most of the core issues;
(38.5-39) ⚫ Arguments may occasionally be underexplained, simplistic or irrelevant, but still clear to follow.
74-76 ⚫ Arguments are frequently relevant, but have some logical gaps
(37-38) ⚫ Sometimes difficult to follow, and thus credit fully
72-73 ⚫ Generally relevant arguments, almost all have explanations with significant logical gaps
(36-36.5) ⚫ Sometimes clear, but generally difficult to follow and thus credit
70-71 ⚫ Some relevant arguments, which generally have explanations with significant logical gaps
(35-35.5) ⚫ Often unclear, which makes it hard to give the speech much credit.
68-69 ⚫ Some relevant claims, with occasional explanations, but with significant logical gaps
(34-34.5) ⚫ Frequently unclear and confusing, making it hard to give the speech much credit
66-67 ⚫ One or two marginally relevant claims, which are not formulated into arguments
(33-33.5) ⚫ Hard to follow, and therefore hard to credit
65 ⚫ Content is not relevant, and does not go beyond confused and confusing claims
(32.5) ⚫ Very hard to follow in its entirety, and therefore hard to give the speech any credit
*Note that the descriptions of the speaker score bands are rough and general descriptions; speeches don’t need to have
every feature described to fit in a particular score band.

-10-
 Official Rule Book
9.4. Adjudicators should take on the role of an ‘average reasonable voter’ when judging the rounds.
9.4.1. This means that adjudicators should be expected to have a general idea on what is going on around the
world but not have expert knowledge or specific information.
9.4.2. Adjudicators should be unbiased beings and should be open to persuasion from either side of the house.
9.4.3. Adjudicators should not have preferences for certain arguments over others. (ex. preferring arguments
about principle over practical effects, or vice versa)
9.4.4. Adjudicators should not discriminate accents or language proficiency as a factor that downplays the
overall persuasiveness of claims being made.
9.5. All adjudicators will be selected by the Chief Adjudication Panel. Adjudicators are selected based on the ability
to judge debates, regardless of background or social status.
9.6. The Chief Adjudication Panel is in charge of looking through the feedback forms submitted by participants
and other adjudicators to check the judging capabilities of the adjudicators.
9.6.1. Based on the feedback received, if it is suspected that an adjudicator is unfair or unqualified, the Chief
Adjudication Panel reserves the right to suspend the participation of that adjudicator.
9.7. Before the beginning of the tournament, all adjudicators and participants must fill out the conflict form and
submit it to the Chief Adjudication Panel.
9.7.1. If a participant is conflicted with an adjudicator, or vice versa, the adjudicator cannot judge that
participant.
9.7.2. Conflicts are divided into ‘Individual Conflicts’ and ‘Institutional Conflicts’.
9.7.2.1. Individual Conflicts are when the adjudicator and the participant are/were in any of the following
relationships:
(a) teacher - student
(b) tutor - student
(c) coach - student
(d) any other relationship that may impede the fairness of the judging
9.7.2.2. Institutional Conflicts are when the adjudicator and the participant are affiliated with the same high
school institution.
9.8. After each non-silent preliminary round, adjudicators are to provide oral feedback to the participants, along
with the verdict of the round.
9.9. After feedback is provided after a round, participants are required to submit adjudication feedback, through
which participants evaluate the fairness of the judging and the oral feedback that they received. In cases
where participants feel that there was a severe breach of the rules or a problem of that degree during the
adjudication, they may file an official complaint against the adjudicator.
9.9.1. Official complaints against an adjudicator must be filed to the Chief Adjudication Panel.
9.9.2. Complaints must be filed in as soon as possible, in order to ensure that there is minimal impact on the
tournament schedule.
9.9.3. Only participants in the round may file a complaint against the adjudicator of that round.
9.9.4. In case complaints are filed, the Chief Adjudication Panel shall evaluate the situation, and take one of the
following measures:
(a) deem the complaint as invalid and make no changes;
-11-
 Official Rule Book
(b) deem the complaint as valid and conflict the adjudicator from judging the complainant in the future;
(c) deem the complaint as valid and suspend the participation of that adjudicator.

-12-