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

Deducted a point under the wrong category
Did not connect point deductions to the standard

I want to thank Ms. Gee for her willingness to be an adjudicator for forensics–I want to be clear that I don’t think that she is a poor adjudicator. I am struggling to frame her ballot with my student. Under Introduction/Transitions she deducted a point for lack of eye contact which is not evaluated in that section, only noting that introduction and transitions were well written and articulate, and that he should have made “eye contact to more of the audience.” Under Physical Delivery where she should have taken the point for eye contact, she noted that it was fine the rest of the performance. Rather than provide a rationale for the point deduction there, she suggested what she would have done differently at one specific point in the presentation. Under physical delivery, she complemented his performance and eye contact, the only critical comment was that she would have carried one bit a little further– Is this an issue with blocking? Miming? Maintaining focal points for dialogue? Was it not portrayed realistic enough? Those are the criterion, and I don’t know what to tell him. It just seems super subjective and unfair. At state when it is only one judge, it can’t be that way.

I agree that we should restore one point under introduction. The adjudicator takes off the point for eye contact as well in delivery. I think this is fairly straightforward.

Double-jeopardy – the adjudicator took off a point for eye contact as well in delivery.