Quals

Results
Tournament Results
Photo Gallery
Outround Movies

Forms
Registration
Billing Invoice
Judging Questionnaire

Information
Nats Bid
Nats Invitation
Hotel Photos
Fun Activities
Dining Menu
Schedule
Directions
Campus Map
Contact

Tab Policies
Point Scale
Pairings & Awards
Judging

Links
APDA
Swat Debate

This document is also available in MS Word format.

Centering:

• The tournament is centered on a 24. This means that the average speech given at the average APDA tournament is worth 24 points.
• If you’re used to tournaments that center on a 25, you need to re-calibrate your sense of what the different point values are worth. The simplest way to do this is by subtracting one point from the scores you would normally give.
• Because this is Nationals, most speeches will probably be better than a 24, although some will certainly deserve scores of 24 and lower. Think of this as the inverse of a novice tournament centering on a 24. Most of the novice speeches would probably be worse than the average APDA speech, although some would almost certainly deserve scores of 24 and higher.

• Once a round is over, you should turn in your "white sheet" ballot to Tab AS SOON AS you have assigned a winner, speaker points, and ranks. For those of you who are temporally challenged (and at every tournament, we get a few judges who are), this means BEFORE writing your RFD and speaker comments.
• You may either hand-write your RFD and speaker comments on the paper ballot, or use a computer to type them. We have reserved a judges-only computer lab with template ballots, a printer, and a tournament staffer to answer any questions. The computers are a courtesy to those of you who don’t like writing really small. We don’t care which method you prefer to use.
• RFDs should be carefully considered and coherent. They should discuss the relevant stylistic and technical aspects of the round as well as all the important analytical points. In addition to the overall reasons for your decision, debaters should understand what the most important issues were, and why the teams that won them did so.
• In addition to an RFD, every ballot must have detailed comments for each speaker. These comments should cover both the analytic and stylistic elements of each debater’s performance. In addition to receiving general feedback, speakers should understand the reasons behind the speaker score and rank that you gave them.
• If you judge an outround, you will be required to write an RFD. The RFD should be as extensive as an in-rounds RFD. In outrounds, speaker points, ranks, and individual speaker comments are optional.

• Any score below 24.0 or above 26.5 must be orally justified to the Tab Director.
• This does NOT mean that we expect the average speech at Nats to necessarily be between a 25.0 and a 25.5. It means that debaters are more likely to complain about lower scores, and we’re covering our own asses.
• This also does NOT mean that you should not give scores below 24.0 or above 26.5. We will be very surprised if these scores have not been given out several times by the end of in-rounds. Please feel free to give scores that must be orally justified, just understand that we must be more careful about scores in this range and need to talk with you about the rationale behind them.

• You will automatically be Tab-scratched from judging any school with which you are or have been affiliated.
• If you would like to be scratched from any additional teams, for any reason, please tell the Judging and Tab Directors. We will happily honor your request, and (obviously) not penalize you in any way.

• Judges should immediately rule on any time-related points of order offered by any debater in the round. If the round is paneled, these points of order should be ruled on by the chair of the panel.
• In paneled rounds, all other points of order should be taken under consideration and decided separately by each judge on their ballot.
• In rounds with only one judge, all other points of order may either be ruled upon immediately or taken under consideration and decided on the ballot.

• All debaters must feel welcome and unthreatened during rounds. Speakers whose conduct makes this impossible, or who are so rude and/or loud during rounds that they infringe on their competitors’ ability to debate fairly, should be penalized with reduced speaker points. Such conduct should be penalized whether or not the opposing team rises on a Point of Personal Privilege.
• If a debater’s comments or actions are egregiously offensive, judges may penalize them by awarding 20 or fewer speaker points. When debaters misbehave but do so less flagrantly, judges should dock points without marking them all the way down to 20 or below.
• Judges should actively factor the length of speeches into consideration when deciding which team did "the better debating." They should also factor speech length into the assignment of points and ranks. Speakers who deviate from their alloted time limits should have their speaker points reduced. Speakers who ignore time limits should be penalized whether or not the opposing team rises on a Point of Order.

• When assigning speaker scores, you MAY use half points, but you may NOT use smaller fractions or decimals. This means that you can assign as many 25.5s as you like and we’ll still love you. If you try to give a 25.384 or anything like that, though, we will automatically round your ballot to the nearest half point and you will incur our Everlasting Wrath.
• Be fair, but please don’t be a point fairy. We don’t like point fairies.
• NO low-point wins are allowed.
• Please give SEPARATE points and ranks for each position an ironman speaks.
• We will read every ballot from every round. Judges who write extensive RFDs and speaker comments, and who adhere to the point scale, will find themselves paired into much more interesting rounds than judges who don’t.
• If you have any questions about anything, please feel free to ask the tournament staff. If they don’t know the answer, they’ll find someone who does. It’s obviously very important to us that you feel confident with all the judging policies.