EQUITY POLICY

1. Preamble

1.1. Purpose

We are committed to ensuring a tournament without discrimination, harassment, bullying,

intimidation and vilification, and which fosters equity, inclusion and respect for diversity. This Equity
Policy aims to ensure that all participants and individuals involved in the tournament are treated with
dignity and respect. It broadly deals with expected behaviour from participants and all other
individuals involved in the tournament, procedure for redressal in case of violation of rules and
penalties that will be imposed. To this end, the Equity Policy is brought into effect as a code of
conduct, governing all parties to the tournament. For the purposes of this policy, the Equity
Committee for the tournament shall comprise of:

● Medhavini
● Anushika
● Diksha
● Eshan

The committee would also like to express their gratitude towards the Rahat: A Fundraiser Debate
(2021) Equity Committee, AWDC (2021) Equity Team, Diliman Debate Open (2021) Equity
Team, RVDT (2021) Equity Committee and the Doxbridge 4 (2021) Equity Team, for working on
the original version of this document.

1.2. Scope

The policy applies to all individuals participating in the tournament, in whatever capacity, including
but not limited to debaters, adjudicators, core adjudicators, members of the organising committee,
the tab team as well as observers, henceforth referred to as participants of the tournament. By virtue
of being a participant, assent is held to have been given to the terms of this policy and participants are
bound to it. This policy applies for the entire duration of the tournament, which includes, but is not
limited to rounds, time in between rounds and all interactions between participants in the context of
the tournament, on WhatsApp, Discord, Google Meet, Zoom or any other medium used by the
tournament. Non-equitable behaviour encompasses a range of behaviours, from entirely
unintentional to purposeful, and from misunderstandings to malice. There is no implication of
equivalence between the same behaviours in different instances or different prohibited behaviours. All
cases will be treated on the basis of their specifics.

2. Prohibition of Discriminatory Conduct

The actions/behaviours listed below are explicitly prohibited under this Equity Policy, and any such
act/behaviour can be complained against following the Complaint Procedure set out in Part 6 of this
Policy and can incur penalties listed under the same. However, the scope of prohibited behaviours is
not limited to those listed, and the ultimate discretion of adjudicating prohibited behaviours lies with
the members of the Equity Committee.

2.1. Definitions of Prohibited Behaviour

a) Bullying: Any repeated and/or unreasonable behaviour by an individual or group, directed
towards another individual or group, either physical or psychological in nature, that
intimidates, offends, degrades, humiliates, undermines or threatens (Example: Pressuring
another individual or group to do something that they’re uncomfortable with).
b) Direct discrimination: Treating another individual or group less favourably on the basis of a
protected attribute than someone without that attribute in the same circumstances or
circumstances not materially different (Example: Giving a loss to a debater because they are
queer).

c) Indirect discrimination: Imposing or proposing to impose a requirement, condition or

practice that has, or is likely to have the effect of adversely affecting an individual or group
 with a particular protected attribute, and which is not reasonable in the circumstances.
(Example: Having a requirement that only debaters who do not have a speech impediment
can score above 77).

d) Intimidation: To frighten or overawe someone, especially in order to make them do what

one wants.

e) Harassment: Any unwelcome, offensive, abusive, belittling or threatening behaviour that

humiliates, offends or intimidates an individual or group on the basis of a protected attribute.

i) Harassment includes deliberately or repeatedly using names other than the ones
mentioned by participants on official tabs or specified by the participants to refer to
them.

f) Sexual Harassment: Sexual harassment includes, but is not limited to any one or more of the
following unwelcome and/or non-consensual acts or behaviour (whether directly or by
implication):

i) a demand or request for sexual favours;

ii) making sexually suggestive remarks;

iii) showing pornography or sexually explicit material; or

iv) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.

g) Victimisation: To cause detriment to a person because that person has made a complaint or
taken part in complaints proceedings.

h) Vilification: The public incitement of hatred, contempt or severe ridicule of another

individual or group.

2.2. Protected Attributes

It is important to note that different individuals experience different barriers to successfully engaging
with competitive debating. It is a violation of this Equity Policy to treat individuals differently on the
basis of differences in one or more of the protected attributes below. This treatment could include
but is not limited to, any of the prohibited behaviour above. This policy prohibits any participant or
group of participants from bullying another participant or group of participants. The use of
offensive language that perpetuates stereotypes, the casual or insensitive use of potentially triggering
language (particularly including the language of violence or sexual assault) is also expressly
prohibited. It is important to bear in mind that when making in-jokes or engaging in friendly teasing
and banter, this is done in such a way that others who hear are clear that no offence is meant or
taken.
Note: Given that we have international participants, we ask individuals (both speakers and judges) to
be conscious of their biases and not discredit arguments made by speakers or inputs given by judges
simply because those were not made with an accent, usage of vocabulary or manner of speaking that
is familiar to you.

The list of protected attributes are as follows:

1. Age or age group

2. Debating/judging ability or institutional affiliation

3. Disability (including but not limited to past, present and future disabilities, a genetic
predisposition to a disability and behaviour that is a manifestation of a disability)

4. Gender identity (the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related

characteristics of a person, including but not limited to how people express or present their
gender, recognising that a person’s gender identity may be an identity other than male or female)
5. Infectious disease (for example, HIV status)

6. Language status, proficiency or accent

7. Marital or relationship status

8. Political affiliation beliefs or ideologies

9. Race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, or ethno-religious background

10. Religious affiliation, belief, views or practice

11. Sex or Intersex status

12. Sexual orientation

13. Sexual practices or experience (for example, previous partner(s) or lack thereof, the experience of
sexual assault or harassment)
14. Socio-economic status and background (including caste, indigenous culture and/or identity)

15. Any other attribute where discrimination:

a) Causes or perpetuates systemic disadvantages

b) Undermines human dignity or
c) Adversely affects the equal enjoyment of a person’s rights and freedoms in a
serious manner that is comparable to discrimination on a protected attribute listed above

This list is non-exhaustive, and the final decision with regard to the consideration of a ground shall
lay with the members of the Equity Committee.

2.3. Reasonable Accommodation for People with Disabilities

The tournament acknowledges that accommodations may need to be made for participants with
disabilities, and if a participant with a disability requires an accommodation, they should contact the
Equity Committee as soon as possible. The Equity Committee will make an assessment and provide
recommendations to the CAP and the Organising Committee, who will make any accommodation
deemed necessary. Participants with speech impediments may be entitled to extra time for their
speeches if deemed fit by the Equity Committee in the interest of creating a level playing field. An
appropriate certificate will be issued by the Equity Committee in such cases, which can be shown by
the said participant to the Chair before the round begins.

Participants are expected to be considerate, accommodative and understanding towards each other.
 Treating mental health issues as real and understanding that the propensity of having a panic
attack/feeling exceedingly nervous/ stammering under pressure/becoming forgetful/losing one's
chain of thought increases manifold in a debate room atmosphere, the Chair with the agreement of
most adjudicators in the room can allow, in an act of goodwill, the speaker a (few) minute(s) (as they
deem fit at that time). The same applies to the team(s) who would be expected to allow an
adjudicator in this position a few more minutes if they deem fit. Even though the Equity Committee
cannot issue a penalty on individual(s) who refuse to be considerate about these issues, if the
Committee is informed of blatant and insensitive uncooperative behaviour, it will help the
Committee to recognize and note a pattern of behaviour. The Equity Committee will be vigilant of
misuse of such provisions.

2.4. Interacting with Minors

Keeping accessibility in mind, this tournament is open to minors, and they can apply as speakers and
adjudicators. A minor is defined as any person below the age of 18. All adjudicators are requested to
be cognisant of a minor’s presence in the debate room. Additional safeguards will be extended
towards minor speakers and judges, keeping their young age and underlying dependence on adults in
mind. It is to prevent situations in which minors might potentially feel uncomfortable.

2.4.1. Minors as speakers:

Adjudicators are not allowed to give personal critique via personal one-on-one messages to minor
speakers. This is in line with the principled decision to not have a minor and non-minor participant
alone in a Zoom room or Discord server or to have one-on-one personal messages. This is to
minimise room for any misdemeanour. A team of two minors, however, can be on the same server as
an adjudicator and take personal feedback from them on the Discord server or Zoom room.
Alternatively, the minor participants can ask their coaches, or any other appointed person, to
message the adjudicator for personal feedback. In case an adjudicator wants to contact a member of a
team consisting of two minors, they can do so via the Equity Committee, or use a public Discord
channel.
2.4.2. Minors as adjudicators:

Minor adjudicators may not provide personal feedback unless asked specifically. A minor adjudicator
cannot provide personal feedback to a single speaker one-on-one, but may do the same for a team of
two or more speakers. If the minor adjudicator is uncomfortable being alone with a group of adult
speakers for constructives and/or personal feedback, they may ask their coach or any Equity
Committee member or any other appointed person to accompany them in the Discord room/Zoom
meeting/Google Meet or any other platform being used for communication.

3. Code of Conduct

3.1. General Conduct

Participants of the tournament are required to treat each other with respect. This includes, but
is not limited to respecting the rules of the tournament, refraining from disrupting or distracting
other debaters or adjudicators, accepting the decision of the adjudicator(s) and refraining from
insulting or providing non-constructive commentary on speeches or speakers.

3.2. Language Guidelines

To ensure that the tournament is inclusive to the maximum possible extent, every participant must
showcase sensitivity and consideration while interacting with others, which includes using
appropriate language while discussing sensitive issues. While we recognize and understand that
achieving such inclusiveness involves not just good will but also a fair amount of learning, we
encourage participants to work towards this end by learning on their own and from each other. A
few guidelines have been provided below for the reference of participants:

a) Generalisations

Avoid generalisations on the basis of protected attributes when referring to groups of people.
Generalisations attempt broad sweeping assessments where none are possible and are hence
inaccurate and ill-conceived, and hence, may be offensive to both adjudicators as well as other
speakers and/or observers of the debate.
Statements should be phrased as “some members of X community” rather than “all X people”.
Recognize that many conditions are externally imposed. For example, instead of saying “X people are
bad at long-term planning,” say “X makes long-term planning difficult for some individuals.” Put
people’s humanity first. There is a subtle but important difference between the phrase “X person”
and the phrase “person who is X.” The former presents the protected attribute as a defining
characteristic, while the latter leads with a recognition of personhood. As a general principle, phrase
everything as if you are talking about someone in the room. If you feel what you say might offend
them, then rephrase it. If what you seek to say is indeed true, this should be possible. If you cannot
make it inoffensive, then simply start with a sincere and preemptive apology. However, this is not to
be used as a means to breach equity. Saying things like, “I don’t know how to say this in a non-equity
violating manner but...” will not automatically excuse a participant if the resulting statement is
found to be a breach of equity.

b) Graphic language

Using vivid or graphic language to illustrate the impact or truth of your argument is a common and
effective rhetorical tool in debating. However, we urge participants to be considerate in their choice
of language, especially since aggressive rhetoric may be traumatic for other participants. We especially
urge speakers to think about language when motions involve bodily integrity, minority cultures,
class, war, gender and sexuality issues. Unnecessary graphic descriptions of traumatic events run the
risk of violating this policy and should be avoided. If graphic examples are being used as rhetoric,
speakers must be clear about this usage as a hypothetical and must not co-opt the lived experiences or
others in order to prove that argument. Participants are asked to avoid the use of triggering language
such as “r*pe” and use terms such as “sexual assault” instead.

c) Personal attacks

Stating that a person doesn’t have the appropriate background to make a valid argument in the
debate (i.e., “what do you know about policy X, you’re from Y!) is almost always of no
argumentative value. That is also the case for personal attacks (i.e., “people like you shouldn’t even
be saying things like X because you’re Y”). Such statements do not address the content of an
argument, nor do they address its logical structure. Such conduct may traumatise a person, since you
are referring to their background and/or other attributes as holding relevance to their chances of
winning or losing the argument.

d) Slurs/reclaimed language

A slur is a term designated to insult others on the basis of certain protected attributes, such as race,
ethnicity, sexuality, etc. The use of slurs, epithets, derogatory and insulting terms are not allowed.
Moreover, the use of slang is context-specific and all participants are advised to exercise extreme
caution while using them.

This policy recognises that certain derogatory words may have been reclaimed by members of that
community. This does not make the usage of these words by members of other communities
appropriate. To ensure sensitivity, this policy prohibits the usage of such reclaimed terms during the
tournament, as communities are not cohesive in their usage of such language and this can be
perceived as offensive and derogatory.

e) Trigger Warnings before speeches

If you feel that your speech will contain content that could trigger an individual, please provide a
trigger warning at the beginning of your speech. Even if the motions slide contains a trigger warning,
do give a heads up to debaters that your speech will contain triggering content. If you are not sure if
your speech requires a trigger warning, always err on the side of providing it. The way of doing so is
as follows:

● Give a disclaimer that you might be using graphic language before starting the debate
 ● After this disclaimer, say, for example: “That the views within this speech are not my own and
made entirely for the sake of the debate, and by no means do I intend to offend anyone with
anything within this speech that might be possibly triggering.”

● Of course, with different cases, we trust the speakers to practise critical thinking in deciding
what words they can use while phrasing this warning to prepare the room for that language.

● It is best to wait a few seconds after issuing the trigger warning before starting your speech to
give the individuals in the room time to drop out of the call if they’re uncomfortable with the
content being discussed. It is advisable to reissue a trigger warning before introducing an
analysis or argumentation that might be triggering.

3.3. Gender Non-specifying Language and Gender Pronoun Policy

The tournament will be implementing a policy of non-gendered language. All participants are
encouraged to use gender-neutral language, with phrases such as “the previous speaker”, “members
of the panel”, “the Prime Minister”, etc, instead of “Madam/Mister Speaker/Chair”. When asking
points of information, kindly refrain from adding any gendered prefix (Sir/Ma’am, followed by a
question) before asking your question. At all instances, participants are encouraged to use the
gender-neutral pronoun “they”, unless specific consent/knowledge exists as to the preferred
pronoun of the individual you are addressing. Any participant may choose to state their pronouns
while introducing themselves, either during a round or at any other point in the course of the
tournament.

During in-rounds and out-rounds, the Chair judge must:

1. Introduce themselves to the entire room and if they choose to do so, state their pronoun;
2. Allow each of their wing judges, if present, to do the same; then

3. The Chair shall ask across the room if someone would prefer a gender pronoun – this, however,
 may not specifically be directed at any speaker as to avoid putting the speaker in an uncomfortable
position.

Speakers or judges are at liberty to either:

● State the pronoun they wish to be addressed as

● Not state a pronoun

● State that they do not want to be gendered

● State ‘no preference’

If a debater or judge does not wish to identify a pronoun, they are not required to do so.

Kindly refrain from presuming the gender of any participant. Should you misgender anyone
accidentally, immediately apologise and move on with your speech or conversation. Intentionally
misgendering as well as deliberately mocking the importance of using respectful language to address
each other will be seen as an act of degrading a person’s or a group’s identity, thereby violating the
Equity Policy.

3.4. Names and use of aliases

We understand that some individuals may prefer to use aliases or have a preferred name due to a variety
of reasons. The name that the participant chooses to introduce themselves with before a speech, during
interactions, or names themselves on Discord/Zoom meeting/Google Meet or any other platform
being used for communication is the name to be used to refer to the participant. As mentioned earlier
in the policy, harassment includes deadnaming or insisting on using a name other than the one
specified by the participants to refer to them.

3.5. Misuse of Technology

While the above-mentioned behaviours are still violative of the Equity Policy, there are some
additional acts that could cause (severe) disruptions in an online setting and are thus prohibited.
a) Disruptive use of technology: Using your technology, specifically the microphone, in such a
way that other speeches become inaudible for the rest of the debate hinders fair competition
and is therefore not allowed. Always mute yourself unless speaking. Please use the Zoom Chat
to express technical difficulties. If there is no acknowledgement to your texts on Zoom, please
feel free to reach out to the tech team on Discord. With regard to asking POIs, speakers may
specify the medium through which they prefer the same, and such specifications may be
followed. By default, POIs may only be offered in the Zoom chat. Additionally, other speakers
will be able to see your expressions on their screen while speaking, so we ask you to abstain
from dismissive behaviour during all debates, e.g., rolling your eyes during someone else's
speech etc.

b) Misuse of the chat: Everything that is written online can suddenly reappear or be read at a
later point in time. Therefore, we ask you to not say offensive or overly negative things within
a chat when you are in a debate or watching a debate. Violations of this will be treated
similarly as bullying, direct discrimination, unwanted (sexual) advances and other forms of
prohibited behaviour as mentioned above. This applies to both public chats as well as private
chats when people would report these.

c) Non-consensual recording: No participant is permitted to record any part of the debate

(ranging from speeches to adjudicator feedback) without the consent of the persons involved.
This will be considered a violation of the privacy of that other participant and falls within the
grounds of Equity requiring strict action.

d) Use of offensive backgrounds: Having disturbing images or symbols in the background of

your video stream may offend/disturb people, and is thus prohibited. In addition, do not
choose a moving or distracting background as it may cause discomfort to other people in the
debate or harm their ability to concentrate.
 e) Shitposting: Please don’t ruin the content on shitposting channels by including
discriminatory or offensive language, or by targeting another individual or group without
having their consent before posting. This will be seen as an attack on an individual’s protected
attributes, and hence, a violation of the Equity Policy for the tournament.

f) Post-comp socialising: Similar to real life, post-comp socialising can often include alcohol
and people chatting together. Note that the Equity Policy still applies to these situations.
Harassment post-competition will be taken seriously, including sending unsolicited messages
to other participants.

g) Alcohol or any other such substance is not an excuse for bad behaviour.

All of these guidelines apply equally to Discord as well. Please be respectful of all participants while
communicating with them on the text or voice channels at all times. All conversations on the
tournament’s Discord server are a part of the Equity Committee’s jurisdiction.

3.6. Cheating

The use of online technology and/or coaching to gain information that has not been previously
collected for the team’s matter consumption for the purposes of an ongoing round hinders fair
competition and is, therefore, a violation of the Code of Conduct.

An example of using online technology to cheat is when debaters use search engines, social media or
websites to retrieve information during prep time or within a particular round. Furthermore,
receiving information or guidance from individuals outside a team during prep time or within the
round, whether done online or offline, is considered coaching and is a violation of the Code of
Conduct. However, usage of downloaded documents procured before the tournament (such as
offline casefiles) is allowed. (The burden of proof that the documents were downloaded before the
tournament falls on the team.)

For inquiries on terms or specifics of a motion, teams may refer to an online dictionary or directly ask
the Adjudication Core for motion clarifications.

3.7. Heckling

Heckling during a round may take the form of repeatedly offering POIs in a consecutive fashion
which has the effect of distracting a speaker, especially when a speaker has dismissed such a POI. It
constitutes the following:

● Offering POIs at intervals of less than 15 seconds.

● Not muting oneself when repeatedly requested to do so, while an opponent speaker is
delivering their speech.
● Sending incessant messages on the chat box while an opponent speaker is delivering their
speech, in a way that could be distracting.

● Displaying visual cues or causing other excessive movements in the line of vision of the camera,
while an opponent speaker is delivering their speech, in a way that could be distracting.

● Using any other means to distract or interrupt the speaker, not including reasonable conduct as
surmised from context, facts and circumstances.

Chairs are entitled to take ad hoc action to preserve the sanctity of the debate when they believe a
speaker is guilty of heckling such as reprimanding/warning the speaker guilty of it after a speech is done.

Heckling is also disallowed when an adjudicator is providing feedback, and this may be in the form
of speaking while feedback is being given. Intentionally leaving the room prior to completion of
feedback due to dissatisfaction is also considered offensive and is disallowed. Participants are required
to be respectful while asking any questions to the adjudicator, either as constructive or general
feedback.
 3.8. Double Judging

The tournament recognises that given the online nature of debating, the practice of double judging
has emerged. For the purposes of this Equity Policy, we define double judging as judging two or
more tournaments simultaneously. This includes but is not limited to - judging two tournaments in
the same time zone when it clashes with indicated availability, judging two rounds simultaneously,
judging two tournaments in similar time zones (tournaments can run late, so even if you have signed
up at a tournament which is in a similar time zone it can run late, thus leading to scheduling
conflicts), etc. Additionally, if anyone is found to deviate from their indicated availability without
prior notice or at the last minute due to judging at another tournament, that also constitutes double
judging.

This practice as a whole is not just severely unfair to teams who are not being fairly adjudicated but
also to the tournament at large which entrusts the judges with the responsibility of providing fair
adjudication.

Double judging shall constitute an equity violation and any individual who is found to be guilty of
the same shall be penalised by the Equity Committee in consultation with the CAP – including but
not limited to dropping the individual off tabs, removing them from the tournament, blacklisting
from future editions of the tournament, etc. This policy recognises that the Equity Committee shall
have the power to exercise Suo moto cognisance on this matter (See Section 6.1).

3.9. Sexual Interactions and Positive Consent

3.9.1. Positive Consent and Participant Responsibility

While we understand the tournament is going to be held completely virtually which limits the scope
of sexual or romantic interactions, this policy emphasises the importance of seeing positive consent
regardless of the virtual setting. When engaging in any sort of sexual or romantic interaction with
another person(s), it is vital to do so while respecting the other party’s equity, dignity, and humanity.
Participants are required to always seek positive consent when engaging in any conduct of a sexual or
potentially sexual nature, including but not limited to flirting, making sexual jokes, suggestive
bodily contact (e.g. dancing), physical intimacy, or sexual intercourse. Note that especially under
online debate, the list may also include online sexual interactions such as sexual messaging and any
other online manifestation of the conduct stated above. Unwanted advances are always an equity
violation, no matter the intent of the perpetrator.

To acquire positive consent, participants must actively affirm that other parties in any sexual or
romantic interaction are freely and voluntarily agreeing to what is occurring. All parties should
enquire as to what other people are feeling (e.g. “Are you okay with this?” “Are we going too fast?”
“Do you like this?”). If you cannot determine the consent of the parties involved, you should end the
sexual or romantic interaction.

You have not obtained positive consent if:

● The other party has not explicitly said yes (e.g. “maybe” does not constitute positive consent)

● The other party is engaging in sexual contact reluctantly or under duress

● The other party is unable to understand what they are doing due to the influence of alcohol or
other drugs

● You are using social status or a position of authority to pressure the other party into entering
into or continuing a sexual interaction

If you misconstrued someone’s interactions with you as flirting, please apologise to them and move
on. Do not badger them any further.

3.9.2. Participant Conducts at Social Events

Participants must conform to the standards set out in this policy even outside of debate rounds. This
includes social and formal events and events organised by the tournament. This also includes any
online conversations that occur between participants.
The excessive consumption of alcohol will not be regarded as a mitigating factor for individuals
accused of violating any part of this policy or the Code of Conduct.

4. Iron-Person Policy

In the event of technical difficulties causing one or both speakers of a team to disconnect, or in the
case of one of the members of a team being unavailable for a round, each team can miss (or have one
of the two speakers iron-person) 1 out of 5 in-rounds over the course of the tournament and still be
break eligible. If you iron-personned 2 rounds (excluding the equity opt-out policy), you would be
ineligible to break.

The use of iron-person policy is not permissible during the out-rounds.

5. Equity Opt-Out Policy

The tournament is cognisant of having motions that are sensitive to individuals’ lived experiences.
Hence, all motions have been made while trying to account for diverse experiences and also have
been thoroughly vetted by the Equity Committee. Despite this, we completely acknowledge and
account for the possibility that individuals could have different responses to motions especially
owing to personal experiences.

The Equity opt-out policy for the tournament allows for each team to iron-person once in the
preliminary rounds (note: this round will NOT count towards the total of 1 in-round that you can
iron-person). If faced with a motion that a speaker has a personal sensitivity concerned around
debating, they are expected to inform the Equity Committee as well as the Organising Committee
regarding the same in order to exercise the opt-out iron-person option. In case both members of a
team are uncomfortable with the motion at hand, they may choose to sit out the round and will be
given an automatic loss along with average speaker scores of all the other rounds debated , but will
still be considered eligible for breaks. Any and all decisions with regards to the replacement of
motions will be subjected to the Equity Committee’s examination and will be finalised by the CAP.
 The opt-out policy also applies to adjudicators in the tournament who, in keeping with the speaker's
iron person policy, may recuse themselves from ONE preliminary round and still be eligible for the
break and/or remuneration.

Please note that teams and adjudicators are expected to respect this provision, and not misuse them
or casually evoke them only because they do not like a motion or find it difficult.

6. Complaints - Procedure and Handling

6.1. Raising an Equity Complaint

If a participant feels that there has been a breach of this policy, they may raise the matter with any
member of the Equity Committee by either contacting them through the details given at the end of
this policy or through the Equity Complaints Form, linked here as well as in the Equity channel on
Discord. All complaints are treated as confidential, and due regard will be given to the complainant’s
wish as to whether or not a complaint is investigated further. Complaints may be informal or formal.

a) Informal complaints

An informal complaint raises concerns but does not require formal responses such as conciliation or
disciplinary action. They may be used to garner advice from the Equity
Committee in a situation where the participant is unsure if a violation has occurred, and to seek
guidance for the procedure to be followed. The Equity Committee will work with the person who
has raised such a complaint in order to solve any queries.

b) Formal complaints

A formal complaint is one where the complainant would like a formal response such as conciliation
or disciplinary action. Formal complaints to any member of the Equity Committee will result in
 action following an investigation into the merit of the complaint. Complaints can be withdrawn at
any time, ending any investigations into them. Once a complaint is raised, the complainant is
protected as per the rules of this policy.

Anonymous complaints: In order to accommodate the possibility that certain complainants may
not be comfortable revealing their identities while filing complaints, a procedure has been devised to
allow them to register complaints anonymously. In such a situation, the complainant is required to
appoint a Point of Contact who will be able to communicate with the Equity Committee on their
behalf. The complaint will then be resolved in keeping with the procedures outlined for all other
complaints, with the Point of Contact being involved at every step to represent the complainant’s
perspective, and relay any required testimonies on their behalf.

The investigation will be conducted solely by the members of the Equity Committee. Both parties
will be invited to participate in the investigation. Members of the Equity Committee will recuse
themselves from investigating and handling complaints that are made against them personally, or
where a conflict of interest arises (for example, if they have a close personal relationship with one of
the parties).

Note: The Equity Committee is entitled to take Suo moto cognizance during the tournament, if
and when, it is made aware of information with regard to any violation.

6.1.1. Standards of Reasonable Suspicion

In determining whether the elements of harassment and/or sexual harassment are present,
complainants need only show that the accused may be reasonably suspected of committing these
acts.
Reasonable suspicion does not require that the complainant prove the guilt of the offending party
beyond reasonable doubt. All that is required under the reasonable suspicion standard is that there
are facts and circumstances alleged in the complaint and shown with evidence that would make a
 reasonable person suspect that the person charged committed the acts complained of.

The Equity Committee does not have the authority to rule on the guilt or innocence of the
offending party. Its decisions will only deal with whether, owing to the presence of reasonable
suspicion of harassment or sexual harassment, the relief sought by the complainant should be
afforded to them.

6.2. Progressing with an Equity Complaint

If the complainant wishes to proceed with a complaint, the Equity Committee shall:

a) conduct a hearing (recorded in writing) with the complainant to obtain full details of the
incident
b) conduct a hearing (recorded in writing) with the offending participant to hear their side of the
story
c) conduct a hearing (recorded in writing) with any other participant(s) as required by the
circumstances.

Following the investigation, the Equity Committee will determine whether or not a breach of this
policy has occurred. At minimum, one member of the Equity Committee shall undertake this
process, although an additional member may also be involved as required. At any point during this
process prior to resolution, a complainant may withdraw their complaint. At such a point, any
investigation automatically ceases.

It must be noted that the Equity Committee will conduct investigations only after a round is complete.

6.2.1. Equity ethics

Once the Equity Committee proceedings are underway, post the filing of a complaint, it is discouraged
for the party/team/person against whom the complaint has been filed to reach out to the
complainant/parties directly via message or any other mode of communication unless
warranted or asked for by the Equity Committee or complainant.

All parties are expected to be respectful of one another and the Equity Committee during the
proceedings and to cooperate with the EC to arrive at a resolution.

As mentioned earlier in the policy under Prohibited Behaviours, victimisation that is causing
detriment to a person because they have made a complaint or taken part in complaint proceeding, is
prohibited.

6.3. Resolution Mechanisms and Penalties

If, following the investigation of the Equity Committee, a breach of this policy is found to have
occurred, the Equity Committee may do any/all of the following:

a) Explain the complaint to the offending participant and have a discussion with them about why
their remark or action was inappropriate.
b) Issue a warning to the offending participant
c) Request that the offending participant provide an apology
d) Bring the relevant participants together to conciliate the dispute

In serious cases, the Equity Committee may work with the Organising Committee and CAP to take
further action, which may include:

a) Barring from any formal or informal event organised by the tournament b)

Expulsion from the tournament
c) Removal from the tab, either temporarily or permanently
d) Blacklisting of the team from future editions of the tournament
 In determining the appropriate resolution mechanism, the Equity Committee shall regard factors
including, but not limited to:

a) The context of the offence

b) The wishes of the victim, including the impact or likely impact on them
c) The position of the complainant in society and whether they suffer from patterns
of disadvantage or belong to a group that suffers from such patterns of disadvantage
d) Whether the violation that has occurred is part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour
e) The application of any relevant laws.

Decisions of the Equity Committee are final and binding.

7. Contact Details

Please note that you can approach any individual member of the Equity Committee if you wish to
discuss an issue, even if you are not sure if you want to file a formal complaint at that stage. Individual
members of the Team can be reached on their Discord IDs and WhatsApp at:

Name Contact Number Discord ID

Medhavini +91 7469977777

Anushika +91 6352 716 305

Eshan +91 91 130 157 74

Diksha +91 78348 94814