Adjudication Briefing - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Adjudication Briefing

AdjCore

of Japan BP 2014Slide2

Table of Contents

●Basic

Rule●Role of Adjudicator●Process of Adjudication●Criteria of Adjudication

●

Speaker’s

Point

●

Evaluation of Adjudicator

●

Evaluation PointSlide3

Basic RuleSlide4

Basic Rule

●British Parliamentary style

●Preparation time: 15 min●Speech: 7 min (Do not take notes after 7:10)

●POIs are allowed between 1 and 6 min.Slide5

Basic Rule

●Main

Break: 24 teams / Novice Break: 4 teams ※Teams consisting of two freshmen are eligible for Novice Break

.

●

Main Speaker Award: 10 individuals (tentative)

●

Novice Speaker Award:

3

individuals

(tentative

)

●

Adjudicator Award: 10 individuals

(tentative

)Slide6

Basic

Rule

●Judging-in-English policy ・All adjudicators are highly encouraged to write their adjudication tests, discuss with other adjudicators, and provide oral adjudication in English.

・

If circumstantially

inappropriate

and/or

impossible,

use Japanese as well as English

. (Ex. freshmen in the rounds, impossible to conclude the discussion)Slide7

Basic

Rule

●Judging-in-English policy ・Do not underevaluate those who are just not good at speaking English (e.g., in terms of pronunciation, grammar). Evaluate what they say.

・

Personal feedback can be made in any language after rounds.Slide8

Basic

Rule

●Mandatory POI rule ・Each speaker is obliged to accept at least one POI if more than three POIs in total are offered by an entire opponent bench. ・The chair should remind speakers to take POI at six minute of the speech in the case that the speaker continues to refuse to do so.Slide9

Basic

Rule

●Conflict ・For institutional teams - Adjudicators from or representing the institution - Adjudicators with the personal conflict

・

For composite teams

- Adjudicators representing the team

- Adjudicators with the personal conflictSlide10

Role of AdjudicatorSlide11

Role of Adjudicator

(1) Decide a ranking

individually (Chair/Panel/Trainee)(2) Discuss with other adjudicators (Chair/Panel)(3) Provide oral adjudication (Chair)

(4) Provide personal feedback

(Chair/Panel/Trainee)

※(1) and (2) will be evaluated among judges.

※(3) will be evaluated by debaters. Slide12

Role of Adjudicator

(1) Decide a ranking individually

(Chair/Panel/Trainee) ・As an Average Intelligent Voter: who is logical and holistic without any bias and specific knowledge. ・Consider how the particular team was more or less persuasive than other three teams in terms of contribution for the bench-winning.Slide13

Role of Adjudicator

(2) Discuss with other

adjudicators (Chair/Panel) ・Be active and considerate of other adjudicators. ・The aim of discussion is not only to share and conclude the ranking and speaker’s points, but also to prepare a convincing reason for decision for subsequent oral adjudication

.Slide14

Role of Adjudicator

(3) Provide oral

adjudication (Chair) ・Be logical and holistic. ・Organize oral adjudication for

debaters to understand it as easily as possible.

・

Kindly answer questions asked by debaters

.Slide15

Role of Adjudicator

(4) Provide personal feedback (Chair/Panel/Trainee)

・Be friendly and kindly. ・Breaking adjudicators are required to provide personal feedback to debaters as soon as the each result of break rounds is announced

and until the next round starts (within

10 min

).Slide16

Process of AdjudicationSlide17

Process of Adjudication

●0min- (1) Decide a ranking

individually●5min- (2) Discuss with other adjudicators●15min- Score and vote (if necessary)●20min- (3) Provide oral adjudication

●30min- Leave the round

room

(

4) Provide personal

feedbackSlide18

Process of Adjudication

●Vote if impossible to reach a consensus

.●The chair has two votes when the total number of adjudicators is even.●If the chair becomes minority in voting, one of the panels has to provide oral adjudication. ●

However, it does not affect the evaluation procedure among adjudicators.Slide19

Criteria of AdjudicationSlide20

Criteria of Adjudication

(A) Matter

(B) Manner(C) Role fulfillment (D) Technicalities ※Consider these criteria holistically.Slide21

Criteria of Adjudication

(A) Matter: Argument/ Reasoning / Example/ Relevancy / Rebuttal / POI

・Do not ignore POIs as contribution.(B) Manner: Framing / Structure / Word choice / Time management / Body language

・

Speeches exceeding

7:30

can lower the speaker’s

point (not automatically).Slide22

Criteria of Adjudication

(C) Role fulfillment –

the violation of ・The violation of role fulfillment can lower the ranking as well as speaker’s point (not automatically).

・

Explain how and to what extent the violation of role fulfillment influenced the entire ranking.Slide23

Criteria of Adjudication

(C) Role fulfillment –

Extension ・Necessary analysis for bench-winning that Opening half has not explained. ・Broader concept of arguments, which does not necessarily require the set of SQ/AP/ Impact or Abstraction/Analogy/Applicability.Slide24

Criteria of Adjudication

(C) Role fulfillment –

Extension ・Evaluate extensions by considering how they changed the entire debate and contributed to bench-winning. ・Completely new but irrelevant extensions should not be evaluated. Vice versa, relevant but similar extensions should be.Slide25

Criteria of Adjudication

(C) Role fulfillment –

Whip speech ・Summarize the round. ・Highlight the extensions by showing their importance.

・

Offer rebuttal to the opponents.Slide26

Criteria of Adjudication

(C) Role fulfillment –

Whip speech ・Evaluate new framing, examples, and rebuttals unless they are substantially new. ・Gov Whip is highly discouraged to provide new substantive arguments.

・

Opp

Whip is prohibited to provide new substantive arguments.Slide27

Criteria of Adjudication

(D) Technicalities –

Dynamics ・Take the order of speakers and POI into account. (Ex. e

ven

if CO refuted OG well, it does

not

automatically

mean CO will be evaluated over OG

.)Slide28

Criteria of Adjudication

(D) Technicalities –

Knifing ・Knifing is the situation where closing team is significantly contradictory to opening. ・Knifing can lower the ranking (not automatically).

・

Consider

the gravity of knifing. Slide29

Speaker’s PointSlide30

Speaker’s Point

●Range: 65-85 (no 0.5 point)

●No low win and tie win.●Criteria of speaker’s point: (A) Matter/ (B) Manner/ (C) Role fulfillment ※Consider these criteria holistically.Slide31

Speaker’s Point

●Extremely poor: 65-67

●Deserve the 4th place constantly. (A) Completely irrelevant. No argumentation and rebuttal. (B) Impossible to follow the speech. (C) Not try to fulfill the role.Slide32

Speaker’s Point

●Poor: 68-70

●Deserve the 3rd or 4th place constantly. (A) Mostly irreverent. Severe lack of argumentation and rebuttal. (B) Possible but still hard to follow the speech. (C) Try to but fail to fulfill the role.Slide33

Speaker’s Point

●Below average: 71-73

●Deserve the 3rd place constantly. (A) Somehow relevant but still lack of argumentation and rebuttal. (B) Not persuasive enough. (C) Not enough fulfillment of the role.Slide34

Speaker’s Point

●Average: 74-76

●Deserve the 2nd or 3rd place constantly. (A) Mostly relevant. Enough argumentation and rebuttal. (B) Somehow persuasive. (C) Somehow fulfill the role.Slide35

Speaker’s Point

●Above average: 77-79 (possibly break)

●Deserve the 2nd place constantly. (A) Everything relevant. Some strong argumentation and rebuttal. (B) Persuasive enough. (C) Fairly fulfill the role.Slide36

Speaker’s Point

●Good: 80-82 (definitely break)

●Deserve the 1st and 2nd place constantly. (A) Mostly strong argumentation and rebuttal. (B) Very persuasive. Some outstanding framing and word choice. (C) Effectively utilize the role for the speech.Slide37

Speaker’s Point

●Brilliant: 83-85 (possibly proceed to GF)

●Deserve the 1st place constantly. (A) All strong argumentation and rebuttal. (B) Mostly outstanding framing and word choice. (C) Perfectly utilize the role for the speech.Slide38

Evaluation of AdjudicatorSlide39

Evaluation of Adjudicator

●Breaking adjudicators and

Adjudicator Award ・The selection of breaking adjudicators are mostly based on total evaluation points, with consideration of comments on evaluation sheets (if necessary).

・

Institutional diversity never affect the selection.

・

The

number of breaking adjudicators depends on the distribution of the total evaluation points.Slide40

Evaluation of Adjudicator

●Breaking

adjudicators and Adjudicator Award ・The nomination of Adjudicator Award is solely based on evaluation points in preliminary rounds and not those

of

break rounds.

※Evaluation of adjudicator is also conducted in break rounds, which can be used for deciding subsequent allocation (Chair

<=>

Panel only).Slide41

Evaluation of Adjudicator

●Components

of total evaluation points ・Those who were exempted from the adjudication test - Evaluation in rounds: 100% (25% for each)

・

Those who submitted the

adjudication

test

- The

adjudication

test:

20

%

- Evaluation in rounds:

80

% (20% for each)Slide42

Evaluation of Adjudicator

●Components

of evaluation in open rounds(Round 1 - Round 3) ・Chair (or Panel who provides oral adjudication) - By

adjudicators: 50%

- By

debaters

:

50%

・

Panel / Trainee

- By

a chair: 100%Slide43

Evaluation of Adjudicator

●Components of

evaluation in silent rounds(Round 4 and Break Rounds) ・Chair - By panels: 100%

・

Panel / Trainee

- By

a chair

:

100%Slide44

Evaluation of Adjudicator

●What to evaluate in rounds

・Chair <=> Panel (two questions) - (1) Ability of deciding the ranking individually

“Was his/her initial decision logical, holistic, and

understandable?”

-

(2) Ability of discussing with other

adjudicators

“Did he/she contribute to the discussion?”Slide45

Evaluation of Adjudicator

●What to evaluate in rounds

・Chair => Trainee (one question) - (1) Ability of deciding the ranking individually

“Was his/her initial decision logical, holistic, and

understandable?”

※Trainees are not able to evaluate chairs and

participate in the discussion.Slide46

Evaluation of Adjudicator

●What to evaluate in rounds

・Debater => Chair (one question) - (3) Ability of providing oral adjudication

“Was his/her oral adjudication logical, holistic, and

understandable?”Slide47

Evaluation PointSlide48

Evaluation

Point

●Range: 1-10 (no 0.5 point)●Write a comment regardless of points you give.●Ask questions if something unclear.●Give points you think appropriate. (

AdjCore

will only publicize the individual average evaluation points and not those of each round.)Slide49

Evaluation Point

●Should be a trainee: 1-2

(1)/(3) The explanation is completely not logical, holistic nor understandable at all. Should not have a vote in any round. (2) Extremely passive or not considerate to other adjudicators in the discussion. Do not want to have him/her in the discussion of future rounds.Slide50

Evaluation Point

●Should be a panel: 3-4

(1)/(3) The explanation is not logical, holistic, or understandable enough. Can have a vote in easy-judging rounds but cannot in important rounds. (2) Participate in but not contribute to the discussion. Still passive or not considerate.Slide51

Evaluation Point

●Can be a chair: 5-6

(1)/(3) The explanation is somehow logical and holistic, but not understandable in all of its details. Can have a vote in important rounds but cannot in break rounds. (2) Somehow contribute to the discussion but still room for improvement.Slide52

Evaluation Point

●Should be a chair: 7-8 (possibly break)

(1)/(3) The explanation is logical and holistic enough, and understandable in most of its details. Should have a vote in important rounds and possibly in break rounds. (2) Contribute to the discussion well. Want to have him/her in the discussion of future rounds.Slide53

Evaluation Point

●Must be a chair: 9-10 (definitely break)

(1)/(3) The explanation is very logical and holistic, and understandable in all of its details. Should have a vote in important rounds as well as break rounds. (2) Contribute to the discussion very well.

Definitely necessary

to have him/her in the discussion of future rounds.Slide54

Any Question?