Who is the best

[FundamentalPrecepts]

Are judges' meetings not open to students? I guess I've never really considered that issue.

[Triple7]

One of the main concerns that I have is when Judges tend to put on a show themselves.  The role and duty of the presiding judge is to administrate, not perform.  All too often I see a presiding judge who will sustain objections before they are even made.  True, it does simulate real life where we will have judges come at you from all different angles, but the reason WHY we make objections is to show articulation and knowledge of the case.  You can look at the powerpoint they use in the Judges meetings and it would be nice if they could update it a bit more.

I personally am not going to make a powerpoint and email it, I have finals.  I think the seriousness of these trials needs to be taken into consideration and reign in some of the drama from the judges. (Of course thats hard when you get attorneys..)

 

[The Gelf]

I've never seen anybody get kicked out of a judge's meeting, and I don't know what the rationale would be for closing them to students.   For the most part, the Judge's Meetings I've been to closely track the power-point presentation that's on the AMTA website.  In most judge's meetings I was at, the judges were given a very general outline of the case -- it's a sentencing hearing, the rules of evidence fully apply, and I THINK the Alford Plea was also mentioned, but I could be wrong.

Unfortunately,  something could be hammered and hammered at the Judge's Meeting (Score as you go!), and the judges will still make mistakes if they aren't listening, didn't register it, etc . . . .  As far as what the judges are coming into the round knowing, the safest assumption would be tha they know absolutely NOTHING.

[Triple7]

I think the only problem with letting the competitors in the room is simply to shield from forming prejudices, etc. 

I have seen all to often where a team is goofing around and jumping and acting out (its fine, we are still young adults and its a way to release stress, not condemning it).

I think it is best to keep them separated until the judge comes into contact in that round.

[MosDef]

i agree with that opinion but I just don't think that will ever happen.  I have tried recruiting judges before for an invitational.  its pretty difficult just to get them to judge- and i highly doubt you could make any of them train- even for money.

[Rane]

Sorry, I just figured they may have been ONLY for judges. But since Captain's are usually going on at the same time, and the team members who aren't in Captain's are trying to set up the court room, it would be a little difficult to find someone that could go to a judge's meeting, write down important notes from the meeting, and then relay it back to the team who's trying to prep for the round.

[The Gelf]

I see what you're saying MosDef, especially because even recruiting judges for our intra-team scrimmages can be difficult, and all we need is 4 per round. But I also think that we should have special standards for Golds.

We put so much time and effort into these cases, I think that we can put more into getting good judges for Golds. Which is not to say we don't already, I know how difficult it is every year and I'm not saying the tournaments don't do a great job as is. But I do think it was disappointing to have judges with arbitrary standards or little experience judging the fourth round at Golds between two very good teams. I know you can't really "prevent" that, but I'm trying to think of ways to mitigate it...so I'm just trying to start a brainstorm to see if we can't think of incentives or new ways of thinking about judges' meetings.

Besides we can dream about judges being trained can't we!?

I'm not sure what exactly we'd be "training" judges to do.  Every judges has arbitrary standards, at least to an extent.  The scoring rubric is purposefully vague, and judges are told to score based on what they PERSONALLY find effective.  That's why we have independent scoring - so that multiple perspectives can be incorporated. 

[mockie mockie]

I think it would be helpful to know the background of the judges prior to the trial beginning. I was on my school's debate team for a couple of years and it was always helpful to know the background of the judge before the round began. I know I would approach the judge who was AMTA affiliated or a coach a bit differently than an unaffiliated attorney or judge. Sometimes it is the little things that make the difference on a close ballot.

[MT4e]

Also I should clarify something: I do not think that it should be AMTA's responsibility to find more funds to pay judges, or to work harder to recruit them.

I fully agree. I think it should be up to each individual school to pay the judges. When a judge walks into a round, each school should put some cash in an envelope and deliver it to judge. The envelope with more money is the clear winner. Its so simple, yet so genius!

[The Gelf]

Yes, that is a good point Gelf, especially because it is hard to distinguish between a judge simply having different standards then you think they should, and a judge actually judging in an arbitrary/"ridiculous" way. This is really up for individual interpretation, and I'm sure that in many rounds the a losing team sees it far differently than the winning team! How to distinguish between those I'm not quite sure. 

But for example, in olympic sports with judging they have a pretty good idea of what will be deducted because there are some ranges (I think? I don't really watch figure skating) for how much, in general, to deduct for each violation. Maybe something similar be handed out to judges, so that a team doesn't get a 0 on cross because a judge just hates re-crosses, and they did one? Or so a witness doesn't receive all 3s because a judge just doesn't think Dr. Montana should be called in this case? I think most teams will still call Dr. M and might still recross, and many people would advise them to, but they maybe just lost a round because they happened to hit a judge to whom those things were completely inexcusable, beyond all else. That goes beyond, in my opinion, what we should strive for in terms of subjectivity in judging.

Such guidelines would leave it up to the judge but at least gives some idea of how much to punish a team.

But how much to punish a team is ENTIRELY within the judge's discretion.  There's nothing wrong with a judge giving 1's and 3's as long as that judge is using the same general standard to evaluate both teams.  Indeed, this is exactly what I've heard said in more than one judge's meeting.  I also have no problem with a judge deducting (even severely so)  if they don't see what a particular witness adds to the case.  While the scoring shouldn't ultimately be based on the merits, as a judge, I expect each of the witnesses to add SOMETHING to the case theory the team is trying to present.  It's the job of the attorney and witness to make it abundantly clear why the witness is being called and what he/she is adding to the case. 

With respect to re-cross, if the judge legitimately thinks that the recross took away from the overall effectiveness of the cross-examination, then it's perfectly proper to deduct.  Strategically, I don't think re-cross is usually necessary.  Most judges probably write their scores down after the initial cross, and the re-cross, for the most part, isn't going to change it.  And most of the time, it's something that was covered in the initial cross anyway.  So you just end up wasting what could be valuable time.  In four years of judging close to 30 rounds and scrimmages, I don't remember ever saying or writing to a team "You should have re-crossed on point x."  Nor do I recall a fellow judge ever saying that. 

Think of it also from a practical and human standpoint.  You have a judge volunteering his or her time to sit through a three-hour round.  Most judges are not mock trial-lovers like I am and probably want to get out of there as quickly as they can.  When they hear "re-cross" after a long direct, cross and re-direct, their reaction is probably, for the most part, going to internally be "Can't we move on already?"

[MosDef]

Im ganna change the subject here because I am starting to notice a trend.  Last year, I had never heard of Bowling Green Mock Trial. This year I feel like everyone hates them.
I first noticed when at golds they got the least applause for their awards, and now, despite a decent finish at gold- they are one of the only teams on this poll with no votes. 
I have never hot them, or heard of anyone firsthand who did.  Can somene fill me in on this. or are my perceptions totaly out of wack and these are just coincidences?

[Kantessaw]

You're not out of wack, they're not the nicest or friendliest team and I heard they pissed a lot of people off at regionals with their demonstrative of AIDS victims or something
Anyone midwest teams know more about that?  I heard it was kinda a big deal at their regional

[MosDef]

Did they actually have pictures of AIDS patients or something?  If so, how did that slide?  That's really bad.  I can't believe AMTA allowed that, or judges even let them win with that?  ugh, thats rough

[FundamentalPrecepts]

There's quite a bit of discussion in another thread, though I can't remember which one. But I think it was the thread about whatever regional they competed in.

My team competed against what I assume was Bowling Green B in the first round at the Waukegan national. They seemed like a perfectly nice team, and they were quite solid in trial.

[Hova]

I've seen Bowling Green a couple times. I'm sure our other team has as well. Uriah Harrell seemed like a nice guy. The rest I could not see again and not lose sleep over.

They're not bad. But they are certainly not good.