WIDPSC Judges Briefing â General

Transcription

A Message to Judges
Dear Judges,
Please find below the Judges Briefing Notes, together with the Multiple Choice Briefing Guide, that form the
practical basis of all judging for WIDPSC 2015 HK. The document is quite long but this is because we have chosen to
adopt the written notes as the definitive statement for this Championships. Live briefings will be used to
supplement the notes, but the notes will take precedent.
Our overall aim has been to address weaknesses from previous tournaments as well as to try to achieve
consistency. We have chosen to invite and instruct a much wider pool of judges than has ever been used before for
a major tournament. This brings benefits but also requires a huge amount of effort to ensure that all judges follow
the same script. Those of you who are familiar with previous WIDPSC events will recognise differences; those of
you coming from the larger worlds of the WSDC and WU debating will recognise old friends. It has been our aim in
all things to try to incorporate known best practice.
Please read carefully. The Multiple Choice section in particular is not a test but a guide; it draws heavily on
experience and well-known problems from previous tournaments, local as well as international. It also
incorporates many items that some of the overseas coaches have discussed with me over the years I have been
associated with WIDPSC. I can point to specific items in these notes and say, for example, ‘There you are, do you
remember the question you asked in the AGM in Lithuania, 2010?’
I am confident that you will find the instructions and guidelines both fair and practical. Those of you with WSDC &
WU backgrounds will know that judges are tested and some are failed at the start of major tournaments regardless
of claimed experience. Judges are also tracked with regard to performance. We will not be going quite that far, the
multiple choice briefing guide is exactly what it says on the cover, a guide, not a test – and you have access to this
before the tournament starts. We will though be asking you to declare that you have read the notes and the
judging guide, and also that you will abide by its letter and spirit. If you enter a room to judge, this will be taken as
a specific indication that you accept the judging protocols as laid down for WIDPSC 2015 HK. Those of you who feel
uncomfortable and do not wish to be part of this process will be free to watch the competition from inside the
rooms as an observer.
I would also state that we will not enter into late discussions about whether system A or system B is better, and
certainly not in briefing sessions. If you honestly believe that you have a better way of doing things, by all means
write it out and present it for consideration to the next host. Judge selection and training is not a last minute affair
and we have already been working on this process for a long time. It would be extremely detrimental to attempt
sudden and late changes. As host, we have had to make key decisions; as host, we have been asked in the build up
to this tournament to deal with perceived problems; as host, we have accepted this challenge. Almost all problems
raised have related in some way to the number and quality of judges available.
As such, for WIDPSC 2015 HK we will have a larger number of fully briefed judges than ever before. Practical
results of this larger number of judges include:
More judging rooms working in parallel
Smaller numbers of competitors in each room
Reserve judges
Shadowing by reserve judges to enhance training
Roy Allen
HKSD&PSC
Chief Adjudicator’s Panel
The official version of this document is displayed on the HKSD&PSC Ltd website (www.hksdpsc.com). No other
version will be accepted as correct.
Judging at WIDPSC 2015 HK
Preamble
We are seeking to establish the following as a priority:
a) sufficient judges
b) competent judging
c) consistent judging
We will achieve a) by mobilising a wide range of judges from multiple sectors in HK. To achieve b) and c), we need
to address the known problems and weaknesses of this and other competitions. The notes below will explain our
approach. There will be a multiple choice briefing guide at the end. This will have six sections. Judges should make
sure that they have read through and tried to answer the General Section, as well as the specific sections for the
events they will be judging. Coaches should read the whole document to enable them to be ready to judge any of
the five events.
The Rules
The following section gives the basic rules for each of the five events that will take place at WIDPSC 2015 HK. In
these rules, note that the term ‘ballot sheet’ is equivalent to ‘score sheet’.
The Chief Adjudicators’ Panel
We are putting in place a CAP system. This is a Chief Adjudicator’s Panel and it will have the last word on any
question involving the application of the rules and judging process for WIDPSC 2015 HK. CAP for HK will comprise
at least 6 indivduals, myself and two others from Hong Kong, plus three or four from other nations. Any critical
decision involving a HK competitor will be dealt with by the non-HK members of CAP.
CAP will not have jurisdiction over the Tabbing Room. Indeed, no-one except the Tabbing Team will be allowed
access to the Tabbing Room unless called in by the Tabbing Room Manager, this includes the Convener. If the
Tabbing Room Manager wishes to discuss an issue, such as an incorrect ballot (score sheet), he will inform CAP.
And, if ballots (score sheets) need to be discussed, CAP will do so in the presence of the relevant judge(s).
The Daily Briefing Sessions
We will exclude competitors from the briefing sessions. There are no secrets, but a lot of time is wasted by
competitors asking questions they should already know the answers to from reading about the tournament and
having spent a long time preparing. The judges’ briefings are to make sure that the judges have no problem areas,
and the much larger number of judges this time round requires that we prioritise their questions.
Again, because the briefings will be based on the written notes, there should be no surprises or sudden changes to
the application of rules that need to be communicated to the competitors. A good example here would be the
sudden dropping of all time penalties at one tournament. This was determined live in the first briefing session
without any prior notice or discussion, it arose from the response to a question. With the first competition round
starting almost immediately after that briefing, many candidates were unaware of this significant change while a
small number went on to take full advantage by extending their speeches (especially for debates). This is why I
have stressed that any change to the application of the rules that goes against what is written in the notes must be
communicated in writing by CAP to all coaches. In practice, it is highly unlikely that such a situation will occur.
I will underline here that we are talking about changes to the application of the rules, not changes to the rules. That
is not the function of CAP.
And, the briefing sessions are not a forum for debate, they are a final check before proceedings begin. The guiding
principle for this tournament is to achieve consistency. No single briefing session will have all judges present. As
such, no decision can be taken that alters what has already been laid down in these notes, and no discussion of
such changes will be entertained at this point. Any suggestions should be made in writing and passed to CAP.
Judging Panel Chairpersons
We are also going to have a panel Chairperson for each room during the initial stages of the competition. This
follows best practice from other tournaments and our own trials process. The role of the Chairperson will be
explained below, he or she will have two functions other than judging:
She/he will convene a brief session at the end of the judging and before the judges and Room Manager leave. This
session will be used to run through the ballots to make sure no obvious error has been made, and that individual
judges are not trying to impose their own private standards on the.
This session should pick up a high proportion of the basic and honest mistakes that occur. At this point, and in
front of the relevant judges, these can be corrected (see below). Once the ballots reach the Tab Room, it is very
difficult to do anything to help.
10-Point Range Maximum
Also, and again taken from best practice, we will impose a 10-point maximum range for the judges in any given
room, for a given candidate. This is 10-points inclusive.
This will keep ballots within two descriptive categories and prevent competitors being told that they are below
average and yet excellent by the same panel – a fact that has caused extreme distress in the past. I have had to
deal with a number of competitors reduced to tears in these situations, girls and boys; we witnessed ballots being
ritually destroyed on the flight back to Asia from Helsinki last year. It will also pick up situations where a judge
writes that a competitor is ‘excellent’ but only gives 82 points… That is almost impossible to explain to candidates
at the end of the tournament.
The Chairperson is not being asked to debate with the panel until all agree that the Chairperson is correct. The
point is that the Chairperson will request that the judges review their ballots to:
Check what they have written
Consider changing a score by moving it up or down accordingly
Note: both the upper and lower scores can be moved. And, if the Chairperson is giving one of the extreme scores,
she/he will have to consider shifting.
The system will be applied consistently and evenly across all judging rooms and for all events. In the event of a
refusal to change a score, the Chairman will be authorised to make a decision to move a score or scores the
minimum amount necessary to achieve the 10-point range, and this will be reported to CAP. Examples of scoring
changes will be demonstrated in the live briefings.
The possible changing of scores through the Panel has drawn the largest number of comments from the earlier
postings of these notes, and so I will expand on this for clarity and emphasis:
We are trying to make sure that all judges are following the same script. There is no such thing as a rogue score,
there are only mistakes and rogue judges. We are reducing the former as a matter of procedure, and removing the
latter wherever possible as a matter of principle. These aims can only be achieved through consistency and
transparency. Judging protocols that are not written, not applied consistently, and not applied with the knowledge
of those affected are unacceptable. Indeed, the notion that a score can be, in some way, corrected in the Tabbing
Room, without anyone present who was part of the actual judging process for that candidate is seriously flawed.
We are going as far as we can to retain the input of the individual judges themselves.
So, please take note:
the panel system as described employs a guiding range (10 points inclusive),
this prevents candidates being recorded as incompetent, average and/or expert by the same judging panel,
deals with extreme scores,
does so systematically for all candidates – including the previously ignored possibility of incorrect or unfair high
scores,
recognizes the possibility that of three judges, two can have made errors of addition or weighting,
and – most significantly, operates in the presence of the relevant judges: no score at WIDPSC 2015 HK will be
adjusted without the affected judge being part of that process, no score will be adjusted without the affected
judge being able to call on CAP to adjudicate, and
a very wide range of judges will be invited to take turns at chairing the panels – we will not have an us and them
situation.
Choice of Chairpersons
The selection of Chairpersons is critical: these will be those with significant and relevant judging experience and
whom have shown that they fully understand the role. Indeed, we will be asking as many judges as possible
(subject to the above) to take the role of Chairperson in a room as the sessions, days and events pass.
Chairpersons will be chosen from other delegations, not only HK, so as to keep the process open, and any judge
who feels that a Chairperson is being unfair, can report this to CAP. This is an extremely important check on the
Panel system.
Room Managers & Time Keepers
The Room Managers and Time Keepers will be well-briefed on their roles and will have control of the room with
regard to starting and ending each session. They will do so by asking judges if they are ready and will have the
discretion to start a session without waiting for late candidates. They will also ask judges at certain points to check
their paper-work. They will remain in the rooms during the judge’s panel discussion, and they will remain in the
room until all ballots (score sheets) have been completed and cross-checked. The Room Manager is responsible for
taking the ballots to the Tabbing Room. No-one else will be allowed to look at them or handle them unless CAP are
called in.
The Room Manager will have ready access to reserve judges as well as CAP in the case of any problem arising from
missing judges or inappropriate requests. This includes calling CAP if a judge attempts to change the agreed
protocols for this tournament (it has happened before). The Room Managers represent our hosts and should be
treated with all due respect. Essentially, the aim of consistency will take precedence and all rooms will operate to
the same protocols and standards.
Room Managers will also be instructed to prevent spectators from entering or leaving a room between
performances. Spectators are encouraged and most welcome, but in the interest of fairness to the competitors,
they should arrive before the first performance and stay for the whole group.
Timekeeping
Timekeeping will be entirely in the hands of the Room Manager and his/her Team. Judges will not be asked to
write down times on the ballots, this will be done by the timekeeper when the ballots are collected and before
they leave the room. They will be cross-checked at this point for consistency.
Any relevant time penalties will be applied by the Tabbing Team. Our Tab Team are experienced and highly
efficient. We will run a minimum of four independent tabs for cross-checking.
The reasons for not asking judges to write these times on the ballots include: times are sometimes misheard and
written down wrongly.
Room Managers and Time Keepers will be instructed to give the relevant signals during a performance, and to
repeatedly ring their bell after the grace period has ended. The competitor will not be allowed to continue
speaking, and judges are instructed to ignore anything said from this point on.
Judges are free to consider whether the candidate has been less than well-organised or whether it is a simple
miscalculation. Judges are therefore free to exercise their discretion with regard to the mark for organisation. It
also means that for WIDPSC 2015 HK, while candidates will not be allowed to keep speaking freely after their grace
period, for those who cross that line there will be a clear time penalty applied in all such cases. We will not employ
a scale of penalties.
Judging Clashes
We have firm guidelines for judging clashes. We are lucky enough to have the resources in HK to apply this, but we
also recognise that not all hosts would be able to do so. The following is a mixture of what we can do and what
should be an acceptable minimum for the future:
No parents or chaperones will judge
No coach or manager will judge a competitor from their own country (see below)
Local judges designated independent can judge local competitors
Regarding coaches judging competitors from their own country. This has always been an awkward situation. I have
had numerous discussions with colleagues on this issue, and it has become clear that even though a competitor
and coach might come from different schools, an external coach could have seen or heard the competitor perform
a prepared piece before arriving at a WIDPSC tournament. In one case, a coach admitted to having already judged
a competitor in a qualifying tournament (Interpretive Reading). This is clearly undesirable and, because we have
sufficient judges, we are making it a hard clash rule that this will not be allowed in HK. A number of delegations
have asked us to put this in place.
The independent judges for HK will be cross-checked for relationships, school affiliations and prior
coaching/judging experience. We will hold ourselves to the highest possible standards.
The country rule will not apply in the case of, say, a Japanese student studying in HK. Japanese judges would be
allowed to judge him/her.
Reserving Coaches to Judge in the Finals and Grand Finals
It has always been something of a dilemma that in order to run the opening rounds of a tournament effectively,
we have had to make judges take on a significant amount of judging – something that most are very happy to do.
But by the time we reach the Finals, and especially the Grand Finals, we have insufficient experienced judges who
have not already seen the candidates perform. This is one of the main reasons for our sourcing such a large judging
pool and much of what is written above is a consequence of this.
This is also a problem unique to Individuals’ competitions. World Schools Debating (WSDC) has a system of tracking
judges, collecting reports and then determining who are the best. World Universities Debating (WUDC) takes this
even further, with judges having to justify their scores to their peers. Those who ‘break’ are then used in the higher
rounds. With debating, it is not a problem if a judge sees the same team twice. For prepared events, there is an
absolute requirement that the performances be judged without prior knowledge.
For this reason, we will be aiming to do the following:
Use as many independent judges as we can in the early rounds
Keep judges away from designated events in the early rounds
Have a very healthy team of reserved external judges for the Finals
We cannot control this to the last dot and comma, as we do not know who will reach the Grand Finals as
competitors, but we will aim to have at least one coach and at least one alumnus on each of the judging panels.
The remainder will be made up of a very special group of guests, each invited because of their standing within their
profession and/or in the community. Indeed, we are going to be honoured with some extraordinary people on the
Grand Final panels. These guests will not have seen any relevant performances prior to the Grand Finals.
We have, in seeking to fill these panels, followed very carefully the original aim of this competition that the
competitors, ultimately, be judged by a wide-ranging group and not merely a closed set of ‘professional’ judges.
I have been asked whether this approach leaves open the door for unqualified judges? Well, there are three ways
to answer this:
definitely not, because we are choosing people of special merit and they will be fully briefed before the events;
and,
we are seeking to fulfil the aims of the founders; and,
the judging in the Grand Finals is very different from that done earlier: by the time a competitor takes the stage,
they will already have been judged three times and will have, by definition, satisfied all the requirements of this
competition. It then comes down to who is the best – the judging is a much more holistic process. We are,
essentially, looking for the candidates who can take an audience, a crowd, and move them. Anyone privileged to
have been present at the Grand Final for the Persuasive Speaking in Lithuania 2014 will understand what this
means in practice.
Judges’ Feedback
One aspect of WIDPSC at its best is where judges give meaningful and constructive advice to the candidates. The
competitors are usually hungry for such input and it is a shame that we do not always have the time to engage. I
have, on quite a few occasions, found myself offering to give further feedback if the competitor could find me after
we have finished judging for the day. In practice, that often leads to nothing. We owe it to these wonderful young
people to give them the best we can. In HK, we have a very strong tradition in this respect and we are striving to
make it the norm for this year’s championships by providing sufficient time.
All judges will be encouraged and expected to give some feedback. The larger judging pool is enabling us to reduce
the number of competitors in each room. This in turn gives us more time for feedback. This must still be limited
but we would ask that each competitor be able to get feedback from at least one member of the judging panel. If,
say, there are six competitors with three judges – the maths is easy; if there are seven competitors – one judge can
surely take an extra.
The competition has many features that make it stand out. These moments where the competitors can be given
nuggets of wisdom are a particularly important part. Not everyone goes on to win, but all can take valuable
guidance away with them.
It is though important that a candidate not be crushed by a withering display of negatives, or treated to a virtuoso
display of what the judge would have done/said. The emphasis should be on constructive criticism – give the
competitor something that they can take away and build on, do not only point out a glaring weakness. In effect,
imagine what sort of feedback you would be most likely to appreciate yourself.
Cultural Differences
There are a number of other issues that have arisen over the years that relate to cultural differences. For example,
some societies in this part of the world have tended to view the Common Law jurisdictions (UK, US, Australia,
Canada etc.) as places where the attorneys and barristers are no more than hired guns – in other words, with
suspicion. And, some legal systems do not allow for such a role. The concept of who you would want arguing for
you in court is in these cases unnatural and inapplicable, but the ideal of a wise and fair ‘judge’ has a long
tradition. It is therefore important that we try to ensure that judges from non-Common Law societies are also
given a clear way of determining whether a persuasive speaker should be deemed good, very good or excellent.
Inappropriate Content, Clothing or Behaviour
This is a rather sensitive area, but again one which needs to be addressed.
Content
We would ask coaches to exercise their discretion in guiding competitors on their choices and content. Some
topics are, by their nature, likely to cause offense. We cannot simply take the no-holds barred approach and let
everything run. We are always guests wherever we go, and guests have responsibilities. As a community, we are
prepared to say that making jokes about people at the tournament is wrong (a previous Executive ruling) – so we
clearly accept some limits on speech. I would hope that a little thought could be given to being sensitive with
regard to the feelings of others where, say, a tragedy has occurred, is recent, and affected countries represented
at the tournament.
Clothing
We have also had to consider the problem of clothing with regard to possible exhibitionism. Again, we should be
able to deal with this at the coaching level.
We will be working and performing in three different schools, each of which has very clear guidelines that match
their founders’ principles. Two are aligned with the Anglican church, the other is Catholic. I would ask that we
respect their institutions and dress appropriately. There is obviously a grey area here, but we are asking coaches to
help in the first instance.
The Grand Finals in particular will be held in front of more than 1,500 people, all of whom will have been graciously
admitted to the splendid auditorium of the Diocesan Girls’ School. We would like this to be a memorable occasion
for all the right reasons.
I have seen flip flops and shorts at one major tournament (Cornell U.). The response of the organising committee
was to invoke a ‘the Management reserves the right to refuse admission’ clause. It attracted an impromptu
performance on freedom of speech, well away from the audience, but the competitor was not allowed to
continue. Problem solved.
Behaviour
Much the same as the above. I hesitate to use the term Common Sense, as it defies definition, but there are things
which are obviously disrespectful, and we will be asking for cooperation.
Overall, and again in the interests of fairness, if something arises during a performance and a judge is unhappy, this
should be referred to CAP. The judge should continue to adjudicate as normal and not try to deal with the problem
by imposing unilateral penalties. There are questions in the MC guide that touch on these issues.
The Rules
The competition will comprise four categories, with competitors competing in all four. For one category, there is a
choice between speech formats;
competitors will perform twice for each category, and in front of different judging panels;
no competitor will be seen by a coach from their own country;
the prepared speeches (Persuasive Speaking and After Dinner Speaking) must be substantially original works
produced by the competitors themselves, and
these should not have been performed in open competition more than three months prior to WIDPSC 2015 HK. For
th
this purpose we will be using April 5 as the date for the start of the tournament;
no props are allowed, and
the performance will be judged with regard to verbal communication and not acting skills;
for all categories, judges must award marks according to the criteria listed on the ballot sheets – judges are not
free to award bonus marks where they feel a candidate has done exceptionally well in a particular category, nor
can they ignore a category and shift the marks to something else;
time penalties will be given for speeches/readings that extend beyond the 15 seconds grace period;
a bell will be wrung repeatedly when the 15 seconds grace period is over and judges are instructed to ignore
anything said after this time; but
grace periods for the two speeches (6 minutes & 3 minutes) given by the First Speaker of each side in the debates
will NOT be added to determine time penalties;
the Room Manager and Time Keeper will ensure that correct times are written on each ballot, and
any such penalties that are awarded will be done so by the Tabbing team based on the recorded times. Judges do
not need to write down times or calculate penalties.
Judging will follow the guidelines as laid down in the WIDPSC 2015 HK Judges Briefing Guide and all active judges
will be expected to follow these guidelines. There will be no exceptions.
The four categories:
1) Persuasive Speaking/After Dinner Speaking
Persuasive Speaking
Competitors will present a problem/solution speech of between 7 and 13 minutes length, with a 15 seconds grace
period;
this speech must have both a clearly identified problem and either a solution or an approach to a solution;
there can be one or more than one solution;
the proportion of time given to the problem and the solution are entirely at the discretion of the speaker as long as
both are present;
any style is acceptable;
competitors are expected to have memorized their speeches but may use a single, small, note card as a prompt.
After Dinner Speaking
Competitors will present a speech lasting between 5 and 7 minutes;
this should be delivered to an imagined audience at a specified event;
the topic is at the discretion of the speaker, but
the speaker should be human;
the speech can be delivered in any style, and both humour and seriousness are equally acceptable; but
the speech should not be a stand up comedy routine that delivers a collection of theme-related jokes – there should
be a definite message in the speech.
2) Interpretive Reading
The competitor will read a passage or some poetry of their own choosing, lasting between 7 and 11 minutes;
the material should have some literary merit, and not be their own writing; but
the choice of passage/poetry should not be judged – only the quality of the reading performance;
the competitor must give an introduction to their chosen piece of up to one minute in length;
this can be given anywhere during the performance, and
the competitor is free to decide what information would best help the judges and audience to connect with the
reading – he/she does not have to state why the passage was chosen;
the passage/poetry should be read from print, and not be a fully memorized recital;
editing to prepare the passage for the requirements of reading and time constraints is allowed;
judges are asked to leave personal preferences for authors, genres and voices to one side and concentrate on how
well the competitor communicates their understanding of the author’s intentions.
3. Impromptu Speaking
Competitors will be asked to draw, at random, selections of three unseen topics, they will then be given two
minutes preparation time before speaking for between 3 and 5 minutes on the topic of their choice from the three;
the topics will comprise a word or noun phrase, a short statement, proverb or aphorism, and a quotation;
the competitor may make notes during the two minutes preparation but must leave all writing on their desk when
they come to perform; but
they may keep hold of the original topic list;
the speech must be impromptu, and not memorized;
it must not be plagiarized from other candidates or from their own Persuasive/After Dinner speech;
it can be delivered in any style or format, and can range from serious to humorous;
the topic can be identified at any point in the speech, either explicitly or implicitly, and judges can ask to see the
original slip of paper at the end of the performance.
4. Debating
Competitors will be paired off at random with someone from a different country and asked to form a team to take
part in an impromptu debate;
at the start of the preparation phase, one team will be asked to call heads or tails in a coin toss, and the winning
side will choose the motion from a list of two, unseen motions;
the losing side will then choose whether they want to Propose or Oppose;
the teams should then spend a short time agreeing on key definitions;
the definitions should be written down and signed by both teams, this will then be given to the Room Manager in
case of any later definitional challenges;
the whole of the preparation time, starting from the coin toss, is 45 minutes, and teams are advised to use this time
wisely;
no reference materials will be allowed in the preparation rooms, and no electronic devices may be used to access
notes or the internet etc.;
teams must decide among themselves as to who will speak first or second;
the speaking times and order of speaking are:
1. First Speaker Proposition – 6 minutes
2. First Speaker Opposition – 6 minutes
3. Second Speaker Proposition – 9 minutes
4. Second Speaker Opposition – 9 minutes
5. First Speaker Opposition – 3 minutes
6. First Speaker Proposition – 3 minutes
Points of Information (POIs) should be offered by all speakers at relevant times in the debate, and speakers are
expected to accept at least one;
there will be protected time for the first and last minute of the 6 and 9 minute speeches, no POIs can be offered
during this time;
no POIs can be offered in the 3 minute speeches;
barracking (repeated and aggressive attempts to ask POIs) is strongly discouraged and judges are asked to take
note of this, both the effect on the speaker and the disruption caused by those making the challenges;
if a team wishes to make a definitional challenge, they must appeal to the judges who will then be given access to
any written definition by the Room Manager, who will stop clock at this point. If there is no written definition, there
can be no appeal;
if an appeal is upheld, the judges will take this into consideration, but
whatever the result, the debate will then be restarted and completed;
competitors may use any style of debating that they choose and judges must not reward or penalize on the basis of
preferred styles; and
as a result of this, teams may use any recognized form of address to refer to their partners, the opposition or the
judges, as long as this is polite, but
competitors should not refer to each other by name;
above all else: competitors should be judged on the basis of their overall contribution to the debate – including POIs
offered after their own speeches have ended. For this reason, scoring should not be confirmed until after the whole
debate has ended; and
which side is deemed to have won the debate is completely irrelevant for judging purposes, and
it is possible for two or more competitors to gain equal scores.
Multiple Choice Judging Guide
The Multiple Choice format Judges Briefing Guide is not a pass/fail test but a way to focus on key aspects of the
judging. All prospective judges are required to complete the relevant sections and declare that they have done so.
The questions and notes given will form the definitive basis for judging at WIDPSC 2015 HK. Indeed, nothing said in
a briefing meeting during the tournament can be taken to supersede these notes unless specifically authorised by
CAP and presented in writing to all relevant judges and coaches.
We will not collect scores. Judges are not being inspected. The aim is to achieve competence and consistency as
written above.
The Jude’s Briefing Guide will comprise an open section and five sections covering the different events. Judges
need to complete the open section and any section that covers an event they will judge. All local judges will be
following the same Judges Briefing Guide for the preliminary rounds.
On the competition briefing sessions, these will be given by CAP. They will take place each morning before the
competition rounds start, and a smaller midday session during the lunch break for those judges only attending the
afternoon sessions. The basic principle is that no one will be allowed to judge who does not attend the relevant
briefing sessions. In the case of locals, there will be training sessions before the tournament begins, but these
judges will still be expected to attend the morning sessions.
We will, of course, accept extenuating circumstances as lateness might be due to, say, traffic. And, we will
endeavour to give a back-up briefing in these cases, but this should not be taken as an alternative to attending the
main briefings.
The Multiple Choice part of the briefing process is designed to draw attention to key aspects of the judging. For
example, the debating style we employ for WIDPSC is unique. It has similarities to others, in places, but also has its
distinctive features. Even experienced judges ask for clarification at tournaments – a prime example being the
repeated seeking of clarification regarding the nature of the closing speeches. There are 65 questions.
Some questions in the guide focus more on knowledge than others, and some draw attention to principles and
emphasis, but none will be pure tests of knowledge. So, the questions are of the form:
When the First speaker for the Proposition side does not present the case you had in mind for a particular motion,
you should…
a)
b)
c)
d)
ignore your own thoughts and concentrate on how well the case is presented and engaged with
consider how well the case is presented but downgrade for content
wait for the feedback and then demonstrate your preferred case
give extra credit to Opposition if they pull the debate back to what was expected
But not like this:
What is the correct penalty a speaker in Second position should be given for running over time by 21 seconds?
Answers to the questions will be explained where relevant.
Some questions draw directly from problems at previous tournaments (WIDPSC & others) and selection trials. If
you are experienced, you will be well aware of the wide range of difficulties than can arise. It is not possible to
cover everything, but the questions will enable a lot more ground and specifics to be reviewed than is possible in a
single live briefing.
For example, at one tournament, the Chief Adjudicator specifically drew attention to the fact that a Candidate
does NOT have to give an explicit reason for choosing a particular passage for their Interpretive Reading. They are
expected to introduce, and marks are reserved for this, but they do not have to state why they chose it – this is
optional within their introduction. Nevertheless, one judge at that briefing, front row, severely downgraded a
candidate 30 minutes later for not stating their reason. This was expressed orally at feedback, and recorded in
writing on the ballot. Was the judge just not paying attention? We should be able to do better than that.
This problem would be addressed with a question of the form:
Are candidates required to state why they have chosen a particular passage for their Interpretive Reading?
a)
b)
c)
d)
not if the passage is well-known
yes, unless the reason is obvious
no, but they are required to give a relevant introduction
only if they do not have an introduction
The main point being that by having something in writing to work from the persons presenting at the live briefings
can be much more focused on the issues that remain. The full set of Multiple Choice questions follows these notes.
The Questions
The following guide comes in five sections with 65 items in total, the first section is general and should be reviewed
by all judges. The remaining four sections should be read according to which events you will judge. If you are
chosen to judge in the Finals and/or Grand Finals, you should read any remaining sections.
The questions are given below. A separate document contains highlighted answers together with explanatory
notes. These answers and notes will be sent in due course, and will be up-loaded to our website as well.
General Questions (1-10)
1.
Do judges have to record component scores on the ballots (score sheets)?
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes
not if the total score is given clearly
only if the total is not written
only if there is a problem with a performance
2.
Is a judge free to ignore the component categories on a ballot (score) sheet?
a)
b)
c)
d)
if the candidate is exceptional
never
yes, but this need not be written down
only if this is done for all candidates in the room
3.
Should judges go back and consider adjusting their scores after all candidates have been heard?
a)
b)
c)
d)
no, this could produce bias
yes, before the panel reviews the session and ranges
only if the last candidate is clearly the best
yes: if no-one has been given a high or low score, the range should be stretched accordingly
4.
Should judges compare performances and scores to previous tournaments?
a)
b)
c)
d)
if the judge is very experienced
if the judge has heard similar material before
not unless the performance is better
never
5.
Should judges consider what they themselves would have done with a particular topic, passage or motion
when scoring?
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes, this is where the individuality of each judge becomes part of the whole process
if they feel that the candidate has missed an opportunity
no
if they had expected a particular approach
6.
Can CAP judge a candidate’s performance?
I) no, because they did not hear it
II) no, because CAP can only rule on the application and interpretation of rules
III) yes where a judge has refused to follow the agreed process
a)
b)
c)
d)
I & II
I & III
II & III
I, II & III
7.
The range for scores is fixed at 60-100. Should judges be prepared to use the whole range?
a)
b)
c)
d)
8.
yes
no
not in the same room
not in the same event
Can judges tell Room Managers what to do?
a)
b)
c)
d)
no
yes, it is part of their role
if the Room Manager has made a clear mistake
only before the session begins
9.
Two candidates want to deliver similar speeches or readings. You should…
a)
b)
c)
d)
fail them both for plagiarism
refuse to judge the second one
allow one to change rooms
judge as if nothing had happened
10. If a prospective judge takes the attitude, ‘I don’t care, I’m a Martian. I’ve never done it that way before.’
a)
b)
c)
d)
they will look tough
they will sound amazing
they will scare the children
they will not judge
Persuasive Speaking (11-18)
11. Speeches should…
I) have a clearly laid out problem
II) a clearly laid out solution
III) a clear link between the problem and the solution
a)
b)
c)
d)
I & II
I & III
II & III
I, II & III
12. Following Question 11., the proportion of speaking time given to the problem and the solution should be
approximately…
a)
b)
c)
d)
50:50
70:30
40:60
no restriction
13. The speech should…
I) be based on original research
II) contain original solutions
III) contain a solution or an approach to a solution
a)
b)
c)
d)
14.
I & II
I & III
II & III
I, II & III
If a judge does not appreciate the choice of problem, he/she should…
a)
b)
c)
d)
make this clear on the ballot (score sheet)
ignore the problem and concentrate on the logic of the solution
request a replacement judge to take over
judge without prejudice
15. Bigger problems and/or more comprehensive solutions deserve higher scores…
a)
b)
c)
d)
if the problem and solution are well matched
if the solution is practical rather than theoretical
no
yes, but the topic must be global
16. Problems that contain a link to the candidate and her/his culture should be given special merit…
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes where there is a link through family members, not friends
if the culture is well-defined
no
no, such speeches should be down-graded as being too limited in appeal
17. Is it suitable for the Persuasive Speech to employ humour?
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes
no
in small amounts
only if the speech is about an amusing topic
18. Speeches with more solutions to a problem are better than those with just one or two…
a)
b)
c)
d)
in general, yes
in general, no
yes if the solutions are linked
no
After Dinner Speeches (19-26)
19. Does the After Dinner Speech have to be funny?
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes
no
part of it must be
not all of it, there must be a balance
20. Can the speaker use props and costumes?
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes, freely
yes, but only if these do not turn the performance into acting
no
only if what is used is in keeping with the chosen character
21. Can the speech be a list of jokes?
a)
b)
c)
d)
no
yes, but they must all relate to one theme
only if the jokes are relevant to the audience
yes, as long as they are sensitive with regard to beliefs and cultures
22. Can the candidate make jokes about the people at the tournament?
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes, if these are polite
only with prior permission
not if the jokes are discriminatory
no
23. Can the speaker take the persona of a non-human character?
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes
yes, but not for the whole speech
yes, if the character has a recognised personality
no
24. Can the speaker refer to imaginary people in the audience?
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes
yes, but only with general comments, such as, ‘Thank you, thank you’
yes, as long as this does not turn into an imagined dialogue
no
25. The speaker must announce who she/he is, and also, who and what the dinner is for…
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes
this is necessary but can be explicit or implied
no, because the imaginary audience would already know all of this
not unless the content of the speech required such identification
26. If a judge thinks another person in the room could be offended by the nature of a joke, they should…
a)
b)
c)
d)
stop the speaker
let the speech continue but downgrade the content
let the other person feel offended
report to the Room Manager and wait for CAP to penalise the speaker
Interpretive Reading (27-35)
27. Are candidates required to state why they have chosen a particular passage for their Interpretive
Reading?
a)
b)
c)
d)
28.
not if the passage is well-known
yes, unless the reason is obvious
no, but they are required to give a relevant introduction
only if they do not have an introduction
The higher the quality of the chosen passage, the higher the score you should award the reader…
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes
no
only for the content mark
only as a tie-breaker if two or more readers achieve the same total score
29. The judge should not compare the reader’s performance with known films/recordings…
a) yes
b) no
30. “I do not like dialogue, so I marked you down.” This represents a judge who is…
I) biased
II) honest
III) judging the passage, not the interpretation
a)
b)
c)
d)
I & II
I & III
II & III
I, II & III
31. Older passages are better than more recent ones…
a)
b)
c)
d)
not necessarily
often
usually
yes
32. A reading from complex literature should, on average, be given higher marks than a simpler reading…
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes
if two speakers have done equally well in all other respects
no
if the choice is well-justified
33. Passages are better than poems…
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes, because the reader is given more freedom with pacing and stress patterns
no, it all depends on how well the reader interprets the materials
yes because passages are easier to edit and fit into the time constraints
yes, because poetry often needs multiple readings before it opens out
34. “I can never really listen to Mr Darcy being spoken by a woman.” This is a reference to a reading from
Pride & Prejudice. What is the issue for a judge here?
a)
b)
c)
d)
readers should choose passages that match their own gender
stereotyping
whether the reader is male or female should be irrelevant
dominant characters should be a significant guide when considering the gender of the reader
35. How important is the context of the reading?
a)
b)
c)
d)
irrelevant as all readings are only short excerpts anyway
sometimes relevant, especially where the passage is translated from a different language
important if the passage refers to historical events and characters
one part of the overall package
Impromptu Speaking (36-43)
36. Impromptu speeches can take any format but must be original for the topic given and not based on
memorised materials…
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes
any format, yes, but memorised speeches are permissible if relevant
no, the format has to follow agreed guidelines
no, there must be a formal introduction, followed by signposting, a development phase, examples and a
closing reflection
37. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism must be avoided…
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes
this is only relevant to speakers and speeches delivered in the same room
this is not a problem, the Impromptu format allows the speaker to use anything they feel is relevant
plagiarism, yes, but self-plagiarism is acceptable
38. In general, funny speeches are better…
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes, and these nearly always get a better reaction from the judges
there should be some humour to show that the speaker can connect with his/her audience
this is only true where the topic is whimsical to start with
no, these speeches can be amusing, serious or anything in between
39. The speech must be relevant to the topic chosen…
a)
b)
c)
d)
this is entirely dependent on how the speaker interprets the topic
what is relevant for one person is not necessarily relevant for another
yes, that is why we give topics in the first place
no, the topics are provided to give the speaker something to consider – but they are free to ignore them
40. The topic should be made explicit at the beginning…
a)
b)
c)
d)
no
yes
yes, but it can be given implicitly
it is unnecessary
41. The speaker should not be self-referential…
a)
b)
c)
d)
42.
it all depends on to what extent
this is not a problem because the references could be false or rhetorical devices
yes, because the candidate is given a topic – the topic is not themselves
yes, because this is lazy
The candidate should speak as themselves and not as a chosen character…
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes
no, the speaker can adopt a character
as long as the speech is primarily from the speaker’s perspective, some use of character is acceptable
only if the character is the topic, such as ‘Batman’
43. Speeches should not be re-cycled from earlier rounds…
a)
b)
c)
d)
not possible because the topics for each round are different
of course, this is impromptu
if a speech was successful, the speaker is free to re-use the content but must present it in a fresh way
if the speaker has very similar topics in both rounds, he/she should inform the Room Manager as soon as
the topics are drawn
Debating (44-65)
This section is longer because of the complexity of having four speakers interacting.
44. Which is the best style to use for the debate?
a)
b)
c)
d)
British Parliamentary
World Schools
Policy Debating
no style is necessarily the best
45. Is it acceptable for speakers to mix debating styles?
a)
b)
c)
d)
no, debates should be set up by the Proposition to follow a single style
yes, within one speech a speaker can vary his/her approach
yes but both speakers in a team should use the same mixture of styles
it is not recommended
46. Should judges focus on the progress of the debate or the individual performances within the debate?
a)
b)
c)
d)
both should be followed, equally
overall progress is more important than individual performances
the individual performances should be prioritised
neither, the judges should look for the underlying quality of the arguments
47. What should be done if a First Speaker uses all of his/her Second Speaker’s material in the opening
speech?
a)
b)
c)
d)
nothing special, judge as normal
penalise the speaker for doing this
sympathise with the victim and judge sympathetically
allow the Second Speaker to restate the points/examples and give credit for extra clarity
48. Can the First Speaker of the Proposition rebut in his/her closing speech?
a)
b)
c)
d)
no, all rebuttal should be completed in the Second Speaker’s speech
no because this closing speech can only summarise the main points and flow of the debate
yes, but only if the points have not been rebutted before
yes, as much and however the First Speaker wants
49. Can the First Speaker use different styles for his/her opening and closing speeches?
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes, no restrictions
yes, but the difference should not be large
no, it is always wrong
not if the Opposing team have challenged the case
50. If a Second Speaker follows the structure and signposting as laid down by his/her own First Speaker, who
should get the credit?
a)
b)
c)
d)
neither, it is a natural part of any debate
both
the First Speaker
the Second Speaker
51. If a Second Speaker fails to follow the structure and signposting as laid down by his/her own First Speaker,
who should get the blame?
a)
b)
c)
d)
no-one, but take note and wait to see how the Opposing team deal with this
penalise the Second Speaker for poor teamwork
penalise the First Speaker for giving the wrong directions
take no special action unless it is clear why this happened
52. Can an opposing team challenge the definition being used?
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes
no
only if the definition has been written down
only if there is a major deviation from the definition
53. Do speakers have to take Points of Information (POIs)?
a)
b)
c)
d)
only if they have time
yes, but how many is up to them
some POIs are expected as part of the process of engagement
yes, but they do not have to answer them if the point is off topic
54. Are both members of the listening team expected to offer POIs while the other team is speaking?
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes
no, but at least one must offer them
if only one offers, he/she must offer at least two POIs
POIs are encouraged but should not be asked just for the sake of maintaining numbers
55. How does a judge deal with a speaker who is unclear?
a)
b)
c)
d)
penalise them in every single category
try hard to construct the case from what can be made out
give a low content and style mark
give a low overall score and allow the Opposing team leeway to interpret what was said
56. Does the Opposition have to present a counter-model?
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes
no
yes if the debate is a policy debate
only if the debate is based on principles
57. How should judges deal with barracking (over-zealous offering of POIs)?
a)
b)
c)
d)
look to see how effective the barracking is
give the speaker credit if they can take extra POIs
count the number of POIs offered and deduct marks accordingly at the end
concentrate on how well the speaker deals with the disturbance, and penalise the person doing the
barracking
58. How should a speaker be judged if they fail to give any rebuttal at all?
a)
b)
c)
d)
it depends on which speaker we are considering
they are failing to engage with what the Opposing team has said: downgrade
if they have used the time well to present their own material, ignore
ignore if their partner has already given a full rebuttal
59. How much credit should be given to a Second Speaker who sets up his/her own First Speaker for a clear
final speech?
a)
b)
c)
d)
a lot of credit
it is the Final Speaker who finishes the debate and, as such, should get all the credit for what they say
this credit should be shared
nothing that another speaker says should impact the marks of any given speaker in the debate
60. Are factual errors relevant for judging purposes?
a)
b)
c)
d)
of course
if there are many of them and they interrupt the logic
yes, especially if the speaker has deliberately altered facts
not at all
61. Should speakers refer to each other by name in the debate?
a)
b)
c)
d)
only if all four speakers do this
if the names are formal, not familiar
no
they can but they do not have to
62. Should judges measure cases against their own idea of how the debate should have gone?
a)
b)
c)
d)
no, never – it is always wrong
yes, every debate has a natural case line
if a team has missed out an important point or line of argument
if the arguments are presented badly
63. Should debates be judged by listing points on both sides and seeing which side has the most items still
unchallenged?
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes, it is the most effective way to judge
yes, it makes the judging less subjective
if the points were made clearly
no, debating is about the quality of the arguments, not the number
64. Which is the most important criteria for judging?
a)
b)
c)
d)
no particular factor
content
look at the marks awarded for each category on the ballot sheet (score sheet)
style
65. Does the First Speaker have their times from both grace periods added to see whether a penalty should
be added?
a)
b)
c)
d)
yes, but this is done in the Tab Room
yes, but the Time Keeper & Room Manager will do this
only if the total exceeds 15 seconds
no
.

WIDPSC Judges Briefing â General

Transcription

Similar documents

Family Law Rosemarie Boll

JLAP Brochure - Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program

Moderator: Dr. Art Hister 12:00 – 12:45 pm Food

Team Manual 2003 updated

[PEARCEY AWARDS PITCHING COMPETITION] 1

Reyma Alicna - Rex Book Store

Ryan James Cancino

Nicole Caguioa - Rex Book Store

WIDPSC Judges Briefing â General

Transcription

Similar documents

WIDPSC Judges Briefing â General