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”

Or even:

“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.