More stink.

Okay, so it appears that one team (let's call them Team AS) lost to another team (let's call them Team NE) in their debate, and Team AS ended up in the semi-finals anyway but Team NE didn't. This means that something went terribly wrong. Here's the logic:

1. Team NE beat Team AS on points; i.e., they scored more points than Team AS.
2. Team AS's points were good enough to be in the top 4; therefore, they made it to the semi-finals.
3. Since Team NE had more points than Team AS, that means Team NE should have made it into the semi-finals too, being ranked higher than Team AS.
4. However, Team NE did not make it into the semi-finals.

For the more mathematically inclined among us:

According to the judge of the debate: NE > AS -------- (1)
According to the final rankings: AS > Bottom12
Where NE is one of the elements that are in the Bottom12 set
Therefore, according to final rankings, AS > NE ------- (2)
Substitute (1) into (2):
NE > AS > NE
Therefore, AS is not a real number. Or rather, Team AS' score is not a real number.

Cheap shot, I know.

The only explanation, then, is this: Team NE won the debate, but Team AS got more marks. Which might make sense...if I were smoking weed.

I mean, come on! Even if we disregard the obvious logic in the winning team being the team who got a better score, let's look at the Rules and Regulations again:

1.7 The debate will be adjudicated according to a standard score sheet.

Which is pretty self-explanatory. I'm not quite sure how the organisers can explain this.

Don't get me wrong - I understand that organising an event like this might not be as easy as it seems to the casual observer. All the same, I also believe that the only way to deal with criticism is either to disprove it, or accept it and act on it. The only way to solve a problem is to face up to it, not evade the issue or hide behind clauses like "Judges' decisions are final" without offering a reasonable explanation.

Here's my challenge to the organisers - to offer a reasonable answer to these points brought up. If you feel I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong, and I'll accept that with good grace. I don't think any of us really want a re-contest or something; I don't see the point of disrupting the rest of the competition. All we want is some transparency, some accountability, and ultimately, some improvement in future competitions.

-------------------------------------------

In other news, I am an intellectual snob.