• Point deduction for the same issue under different criteria, WITHOUT connecting that issue to each criterion

In the Introduction/Transitions section, 1 point was taken off, but there was no feedback as to why

Again in the Conveying Meaning section, 2 points were deducted, but only one critique/suggestion is given. I

Score: 4
Score: 4 Do the speakers provide well-written introduction/transitions that include title and author of the work(s) as well as sufficient information to set the mood and
tone for the material? Do the introduction and any transitions help the presentation move along smoothly? Are introduction and any transitions presented
without the use of notes?
Lean in, walking forward bumped intensity right away. This topic interests me a lot, and since your author makes things “fun and interesting,” it was a
good call for you to make your speech operate the same way.

Score: 3
How does the group portray its understanding of the literature and intended meaning to the audience? How effectively do the speakers express the intellectual
(what is happening), emotional (how it feels), and sensory experiences of the material?
Again, as above, the presentation is in line with the topic and the author’s approach for discussing it. When the author landed in poop, I wanted more
disgust, more rage, more intrigue!

I think the adjudicator says to “lean in” meaning to be more assertive or more active. I think that is a comment that is a judgment and the adjudicator took off a point. In the second instance, the adjudicator is also providing some feedback and took off two points which is the prerogative of the adjudicator as to how many points to deduct.

The referee committee believes that a point should be restored under the introduction. The committee does uphold the points deducted for conveying of meaning. A 3 means “developing, needs additional coaching/practice.” It is the prerogative of the adjudicator to deduct points. The adjudicator does state that they wanted more disgust, more rage, more intrigue.