widpsc judges briefing - general

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.

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



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 this purpose we will be using April 5

th 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) ignore your own thoughts and concentrate on how well the case is presented and engaged with b) consider how well the case is presented but downgrade for content c) wait for the feedback and then demonstrate your preferred case d) 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) not if the passage is well-known b) yes, unless the reason is obvious c) no, but they are required to give a relevant introduction d) 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) yes b) not if the total score is given clearly c) only if the total is not written d) 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) if the candidate is exceptional b) never c) yes, but this need not be written down d) 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) no, this could produce bias b) yes, before the panel reviews the session and ranges c) only if the last candidate is clearly the best d) 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) if the judge is very experienced b) if the judge has heard similar material before c) not unless the performance is better d) never

5. Should judges consider what they themselves would have done with a particular topic, passage or motion

when scoring?

a) yes, this is where the individuality of each judge becomes part of the whole process b) if they feel that the candidate has missed an opportunity c) no d) 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) I & II b) I & III c) II & III d) I, II & III

7. The range for scores is fixed at 60-100. Should judges be prepared to use the whole range?

a) yes b) no c) not in the same room d) not in the same event 8. Can judges tell Room Managers what to do?

a) no b) yes, it is part of their role c) if the Room Manager has made a clear mistake d) only before the session begins

9. Two candidates want to deliver similar speeches or readings. You should…

a) fail them both for plagiarism b) refuse to judge the second one c) allow one to change rooms d) 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) they will look tough b) they will sound amazing c) they will scare the children d) 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




12. Following Question 11., the proportion of speaking time given to the problem and the solution should be approximately…

a) 50:50 b) 70:30 c) 40:60 d) 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) I & II b) I & III c) II & III d) I, II & III 14. If a judge does not appreciate the choice of problem, he/she should…

a) make this clear on the ballot (score sheet) b) ignore the problem and concentrate on the logic of the solution c) request a replacement judge to take over d) judge without prejudice

15. Bigger problems and/or more comprehensive solutions deserve higher scores…

a) if the problem and solution are well matched b) if the solution is practical rather than theoretical c) no d) 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) yes where there is a link through family members, not friends b) if the culture is well-defined c) no d) 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) yes b) no c) in small amounts d) 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) in general, yes b) in general, no c) yes if the solutions are linked d) no



After Dinner Speeches (19-26)

19. Does the After Dinner Speech have to be funny?

a) yes b) no c) part of it must be d) not all of it, there must be a balance

20. Can the speaker use props and costumes?

a) yes, freely b) yes, but only if these do not turn the performance into acting c) no d) only if what is used is in keeping with the chosen character

21. Can the speech be a list of jokes?

a) no b) yes, but they must all relate to one theme c) only if the jokes are relevant to the audience d) 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) yes, if these are polite b) only with prior permission c) not if the jokes are discriminatory d) no

23. Can the speaker take the persona of a non-human character?

a) yes b) yes, but not for the whole speech c) yes, if the character has a recognised personality d) no

24. Can the speaker refer to imaginary people in the audience?

a) yes b) yes, but only with general comments, such as, ‘Thank you, thank you’ c) yes, as long as this does not turn into an imagined dialogue d) no

25. The speaker must announce who she/he is, and also, who and what the dinner is for…

a) yes b) this is necessary but can be explicit or implied c) no, because the imaginary audience would already know all of this d) 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) stop the speaker b) let the speech continue but downgrade the content c) let the other person feel offended d) 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) not if the passage is well-known b) yes, unless the reason is obvious c) no, but they are required to give a relevant introduction d) only if they do not have an introduction 28. The higher the quality of the chosen passage, the higher the score you should award the reader…

a) yes b) no c) only for the content mark d) 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


31. Older passages are better than more recent ones…

a) not necessarily b) often c) usually d) yes



32. A reading from complex literature should, on average, be given higher marks than a simpler reading…

a) yes b) if two speakers have done equally well in all other respects c) no d) if the choice is well-justified

33. Passages are better than poems…

a) yes, because the reader is given more freedom with pacing and stress patterns b) no, it all depends on how well the reader interprets the materials c) yes because passages are easier to edit and fit into the time constraints d) 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) readers should choose passages that match their own gender b) stereotyping c) whether the reader is male or female should be irrelevant d) dominant characters should be a significant guide when considering the gender of the reader

35. How important is the context of the reading?

a) irrelevant as all readings are only short excerpts anyway b) sometimes relevant, especially where the passage is translated from a different language c) important if the passage refers to historical events and characters d) 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) yes b) any format, yes, but memorised speeches are permissible if relevant c) no, the format has to follow agreed guidelines d) 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) yes b) this is only relevant to speakers and speeches delivered in the same room c) this is not a problem, the Impromptu format allows the speaker to use anything they feel is relevant d) plagiarism, yes, but self-plagiarism is acceptable



38. In general, funny speeches are better…

a) yes, and these nearly always get a better reaction from the judges b) there should be some humour to show that the speaker can connect with his/her audience c) this is only true where the topic is whimsical to start with d) no, these speeches can be amusing, serious or anything in between

39. The speech must be relevant to the topic chosen…

a) this is entirely dependent on how the speaker interprets the topic b) what is relevant for one person is not necessarily relevant for another c) yes, that is why we give topics in the first place d) 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) no b) yes c) yes, but it can be given implicitly d) it is unnecessary

41. The speaker should not be self-referential…

a) it all depends on to what extent b) this is not a problem because the references could be false or rhetorical devices c) yes, because the candidate is given a topic – the topic is not themselves d) yes, because this is lazy 42. The candidate should speak as themselves and not as a chosen character…

a) yes b) no, the speaker can adopt a character c) as long as the speech is primarily from the speaker’s perspective, some use of character is acceptable d) only if the character is the topic, such as ‘Batman’

43. Speeches should not be re-cycled from earlier rounds…

a) not possible because the topics for each round are different b) of course, this is impromptu c) if a speech was successful, the speaker is free to re-use the content but must present it in a fresh way d) 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) British Parliamentary b) World Schools c) Policy Debating d) no style is necessarily the best

45. Is it acceptable for speakers to mix debating styles?

a) no, debates should be set up by the Proposition to follow a single style b) yes, within one speech a speaker can vary his/her approach c) yes but both speakers in a team should use the same mixture of styles d) it is not recommended

46. Should judges focus on the progress of the debate or the individual performances within the debate?

a) both should be followed, equally b) overall progress is more important than individual performances c) the individual performances should be prioritised d) 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) nothing special, judge as normal b) penalise the speaker for doing this c) sympathise with the victim and judge sympathetically d) 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) no, all rebuttal should be completed in the Second Speaker’s speech b) no because this closing speech can only summarise the main points and flow of the debate c) yes, but only if the points have not been rebutted before d) 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) yes, no restrictions b) yes, but the difference should not be large c) no, it is always wrong d) 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) neither, it is a natural part of any debate b) both c) the First Speaker d) 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) no-one, but take note and wait to see how the Opposing team deal with this b) penalise the Second Speaker for poor teamwork c) penalise the First Speaker for giving the wrong directions d) take no special action unless it is clear why this happened

52. Can an opposing team challenge the definition being used?

a) yes b) no c) only if the definition has been written down d) only if there is a major deviation from the definition

53. Do speakers have to take Points of Information (POIs)?

a) only if they have time b) yes, but how many is up to them c) some POIs are expected as part of the process of engagement d) 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) yes b) no, but at least one must offer them c) if only one offers, he/she must offer at least two POIs d) 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) penalise them in every single category b) try hard to construct the case from what can be made out c) give a low content and style mark d) 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) yes b) no c) yes if the debate is a policy debate d) only if the debate is based on principles



57. How should judges deal with barracking (over-zealous offering of POIs)?

a) look to see how effective the barracking is b) give the speaker credit if they can take extra POIs c) count the number of POIs offered and deduct marks accordingly at the end d) 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) it depends on which speaker we are considering b) they are failing to engage with what the Opposing team has said: downgrade c) if they have used the time well to present their own material, ignore d) 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) a lot of credit b) it is the Final Speaker who finishes the debate and, as such, should get all the credit for what they say c) this credit should be shared d) 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) of course b) if there are many of them and they interrupt the logic c) yes, especially if the speaker has deliberately altered facts d) not at all

61. Should speakers refer to each other by name in the debate?

a) only if all four speakers do this b) if the names are formal, not familiar c) no d) 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) no, never – it is always wrong b) yes, every debate has a natural case line c) if a team has missed out an important point or line of argument d) 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) yes, it is the most effective way to judge b) yes, it makes the judging less subjective c) if the points were made clearly d) no, debating is about the quality of the arguments, not the number



64. Which is the most important criteria for judging?

a) no particular factor b) content c) look at the marks awarded for each category on the ballot sheet (score sheet) d) style

65. Does the First Speaker have their times from both grace periods added to see whether a penalty should

be added?

a) yes, but this is done in the Tab Room b) yes, but the Time Keeper & Room Manager will do this c) only if the total exceeds 15 seconds d) no

.

widpsc judges briefing - general

Documents

judging guide

dear judges

multiple choice briefing

written notes

previous tournaments

wider pool of judges

previous widpsc events

briefing sessions