Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl (IEB) Rules – 2008-09

• overall coordination of the IEB;
• maintenance of effective communication regarding the IEB among all who take part;
• maintenance of effective procedures to identify, consider, and address issues concerning ways to enhance and improve the IEB.

• The Regional Case Writing Committee shall prepare a set of cases annually for use in the regional ethics bowls.
• The National Case Writing Committee shall prepare a set of cases annually for use in the IEB National Championship Competition.
• The Rules Committee shall upon request of the Executive Board Chair:
  1. discuss issues concerning the rules of the IEB. The chair of the Rules Committee shall convey recommendations in regard to the issues discussed to the Executive Board Chair for consideration by the Executive Board.
  2. Consider issues concerning interpretations of the IEB Rules. The Chair of the Rules Committee shall convey the opinions of the Committee concerning such issues to the Executive Board Chair.
• The National Championship Competition Organizing Committee shall be responsible for all matters relating to organization, planning, and conducting the annual IEB Championship Competition.

• There will be thirty-two (32) participating teams in the National Ethics Bowl.
• The number of teams each regional bowl sends to the national bowl each year will depend on the total number of participating regional bowls and the size of the particular regional bowl
• The default number of teams sent by a regional bowl will be D=32/N where N is the number of regional bowls participating, and D is the default number of teams sent.
• If a regional bowl has fewer than 10 unlinked teams, the default number of teams it will send to the national bowl is D-1.
• The remaining spaces will be filled in by the procedure outlined in the appendix.
• Each regional bowl will therefore have a claim on a particular number of spaces, S. Each bowl will fill those spaces with the top S teams from its region. Should a team be unable to attend the national bowl, its space will go to the next highest ranked team, until all S spaces are filled.
• Each regional bowl will use scoring rules that make it possible to rank teams from top to bottom
  
  Appendix

  The additional spaces up to 32 are allocated to the regional bowls based on the odds of a team from that regional bowl moving on. The first space is allocated to the regional bowl with the lowest odds, the second space to the regional bowl with the second lowest odds, and so forth. Ties are broken by counting the number of schools involved (the higher the better) then total number of unlinked and linked teams (the higher the better), then by coin toss.

  Example: Assume that there are 8 bowls, with the following number of unlinked teams in each bowl:

  Bowl A 8
  Bowl B 8
  Bowl C 8
  Bowl D 9
  Bowl E 11
  Bowl F 13
  Bowl G 15
  Bowl H 18

  The initial distribution of spaces for each bowl would be:

  Bowl A 3
  Bowl B 3
  Bowl C 3
  Bowl D 3
  Bowl E 4
  Bowl F 4
  Bowl G 4
  Bowl H 4

  This would leave 4 open spaces. We calculate the odds of moving on from a particular bowl:

  Bowl A 3/8=37.5%
  Bowl B 3/8=37.5%
  Bowl C 3/8=37.5%
  Bowl D 3/9= 33%
  Bowl E 4/11=36.3%
  Bowl F 4/13=30%
  Bowl G 4/15=26%
  Bowl H 4/18=22%

  So the four spaces would go to the following bowls:

  Bowl H 22%
  Bowl G 26%
  Bowl F 30%
  Bowl D 33%

  
  Dates:

  
  

  Regional bowls must be held in time for teams to accept an invitation to the national bowl by December 15. Teams must confirm by this date or risk losing their space.

  
  

  Rules variations in regional bowls:

  
  

  Regional bowls are expected to use the national bowl’s rules, guidelines, and scoring rubric, with the following exceptions:

  
  

  1. Regional bowls are not required to conduct a straight elimination match of the top scoring teams in the three morning matches, as provided for under the national rules. However, regional bowls must adopt scoring rules that enable them to rank teams from top to bottom.
  2. Under certain conditions other alterations will be allowed, such as the following:
     Minor adjustments to timing and other rules are allowed without prior approval, but require notification to the IEB Executive Board, and, where appropriate, post-bowl reports about the effects of these adjustments. Pre-approved variations include:
     
     1. initial presentations may run from 7 to 12 minutes.
     2. commentary on initial presentations may run from 5 to 8 minutes.
     3. ratio of presenting team to opposing team scores may not exceed 5:1.
     4. judges’ Q&A need not be restricted to one Q and one follow-up;
     5. judges’ Q&A may be expanded from 10 to 15 minutes.
     6. response to commentary may be shortened in favor of lengthening the judges’ Q&A period.
     7. rules regarding the number of members of a team that may speak during any particular part of the round may be changed without prior consent.
     8. regional bowls may allow one minute for initial conferral, and may have any policy they deem appropriate on when teams may use scratch paper, as long as notes are not in from the outside.
     9. the winner of a match may be determined by which team received higher scores from the majority of judges rather than the highest points.

     Experiments involving more significant changes require approval from the IEB Executive Board and require reports about the effects of these changes. The regional bowls can serve as test beds for useful experimentation, with successful experiments ultimately being adopted by the national bowl (and therefore the other regional bowls). However, changes that alter the essential nature of the event as an academic competition will be turned down by the executive board.

  
  RULES FOR THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP OF THE INTERCOLLEGIATE ETHICS BOWL (2009)

  
  PROCEDURAL RULES:

  1. In an Ethics Bowl match each team will be questioned by a moderator on a case. On or about January 16, 2009 each team will receive fifteen (15) cases. Each of the cases will be 1 to 2 pages in length. The cases on which teams will be asked questions at the Ethics Bowl will be taken from these fifteen cases. The teams will not know in advance which of the cases they will be asked about at the Ethics Bowl or what the questions will be. JUDGES AND MODERATORS WILL ALSO RECEIVE THE FIFTEEN CASES ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 16, 2009. LIKE THE TEAMS, THEY WILL RECEIVE COPIES OF THE CASES BUT NOT COPIES OF THE QUESTIONS. THE JUDGES AND MODERATORS, LIKE THE TEAMS, WILL NOT BE INFORMED IN ADVANCE OF THE SPECIFIC CASES TEAMS WILL BE ASKED ABOUT AT THE ETHICS BOWL.
  2. Teams can be any size but only 5 or fewer can be active participants at any time. Substitutions cannot be made once the initial 5 or fewer are seated and ready for action. Substitutions CANNOT be made once the case is announced. Team members must be undergraduates.
  3. During competition books and notes will not be allowed, however, scrap paper to jot down thoughts is permissible. The teams will be given a copy of the case and the question to which they must respond. Teams should wait to use the scratch paper until the case has been announced. Students are permitted to pass notes to one another at any point. At the halfway point in a match teams will be instructed by the moderator to clear notes taken during the first half of the match from the table, and placed out of sight of all participants.
  4. The Moderator will indicate the case with which the team that goes first (hereinafter Team 1) will deal, and then read Team 1's question about the case. (The Moderator will not read aloud the entire case).
  5. Team 1 will then have two (2) minutes to confer, after which one spokesperson for the team may use up to ten (10) minutes to respond to the Moderator's question.
  6. The opposing team (hereinafter Team 2) receives one minute to confer, and then may use up to five minutes to comment about Team 1's answer to the Moderator's question. The commentary may include the posing of a question to Team 1. More than one team member may contribute to the commentary, but only one team member may speak at a time.
  7. Team 1 receives one minute to confer and then may use up to five minutes to respond to Team 2's commentary. More than one team member may respond to the commentary, but only one team member may speak at a time.
  8. The judges then may ask questions to Team 1. EACH JUDGE MAY ASK NO MORE THAN ONE QUESTION WITH A BRIEF FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. THE ENTIRE PERIOD FOR JUDGES QUESTIONS SHALL LAST NO MORE THAN TEN (10) MINUTES. Before asking questions the judges may confer with one another to discuss briefly areas that they want to cover during the question period. Different team members may respond to the questions of different judges. Teams may huddle briefly to discuss their answers to the judges' questions.
  9. The judges will evaluate Team 1 and Team 2 on score sheets provided to them (see scoring rules below). AT THIS POINT, HOWEVER, THE JUDGES WILL NOT ANNOUNCE TO THE TEAMS THE SCORES THEY HAVE GIVEN THEM.
  10. Team 1 and Team 2 will reverse roles for a second round with a different case.
  11. At the close of the second round the Moderator will ask the judges to announce the teams' scores for the match (see scoring rules below).
  12. The team with the highest total number of points is the winner of the match.

  
  SCORING RULES:

  
  

  1. Judges shall evaluate the responses of teams solely in terms of the following criteria:
     
     Clarity and Intelligibility - Was the presentation clear and systematic? Regardless of whether or not you agree with the conclusion, did the team give a coherent argument in a clear and succinct manner?
     
     Avoidance of Ethical Irrelevance: Did the team avoid ethically irrelevant issues? Or was the team preoccupied with issues that are not ethically relevant or are of minor ethical relevance to the case?
     
     Identification and Discussion of Central Ethical Dimensions: Did the team’s presentation clearly identify and thoroughly discuss the central ethical dimensions of the case?
     
     Deliberative Thoughtfulness: Did the team’s presentation indicate both awareness and thoughtful consideration of different viewpoints, including especially those that would loom large in the reasoning of individuals who disagree with the team’s position?
  2. The judges will score each team as follows:
     
     0-40 for a team's answer to the Moderator's question (40 best); In evaluating a team's answer the judges will give the team a score of 0-10 relative to each of the four evaluation criteria indicated above and total the sum.
     
     0-10 for the opposing team's commentary (10 best);
     
     0-10 for the response to the opposing team’s commentary, and for the response to the judges questions, by the team that answered the Moderator's question (10 best).
     
     Both in evaluating a team's commentary, and the other team's response to the commentary, the judges will take into account the four evaluation criteria indicated above, but give the teams an overall score, rather than a separate point score relative to each of the criteria.
  3. The top eight teams in the competition will be determined in the following way
     
     
     Morning Competition:

     Teams will be ranked based on a) the number of wins, followed by b) the number of ties, followed by c) point differential. Thus, all teams with three wins will rank ahead of all teams with two wins. All teams with two wins will rank ahead of all teams with one win. Within rankings, a team with more ties ranks above a team with fewer ties. Finally, for teams with the same number of wins and ties, a team with a higher point differential would rank above a team with a lower point differential.
     

     For example:

Note, for example that School B has a greater point differential than School M, and School H has a lower negative point differential than School S. Nonetheless, M ranks ahead of B because it has more wins, and, likewise, S ranks ahead of H.

Point differentials: Point differentials are the margin of victory or loss. A point differential for each match is determined by taking the team’s total points and subtracting the other team’s total. Note that point differentials will be negative in the case of a loss. At the end of the morning competition the point differential for a team is simply the sum of the point differentials for that team in each of its three morning matches.

The 8 teams with the highest ranking based on the morning competition will enter the evening competition.

Ties at the end of the morning competition

1. If 2 teams have the same ranking then if they played against each other during the three rounds of play, whoever won that competition will win gain the higher ranking.
2. The method in number 1) above will also apply to a 3 (or more) way tie in ranking, just in case all teams played each other and transitivity holds (e.g. A beat B, B beat C, but C did not beat A).
3. In case numbers 1) and 2) do not determine a winner, then raw points will be used to determine a winner.
4. Finally, if 1-3 above fail, an impartial random process will determine the final outcome between the teams. In case 2 teams are still tied, a coin toss will be used. If more than 2 teams still remain, the high card drawn from a standard deck of playing cards will decide. This process will be repeated until the outcome is decided.

4. The winner of the Ethics Bowl, among the top eight teams, will be determined as follows:
   
   Evening Competition
   
   The top 8 teams will face each other during the evening in 3 elimination matches.
   
   Judges will use the same numerical scoring guidelines as they did during the morning competition.
   
   The winner of the Twelfth Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl will be the team that wins 3 matches in the evening competition.
   
   Ties during quarterfinal or semifinal matches
   
   In case of a tie in a quarterfinal or semi final match
   
   1) if the two teams have faced each other in the morning matches, the winner of that match wins the tie-break
   
   or else 2) the team with the most wins in the morning wins the tie-break
   
   or else 3) the team with the most ties in the morning wins the tie-break
   
   or else 4) the team with the most points in the morning wins the tie-break
   
   or else 5) a coin toss decides the winner of the tie-break
   
   In the case of a tie in the final round, the two finalists will be declared co-winners of the Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl.