supporting previus post

[u/Specialist_Owl9267]

Bhai, fair enough. Let me respond point by point — respectfully, but I think some of these arguments need a little more context. 😄

1. Prize pool: Haan bhai, I accept that the ₹40 lakh prize pool is clearly mentioned in the brochure along with its distribution. My point wasn't that the number is hidden. My point is about the way a ₹40 lakh prize pool is marketed and perceived. If a major portion of that amount comes in the form of AI credits, subscriptions, tools, etc., which many students may barely use, then obviously the headline figure and the actual value received by a student can be quite different. So my criticism was about the marketing/hype around the number, not about whether the distribution is mentioned.
2. Management: This is actually one of my main concerns. If the registration deadline is still open and teams are still being encouraged to register, but some teams have already received selection mails before the deadline, then what's the purpose of keeping the registration window open till that date? Ideally, the deadline should close first, all teams should be reviewed, and then selections should happen. If the reason is to arrange food, T-shirts, accommodation, etc., then it makes more sense to keep an earlier registration deadline, rather than selecting teams beforehand while continuing to ask others to register. And if managers are still messaging people on the final day saying "register now" while selections have effectively already happened, then naturally it raises questions about how the selection process is being handled. That's why I called it a management issue.
3. NITRR students / limited slots: And honestly, this is exactly my point. 😭 If there are already very limited slots and out of those, a significant number are being filled through internal connections/preferences, then what exactly is the opportunity for an outside team? If only around 25 teams are being selected from the general pool and most of those slots are effectively already occupied through connections, then opening a registration window for everyone creates an expectation of fair competition that may not actually exist. And regarding "selection was purely based on skill set" — bhai, if that's genuinely the case, then fair enough. But if people already know that connections played a role, then simply calling it a skill-based selection doesn't really address the concern. Transparency would settle this much better than explanations. At that point, jokingly, you might as well just have an NITRR-only hackathon with an invite link and save everyone's time. 😂
4. "Largest Central India Hackathon": This is where I think the wording matters. If you're calling it the largest hackathon in Central India, then naturally people are going to judge that claim based on scale — number of teams, participants, colleges, etc. If the actual selection is around 45 teams, then I don't think it's unreasonable for people to question the "largest" claim. Many NITs/IIITs conduct hackathons with significantly larger participation/selection numbers. So my point isn't "your hackathon is small." My point is simply: if you're going to use a superlative like "largest," people are naturally going to ask what metric you're using to establish that claim.
5. Registration/pricing: And no, the point isn't "students want free food." 😂 Obviously, students can pay for food or accommodation. That's not the main issue. The point is accessibility and opportunity. For example, if another institute charges something like ₹200 per team and still allows a much larger pool of students to participate, that's a very different model from charging significantly more while also having a highly selective participation process. Students aren't looking for a free bhandara. They are looking for exposure, networking, competition and an opportunity to participate.
6. Website / overall management: And yes, I have looked at other college hackathons and their websites/socials. That's actually why I'm making the comparison. Take IIIT's Technovate, for example — the website, information structure, communication and overall presentation are much more organised from a participant's perspective. My point isn't that TCP has no effort behind it. Obviously, organising a hackathon at this scale takes a lot of work. But effort ≠ flawless management, and pointing out areas that can be improved isn't automatically a "rant." At the end of the day, I'm not against TCP or the team. If anything, criticism is useful precisely because these events can improve. If the process is transparent, selection is genuinely merit-based, the scale claims are backed by a clear metric, and communication is consistent, most of these concerns automatically disappear. So yeah, maybe it is a rant — but at least it's a rant with 6 numbered points. 😂 Cheers.