Judge Policy

Professionalism Expectations

Our expectation for judges is that they will provide constructive and educational feedback for students. Debates are an extension of the classroom and as such require judges to behave in a professional manner while at the tournament. Our tournament and school administration believe strongly that a safe and friendly learning environment is necessary for students to develop in debate. All judges should work to encourage that environment.

We ask that judges refrain from posting inflammatory, derogatory, and negative comments on the Internet about any of the debates they’ve observed or students they’ve judged. Judges who create uncomfortable environments for students due to their Internet comments or are found to be inciting cyber bullying of any competitor may be asked to leave the tournament. The program hiring this judge will be held financially accountable for fulfilling the judge’s remaining obligation.

Mutually Preferred Judging and Obligations

Mutually preferred judging only works if all available judges are actually available. It is unfair for certain programs to shoulder the judge burden, because other programs fail to meet their obligations. When judges are unavailable despite being obligated, it denies other programs the opportunity to have mutually preferred critics evaluate their students. Therefore, we have set forth specific policies to provide the most educational experience for debaters attending the Trevian Invitational.

Programs are required to supply 3 rounds of preliminary judging for each of their teams competing in the tournament. A limited amount of rounds are available for hire.

Programs who fail to provide judging for elimination rounds that the school's judges are obligated for may have their team's preferences deactivated for the remainder of the tournament. 

Judges may only place themselves in the elimination round judge pool if they are registered for a minimum of 1 preliminary round.

Programs who will have “part time” judges (judges will only be available on certain days) must contact the tournament director directly. 

All judges are obligated for the double-octafinal round. All judges are obligated one round past their program’s elimination for the tournament. 

Unfortunately, due to past experiences with missing judges or judge availability the tournament will be instituting a fine for missed obligations. Judges who miss any preliminary or elimination round commitments will cause their program to incur a $75 fine per round missed.

Judges who indicate that they are fulfilling a full commitment (6 debates) may not indicate that they are unavailable for particular rounds in their judge notes. If a judge indicates that they are fulfilling a full commitment, but then indicates that they are unavailable for particular rounds, then the tournament will fine that judge’s program $75 per round that the judge is unavailable.

Every judge must have a judge philosophy posted at judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com OR posted under the “paradigm” section of their Tabroom account. It is the responsibility of every program to ensure that their judges have a philosophy posted. If a program’s judge does not have a philosophy posted, then that program’s judge preferences will be deactivated for the tournament. We will do our best to inform programs if their judges do not have judge philosophies, but schools should hold themselves accountable for their program's judging and confirm that these individuals have posted philosophies. 

Lastly, programs that have not fulfilled their judging obligation will be unable to take part in the mutual preference system. Tabroom will not allow you to fill out a judge preference sheet unless your commitment has been met.