The “resolution” column will show the outcome of the committee’s deliberations, once added by the chair/Speech Advisor.
Number of records to review: 13
Serial | 13* |
---|---|
Date Updated | 05/05/2023 |
Category | Group Interpretive Reading |
Contestant Name(s) | Eli Lindsey, Drew Aschilman, Malea Aschilman, Laci Lindsey, Landon Thousand |
Nature of Concern |
|
Describe concern | Deduction of a point without connecting it to a criterion under which the point was deducted. |
What adjudicator specifically wrote or did | Respectfully, a point was deducted either because students didn’t continue talking while transitioning or because they didn’t have a “Bang” at the end. If they had talked during their transitions, they could have easily been docked for doing so by a different judge. I don’t know what it means to end on a “Bang,” or how that relates to the criterion. Both of these critiques are highly subjective, and while I understand that you cannot remove all subjectivity for adjudicating, at state, it should be clear why points were deducted so students can learn and improve. I would like to note that I do appreciate Ms. Devlow’s time and willingness to adjudicate, Thank You. |
Evaluation Sheet(s) | |
Round/Time | They were adjudicated in the virtual round |
Committee Review | |
Initial Advisor Comments | The adjudicator did comment on overall effect by stating that in places, the performance was a bit choppy. This is directly related to “overall performance.” |
Resolution: | Denied |
Disposition | The adjudicator did comment on overall effect by stating that in places, the performance was a bit choppy. This is directly related to “overall performance.” |
Result Number | 0 |