Here are some excerpts from recent tournament invites, explaining minimum adjudicator requirements:
NITR 2016: Contingent Rules: N+1 (Each team to be accompanied by 2 adjudicators)
NLS 2016: Adjudicator Requirement: (N-1)
GLC BPD 2016: Rules for adjudicators – n+1
BITS Pilani 2016: For institutional teams, we have an an N+1 adjudicator rule, where N is the number of teams participating from your college. For cross teams, N=1 adjudicator rule will be followed.
IIT Delhi 2016: Adjudicator Rule: N+1 for Institutional Teams (N teams from an institute must be accompanied by N+1 adjudicators). N=1 for Cross-Institute teams.
Singapore Debate open 2015: Adj rule: N=1 for open teams or institutions sending 1 team; N-1 for institutions sending >1 team.
GNLU 2015: Adjudicator Rule: n=1
NALSAR 2015: We have a strict N=1 rule for adjudicators.
Premchand 2015: We are following the N=1 rule, which means every institution is required to send at least as many adjudicators as it is sending teams. We also require you to send at least one A level adjudicator for 2 teams.
IIT Delhi 2015: N+1 for Institutional Teams (N teams from an institute must be accompanied by N+1 adjudicators). N=1 for Cross-Institute teams.
IIT KGP PD 2016: The N=1 rule for adjudicator requirements for institutional teams will strictly be followed.
These rules are stupid and misleading.
The N+1 adj rule means either:
- If you are sending N teams, send N + 1 adjes.
- If you are sending N teams, send N adjes because I think N is my buddy and +1 is his friend.
- If you are sending N teams, send 2 * N adjes because I was dropped on my head as a child.
Institutes can’t even agree on the meaning of N+1, which makes you wonder why they’re so eager to use mathy sounding expressions. But then they unleash this this little gem:
N=1 rule for when there’s only one team.
What the fuck. First, N+1 is an expression while N=1 is an equation, so they can’t possibly be the same type. Second, unless you’ve redefined + and = to mean something completely new, N already is 1 when there’s only one team! The new piece of information you have to give me, you moronic invitation, is how many adjes you want. 4? 5? e? Who knows? All I have is the equation that I’m sending one team, which is what I already told you.
What you really mean is that you have an N rule. N-1, N, N+1. See? They’re all the same type. And then when I’m sending you N teams, I know how many adjes to send.
This whole system is broken, because it’s trying to sound smart at the expense of true clarity. Try this:
“number of adjes = number of teams + 1”
“Please send as many adjes as possible. We know you don’t give a rat’s fart about N=sin(N)^log(N), so we’ll just tell you that we give priority to teams that send more adjes.”
I’m sure I’ve seen an N=N+1 rule lurking around somewhere. Probably the same place where they explain what an “A level adjudicator” is.