Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Finanzielle Förderung für Frauenturnier

Die Debattiergesellschaft Jena beantragt, dass der VDCH ihr Frauenturnier 2013 mit einer Fehlbedarfsfinanzierung in Höhe von 700 EUR unterstützen möge.

Die Begründung ist im Wortlaut hier nachzulesen.

Die ausgiebige Diskussion um das erste Frauenturnier ist hier archiviert.

Monday, May 14, 2012

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Berlin IV allocation

A few minutes ago, we allocated over 60 team slots to institutions in 15 countries. Yes, we moved the team cap up a bit. If you - as institution representative - didn't get the email, please email us.

Payment deadline is May 18th.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Monday, April 30, 2012

Berlin IV Registration for volunteers

In Berlin, it's all about Worlds! On the 28th of June, the day before the Berlin IV 2012, we will hold our first official meeting for all WUDC volunteers!

Volunteers for Worlds can also join the Berlin IV team to acquire more experience in hosting tournaments. All of them will get crash accommodation.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Berlin IV 2012 announcement

Dear debaters of the world,

The Berlin Debating Union is proud to announce that the Berlin IV 2012 will take place from June 29th to July 1st. Maybe you’ve heard about the deep adjudication pool and the hot socials from our last two editions. Once again we plan to invest every cent we can raise in the quality of the tournament.

Key facts and figures:

CA: Isabelle Fischer, among other great things, DCA of Belgrade Euros and Berlin Worlds.
DCA: Harish Natarajan, twice Euros finalist, Worlds semi-finalist, CA at the Cambridge IV, SOAS IV, Manchester IV and over 10 other major competitions.

At least 5 rounds of 7 minute speeches with an ESL and open break - excellent Euros prep!

Participation fee of 35€ p.p. with crash, 25€ if you can organize crash with non-debating friends in Berlin. As always, very good meals are included!

Remember that cocktail party from last year on the rooftop of a hotel? Get ready for even more innovative socials...

We have a team cap of 52 teams with an institution cap of three teams per institution. We expect teams to drop out after the first payment phase and will then allocate remaining spots on a first come first served basis.

If your institution sends N teams, you have to send at least N-1 judges.

Registration will start on May 1st at 12:00 Berlin time (that’s 11 am in London and Dublin and 13.00 in Istanbul, Moscow and Athens) on . You will receive an email with payment and further details then.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to send an email to .

With the best wishes from Berlin,
Niels Schröter

PS: There is no schedule up now, but we won’t start before 5 pm on Friday and will end before 4 pm on Sunday.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Berlin IV 2012

Dear debaters of the world,

the Berlin Debating Union is proud to announce the Berlin IV 2012 taking place from June 29th to July 1st. With Isa Fischer and Harish Natarajan on our CA panel, we promise to organize a unique debating experience. Reg will start on May 1st on this website. The reg fee will be 35€ p.p. with meals and crash included. More infos will be published over the next days...

All the best,

the Berlin IV 2012 OrgCom

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

P.U.E.C. - F.A.Q.


1.) Format:
Format is basic BPS with some twists.
Speeches last 7 minutes; the first and last minutes are protected.
After 7:15 speakers will be shouted down.

Speaking order is the usual BPS order.
Languages can be chosen and switched freely, all official languages may be used.

1a.) Iron (Wo)Man teams:
In teams that either consist of only one speaker, or where only one speaker is present, this speaker will be the first and second speaker for that team.

1b.) POIs:
You may POI any speaker at any time, even your own teammate during their speech as long as he or she is not currently in his or her protected first or last minute.

1c.) TAUNT:
Each speaker can POI one of the other teams during his or her speech. This is referred to as “Taunt”. This can only be done once during their own speech.
That means they can choose a specific person belonging to any team sitting on the benches and pose a question or throw a short statement at them. The targeted person has to stand up and respond with a short statement that may not exceed 15 seconds in length. You can taunt your teammate if you are at a loss of words and need help desperately.

To use TAUNT the speaker has to use the formal introduction of either:
Saying: “And here i say to you NAME” plus pointing at the person you are taunting.
And here i ask you NAME” plus pointing at the person you are taunting.

Both then eventually followed by the actual POI.

1d.) Time keeping:
Since there are no adjudicators in each round, the teammate of the person speaking keeps time and gives the usual official time signs after minute 1, 6 , 7 and 7:15.
If the speaker is iron(wo)manning he appoints a person to keep time, that has already spoken in the debate before him.
If the speaker is iron(wo)manning and is at the same time OG he may appoint only CG team members as time keepers.

1e.) Adjudication:
After each round, every team ranks the other teams and speakers in their round according to the following procedure:

- First: Take a blank sheet of paper and write down room number of your debate, your teamname and your position in the debate somewhere at the top.

- Second: You decide upon team ranking, choosing a place from 1 to 3 for the other three teams in your round. ‘1’ meaning best team, ‘3’ meaning worst team. You write down the teams and their rank vertical order. For each team you also write down the speakers names directly beneath the team name.

- Third: For each of the other 3 teams you decide which of the two speakers of that team was the better and you put an ‘X’ in front of the name of the stronger speaker and an ‘O’ in front of the name of the weaker speaker. For iron (wo)man teams you skip this step and instead you just note “iron man” after the name of the speaker.

- Last: Give your rank sheet to one of the CAs.

Name: “My Team” / Position: “CG” / Room: “123a”

Rank 1: “BestTeam”
X Karl 0 Klaus
Rank 2: “MediocreTeam”
Olaf (iron man)
Rank 3: “BadTeam”
X Bert 0 Hubert

1f.) Force Choke
A team that is still in possession of a “Force Choke” card, may choose to play this card and suppress the current speaker for 1 minute. During this time the person choking may hold a short counter speech which pretty much functions like an extended POI.
- You may Force Choke speakers on your side of the house, however you may NOT Force Choke your own teammate. (For the sake of preventing social unrest). Logic being, that if we consider the ‘Sith’ to be a separate team from the ‘imperial army’, even though they were on the same side, Vader choked the imperial general, but never the Emperor.

- You may only use Force Choke after minute 1 of the current speech and BEFORE minute 5 (different from normal POI with a time window until the 6th minute)
- To formally signal that you are going to use Force Choke, you simply stand up, point to the speaker and say: “Force Choke!”.
- Each speaker can only be Force Choked once during his speech, if the speaker already has been hit by it from someone else, you cannot Force Choke him again during his speech.
- If two or more people in your round are trying to Force Choke the same Speaker at about the same time, the one who was first wins and the other ones are cancelled.
- If two speakers in your round are trying to Force Choke simultaneously, the one who points at the other Force Choke User and says “Double Choke!” first wins. You can Double Choke your teammate.

- If three or more speakers in your round stand up simultaneously, time is stopped and a dice is consulted to determine who wins. Logic being, that it is not possible to Triple or Quad Choke with only 2 Arms.
- After the Force Choke is finished (1 minute has past or the Force Choke user sits down), the card is ripped apart and destroyed. This is considered to be a fixed part of the effect.

1g.) PrePrepPhase (important):
After pairings and the motion are given out, all teams that are paired together gather first in groups and begin with the PrePrepPhase. During that Phase certain things are done and decided in a particular order:

- First: Each team chooses whether it wants to use it’s “Force Persuasion” card, if it still has one in it’s possession.
- Second: IF it is a non linear motion, after all “Force Persuasions” cards are played. The OG makes all decisions about the motion and then reads the final motion to the other teams.
- Third: Each team chooses whether it wants to use it’s “Force Ghost Inspiration” card, if it still has one in it’s possession.
- Last: After all this steps are resolved, Preparation Time starts.

Force Persuasion and Force Ghost Inspiration are explained in 2.) Cards in thorough detail.

1h.) Preparation Time:
Preparation Time is 15 minutes, all teams are advised to keep track of that time. The CAs will try to watch time closely and make sure that the rounds do start on time in different rooms. However help of the teams is necessary to be able to ensure time keeping and general schedule in the end.

1i.) Debate Start:
Before the debate starts, all teams make sure that everyone is there and teamnames plus speaker names should be exchanged for the rating after the debate. After that it should be checked, who still has the ability to Force Choke during the round, so that no confusion or discussion comes up while the debate is running. This can be done easily by showing available cards.

1j.) Nonlinear Motions and multiple choice motions
This tournament will feature nonlinear motions of the first order and multiple choice motions.
Basically these kind of motions need you to make 1 or more decisions to arrive at the final wording. This will be marked during the showing of the motion and probably be outlined with ‘a.)’, ‘b.)’ etc. A nonlinear motion may branch more than once in which case you make decisions until you reach the end without any further branches.

A motion might read “Imagine a universe where ..bla bla bla...and thus THW a.) kill the alien b.) tranquilize the alien and experiment with it’s body c.) torture the alien until he tells us all his secrets.

In this case the OG of a particular room chooses one and this will be debated in the end.
Nonlinear motions differ from multiple choice motions (choosing out of a pool of different motions) mostly due to the fact, that they share some common predefined setting and set of conditions while multiple choice motions are often about total different settings and questions.

1k.) Pairings
There will be no power pairing. We generally do not want teams to be able to guess or number crunch their points or the points of other teams. Because the teams rank each other themselves, they could easily be tempted to manipulate and use the ranking procedure in a more strategic way than in an honest judging way. That is not what we want and intended with our ruleset. We hope the teams refrain from such behavior and use the ranking as it was intended: as an expression of their true liking or disliking of the speeches that other teams presented during the debate.

2.) Cards
Each team gets 3 cards at the beginning of the tournament, these cards are:
Force Choke
Force Persuasion
Force Ghost Inspiration

- In general cards can be played during the tournament at specific times as stated on the card and in the rules F.A.Q., which you can also check for more detail. The card needs to be physically in your possession at the time you wish to play it.
- In general we don’t care why a card is in your possession, as long as it is one of the original cards given out and not a fake. Cards may not be stolen or taken by force, but if you traded your Force Choke in for food or other favors, we don’t care. The free market will determine the price of this unique resource.
- After use each card is destroyed and can thus only be used once in the tournament
- You must have the cards with you physically and destroy it as part of its effect to be able to use the card.

2a.) Force Persuasion
Force Persuasion is a card that can be played in the PrePrepPhase of any round during the tournament. For this, the priority starts with OG, then progresses to OO then to CG and lastly to CO. This means, OG makes all it’s choices first, then OO, then CG and lastly CO.
Force Persuasion allows you to switch the position of your team with any other team in that round OR to lock your current position, so you cannot be targeted by further switches yourself. So OG can choose to switch positions with CO, thus CO effectively becoming OG and OG now effectively being CO. A few rules apply however:
- First: Priority is established in the beginning before any cards are played, this order stands and doesn’t change due to position switches that are announced via playing the cards.
- Second: A switch that would put any team back in the very original position that the team started the round with, before any cards where played, is illegal and thus cannot be announced.
- Thirdly: Obviously targeting a team, that just locked it’s own position is illegal and cannot be announced.

After the Teams gather, the PrePrepPhase starts and OG is asked first, whether they want to use Force Persuasion. OG chooses to use the Card to change places with CG. After that the original OO is asked and they decide to use the card to lock their own position. Then priority progresses to CG, which currently would be OG in that round. They can’t target CG (original OG) because this would put the team back in the original position and they can’t target OO since OO just locked their position. Thus they choose to switch places with CO. Lastly priority goes to CO. CO is currently OG but all choices for a switch would be illegal for them. OO locked their position and a switch with either CG (former OG) or CO (original CG) would put CO itself back in the original starting position or the target team back in the original position.

This example shows, that even though you decline to switch you maybe hit by others as a result during the process. Sometimes you will not have a possibility to react to that change anymore. In this case if OO didn’t lock position it could have been targeted by both closing teams without any chance to react anymore. This is why this card can also be used defensively to lock your own position. However CO in the end, couldn’t escape fate anymore since all choices would have been illegal. This is tough luck, however since there are 4 rounds and every team has only 1 card and positions will always be set with regard to original position, not with the one you actually ended up with, you will end up in another round eventually where you can also screw another team without it having the luxury to respond. In our example CO is the only team that has a card left and can possibly wreck havoc in the positioning of another round without much resistance. So even though some teams might have a certain advantage in some rounds, this advantage is quite unsystematic throughout the tournament and thus we don’t really care.

Even if you are in possession of more than one Force Persuasion card you may only play one per round.

2b.) Force Ghost Inspiration
Force Ghost Inspiration is used after positions and the motion is finalized and can be played by any team before the Preparation Time starts. To consult your Force Ghost, meet the CAs, hand over your card and you as a result your team will receive a unique hint sheet, which may or may not help you in your debate, depending upon if you were to come up with the hint itself anyway or not.
Even if you are in possession of more than one Force Ghost Inspiration card you may only play one per round.

2c.) Force Choke
See 1f.)

3.) Newbie Goodies

3a.) Newbie Boost (TM)
As a newbie you get a free hint sheet for every round, specialized for the position you ended up with. To receive the hint sheet consult the CA team after PrePrepTime.

3b.) Debating as a Newbie Break
In this tournament the first 3 teams break into the final, the forth placed is given out to the best Newbie Team. If no Newbie Teams register, the 4th spot is given out simply to the 4th best team.
If a Newbie Team breaks regularly among the first 3 spots, the team isn’t considered anymore in the process of selecting a Team eligible for the “Debating as a Newbie Break”.

4.) General Rules

4a.) I know it when i see it
Everything that comes up and isn’t covered in detail in the FAQ is decided on the fly via the CAs. Their judgment call counts.

5.) Other Questions (this will be updated if questions roll in that haven’t been considered)

5a.) Electronic Devices
Electronic what ? We don’t care if you set up your unix server farm for preparation. Use whatever you want.

5b.) Skype conferences:
As one of the CAs has defended his diploma thesis using a skype conference, we know that today's technology can and should break boundaries normally imposed upon us.

So if someone sets you up with technical devices powerful enough, so that you can take part in the debate without being physically there, that is fine with us.

Necessary Conditions:
- You need to be able to give a speech that can be heard.
- You need to be able to react to interactions that come up, basically POIs etc.
- You need to convince the CAs that you will be able to fulfill the other two criteria by
presenting a persuasive plan

- You cannot use cards (because they require physical actions and possession) unless you have a physically present teampartner
- You cannot taunt (requires physical pointing with arm) unless you have a physically present teampartner

5c.) CA advantage
Isn’t it unfair for the CAs to participate in the tournament, since they know all the motions ?
Well not really, we know all the motions, but we do not break anyway, as CAs are not eligible to break. We are in it for the fun and for evaluating if what we think could be fun is fun in the end.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Parallel Universe Exploration Cup

"Imagine a universe...."

Fellow debaters, it's coming !! Finally after over a year of (re)evaluating every mistake made, polishing motions, optimizing tools and tuning rules....we present to you, a sneak preview to the soon to be officially announced..."Parallel Universe Exploration Cup" !

...from the creative minds, that brought you the "Alternate timeline memorandum cup" .... incredible debating experience you shouldn't miss....

Key Features:
- no time, no place ? -> No Problem ! The first tournament that integrates into the weekly debating schedule !

- no friends, no skill, lone wolf or just socially awkward ? -> Enlist as Iron (Wo) Man !

- afraid of sucking motions ? -> Battle the CAs, as they debate themselves in this exclusive tournament and roflstomp them in your round !

- parle pas l'allemand ? -> Choose your language freely !

- love or hate the other teams ? -> punisher or praising herald, be the adjudicator !

- thinking outside the box ? -> in this tournament you and the motions will never be IN the box, in fact we would be surprised if you could find the box at all !

- tired of boring and predictable motions ? -> first tournament to feature non-linear motions !

- never understood the final judgment ? -> 100 % true open, diceless final adjudication, including improved coin flip correction system(TM) !

- little experience in debating ? -> newbie boost(TM) system and also -> "Debating as a newbie" break. !

- no return of investment ? -> awesome prices, even beyond first place, that will alter your future debating career !

- new innovative means of interaction and strategy: POI everyone, even your own teammate or other teams as a speaker; suppress the speaker for a short counterspeech; taunt your opponents and force them to POI you in your speech or pull your CA Joker for a secret and unique hint-sheet, customized to your motion and position....and much more

- first twelve teams to register receive the limited edition "How to prepare for a BP debate" Flowchart, designed as the quintessence out of the experience of hundreds of tournament debates, by the CAs themselves

"...if this tournament was a martial art would be full contact!"
"...definitely the first sequel since "Flesh Gordon Meets the Cosmic Cheerleaders" that doesn't suck.."
"..the Justin Bieber among debating tournaments..."
"..clearly, the utilitarian calculus demands participation in this endeavor..."

Get the motion lottery runs...and start registering your team today.

See you all around SOON(TM).

Details for registration and participation:
The preliminary rounds are taking place on 15th and 22nd of March. Starting at 18:30 there will be 2 rounds on each day. Place will be the Orbis at the HU and you will then be guided to the respective venues.
If your team is registered with two people, it is enough if one of them shows up actually to iron (wo)man for your team in case of emergency. Iron (wo)man teams that did register as such, have to show up or will have to be replaced and receive no points for those rounds.

Use THIS form to register:

A detailed FAQ which specifies the rules and answers all your questions will be given out in the near future.

In good tradition we show you the first motion of the tournament beforehand. It contains a theatrical trailer, an info slide and the exact wording of the motion. We recommend to watch the trailer first.







Imagine a universe...where scientists have actually found that the human soul indeed leaves the body in the moment of death and they developed a technology to preserve it and contain it inside a robot. This robot, labeled SoulBot(TM), is able to maneuver around on wheels, can perceive its environment via optical and acoustical sensors and can express itself and its emotions with colored LEDs and an emotional noise generator, much like WALL-E in the well known movie.

Unfortunately science has found no way, to give the robot the ability to express itself via language. This seems to be originated in the special linking of the soul to the brain and language specific cortical areas and could not yet be reproduced. It is unclear and will never be known to man how the soul perceives its new existence but users have reported that the robot seems to reflect about 85 % of the original personality. This is attributed to the experience of death itself and is very much comparable to having an accident which might in some cases alter your personality.

MOTION: THW allow relatives to store their family member's soul in a SoulBot after their death, if those did not specifically sign a 'none extraction directive' beforehand.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Zu einer Debatte ...

über folgenden Vorschlag möchte Jonathan euch auf unserem Blog einladen: 

DHW Break-JurorInnen direkt wählen
Placet Experiri

Dieser Artikel soll eine Idee vorstellen, die ich gemeinsam mit der Chefjury (Pauline Leopold und Clemens Lechner) und dem Tabmaster (Severin Weingarten) auf der Mitteldeutschen Meisterschaft in Jena ausprobieren will. Der Artikel hat das Ziel, eine konstruktive Diskussion darüber anzustoßen, um mögliche systematische Fehler besser zu erkennen. Es geht darum, dass wir auf der MDM den JurorInnenbreak nicht mehr durch die Setzung der Chefjury, sondern durch die Wahl der TeilnehmerInnen bestimmen wollen.
Ich habe relativ viel gedankliche Arbeit in den Modus investiert. Dennoch gibt es sicherlich noch Probleme, die bisher übersehen wurden. Wir, Chefjury und Ausrichter, wollen natürlich für die Mitteldeutsche Meisterschaft 2012 in Jena nicht nur aus Fehlern klug werden, sondern viele Fehlerquellen schon im Vorhinein ausschalten. Deswegen würde ich mich sehr über konstruktive Diskussion zu folgendem Vorschlag freuen:

JedeR HauptjurorIn erhält von jedeR RednerIn in ihrem bzw. seinem Raum nach der Debatte eine (geheime) Benotung in den beiden Kategorien Rechtfertigungsfeedback und Verbesserungsfeedback, die vom Tabmaster bzw. vom Ausrichter entgegengenommen werden. Die Differenzierung in die beiden Kategorien verhindert reines „Nettigkeitsfeedback”, das aber nicht konstruktiv ist.

Um eine möglichst valide Bewertung zu erhalten, sollen die Noten aufgeschlüsselt werden. Zum Beispiel wie folgt:

1 - Die Entscheidung ist sehr gut erklärt. Das Feedback hat alle Teams nachvollziehbar voneinander abgegrenzt. Selbst wenn ich vorher anderer Auffassung über die Rangfolge war, haben mich die vorgestellten Argumente für die von der Jury getroffene Entscheidung überzeugt.

2 - Die Entscheidung ist gut erklärt. Das Feedback ist auf die Abgrenzung aller Teams gegeinander eingegangen. Auch wenn ich nach dem Feedback immernoch in Detailfragen anderer Meinung bin, kann ich die Gewichtung der Jury nachvollziehen.

3 - Die Entscheidung ist schlecht erklärt. Die im Feedback genannten Beobachtungen der Jury sind zutreffend und im Wesentlichen vollständig, aber falsch gewichtet. Diese Gewichtung ist nicht erklärt worden. Ich sehe mindestens ein Team an einer ganz anderen Stelle (2 Ränge Abstand).

4 - Die Entscheidung ist falsch. Die im Feedback genannten Beobachtungen der Jury sind falsch oder grob unvollständig. Die Jury hat etwas Wichtiges übersehen. Ich sehe mindestens ein Team an einer ganz anderen Stelle (2 Ränge Abstand).

1 - Das Feedback hat konkrete Fehler von mir in der Debatte benannt und mir dazu verallgemeinerte Ratschläge gegeben. Bei den kritisierten Fehlentscheidungen hat mir das Feedback eine Alternative aufgezeigt. Das Feedback hat mir Tipps gegeben, wie ich mit einer persönlichen Schwäche gut umgehen kann. Ich kann diese Kritik in der nächsten Debatte anwenden. Das Feedback hat mich motiviert.

2 - Das Feedback hat konkrete Fehler von mir in der Debatte benannt und hat mir Alternativen aufgezeigt. Ich weiß aber kaum, wie ich die Kritik in die nächste Debatte übertrage.

3 - Das Feedback hat mir zu den benannten Fehlern keine Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten aufgezeigt. Das Feedback hat mich nicht motiviert.

4 - Das Feedback hat mir nichts gesagt, was mich weiterbringt. Ich fühle mich durch das Feedback persönlich angegriffen. Das Feedback hat mich demotiviert.

Gegen diesen Modus kann eingewandt werden, dass die NebenjurorInnen keine Chance auf einen Break hätten. Das stimmt. Allerdings ist dieser Modus damit nicht schlechter als der Status Quo: Wenn die Chefjury heute eine Jurorin oder einen Juror für möglicherweise breakfähig hält, setzt sie sie bzw. ihn als HauptjurorIn in einer Vorrunde und einE ChefjurorIn als NebenjurorIn dazu, um ihre Hypothese zu überprüfen. Die Chefjury hat damit sowohl heute als auch im neuen Modus einen gewissen Gestaltungsspielraum im Vorfeld der Entscheidung über den Break. Außerdem lässt sich darüber nachdenken, ob nicht jedeR JurorIn mindestens einmal als HauptjurorIn gesetzt werden sollte.
Warum soll überhaupt gewählt werden?

Beim JurorInnenbreak in seiner heutigen Ausgestaltung gibt es ein strukturelles Problem, das aus einer Selbstbezüglichkeit des Verfahrens resultiert. Die Selbstbezüglichkeit entsteht, wenn ChefjurorInnen die Feedbackbögen interpretieren müssen, die sie selbst betreffen. Nur unter der Prämisse, dass ChefjurorInnen niemals Fehler machen, ist das jetzige Verfahren gut. Diese Prämisse ist unrealistisch – Irren ist menschlich. Die Chefjury ist durch das JurorInnenfeedback nur formal, aber nicht wirksam kritisierbar. Das selbstbezügliche Verfahren errichtet eine Kapsel, die der Chefjury den Zugang zur produktiven Wirkung der Kritik vorenthält.
Das hat nicht nur Nachteile für die ChefjurorInnen, sondern in erster Linie auch für die Jurierqualität des Turniers. Denn es bedeutet, dass mit der Wahl der Chefjury jemand bestimmt wird, der unabhängig von der eigenen Jurierleistung auf dem Turnier breakt. Mit dieser Unabhängigkeit geht ein wichtiger Anreiz verloren, gut zu jurieren. Dieses Problem wird auch nicht durch die Tatsache ausgeräumt, dass die Chefjury ohnehin sehr gut ist. Sie müsste perfekt sein, damit das Verfahren gerechtfertigt ist. Auch in der Chefjury sitzen Menschen, sodass es ein positives Restrisiko gibt, dass auch ChefjurorInnen Fehler machen.

Die JurorInnen haben bei BPS keine Möglichkeit, sich mit Nettigkeitspunkten bei den RednerInnen beliebt zu machen, weil diese die Punkte nicht erfahren. Das wird dazu führen, dass die JurorInnen besonders auch auf die Jurier- und Feedback-Interessen der VerliererInnen eingehen werden, damit sie auch von diesen gewählt werden. Das kann durch konstruktive Kritik und durch genaue Jurierung geschehen – zwei Dinge, die begrüßenswert sind und die eine gute Jurierung ausmachen. Deswegen halte ich die JurorInnenwahl für ein geeignetes Mittel, die Jurierung zu optimieren. Ich freue mich deshalb schon über Eure Verbesserungsvorschläge!

Jonathan Scholbach

Monday, January 16, 2012

Neujahrsturnier: Die Gästeliste

Diese Teams haben nach aktuellem Stand zugesagt und werden sich am Freitag in Berlin messen:

- Niels Schröter und Hauke Blume
- Jonas Werner und Farid Schwuchow
- Kai Dittmann und Matthias Winkelmann
- Georg Sommerfeld und Johannes Häger
- Filip Bubenheimer und Dessislava Kirova
- Tanja Hille und Felix Beierle

- David Lamouroux und Gabor Stefan

- Julian Ohm und Benedikt Nufer
- Melanie Röpke und Silke Hölscher

- Jenny Holm und Daniel Sommer

- Clemens Lechner und Severin Weingarten
- Jonathan Scholbach und Friederike Meyer zu Wendischhoff

- Robert Lehmann und Nicolas Eberle
- Marietta Gädeke und Marcus Ewald

- Manuel Adams und Julian Schneider

- Moritz Kirchner und Mathias Hamann
- Jana Bachmann und Sebastian Hahn

- Sven-Moritz Hein und Andreas Lazar

- Willy Witthaut und Irene Adamski
- Marion Seiche und Daniil Pakhomenko
- Sina Strupp und Torsten Rössing

- Andrea Gau (Mainz), CA
- Annette Kirste (Berlin)
- Bastian Laubner (Berlin)
- Bernd Hoefer (Kiel)
- Isabelle Fischer (Bonn)
- Lukas Haffert (Köln)
- Mario Dießner (Potsdam)
- Michael Saliba (Stuttgart), CA
- Miriam Hauft (Magdeburg)
- Patrick Ehmann (Berlin), CA
- Tom-Michael Hesse (Leipzig)
- Wiebke Nadler (Leipzig)