|
| |
Please
note that only the pdf file represents
the official version of the rules
ALSO NOTE THAT SUBMISSIONS DUE ON JANUARY 31, 2005 ARE TO BE FILED ELECTRONICALLY BY 11:59 pm EASTERN TIME
|
|
|
|
The Sidley-IIEL WTO
Moot Court Competition |
OFFICIAL
RULE 1.0:
|
ORGANIZATION
OF THE COMPETITION
|
1.1 |
Administration
|
| The Sidley-IIEL
WTO Moot Court Competition (“Competition”)
is co-sponsored by the law firm Sidley Austin
Brown & Wood LLP and the Institute of
International Economic Law (IIEL) at Georgetown
University. The Competition is administered
by a Sidley-IIEL joint Steering Committee
(“Steering Committee”) through
a Competition Office located at Georgetown
University Law Center, Room 461, 600 New
Jersey Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001,
email: inquiries@wtomootcourt.org. |
|
1.1.1 |
Competition
Procedure |
|
The Competition
consists of Rounds in which students compete
as part of teams duly registered at the
Competition Office (see
Official Rule 1.1). |
|
1.1.2 |
Implementation and
Interpretation of Official Rules |
|
The Steering
Committee shall serve as final arbiter regarding
implementation and interpretation of these
Official Rules. The Steering Committee shall
have discretion in the implementation and
interpretation of these Official Rules and
may modify them to deal with unforeseen
circumstances, in which case it shall notify
the participants within a reasonable period
of time. |
|
1.1.3 |
Address for Correspondence |
|
Every
communication, request, or submission to
the Steering Committee pursuant to these
rules shall be made to the Competition Office
(see
Official Rule 1.1). |
| 1.2 |
Team
Representative |
| As part of
its registration for the Competition, each
team shall designate one person to act as
team representative (for example, this person
may be the team captain or faculty advisor).
Written communications by email, fax, or
letter to the team representative shall
constitute communications to all team members.
Each team representative shall: (i) ensure
that the Steering Committee has the appropriate
team contact information; (ii) check the
mail regularly; and (iii) become thoroughly
familiar with the Official Rules and with
any Problem Clarifications that may be issued. |
OFFICIAL RULE 2.0:
|
PARTICIPATION
AND ELIGIBILITY
|
2.1 |
Team
Eligibility |
All law
schools and graduate degree programs related
to international law shall be eligible
to participate in the Competition, upon
formal acceptance by the Steering Committee.
Two institutions that offer a Joint Degree
Program may field one team for the Competition,
provided the Joint Degree is related to
international law.
Graduate programs that are not related
to international law may petition the
Steering Committee for a ruling regarding
eligibility for participation. The Steering
Committee shall consider such petitions
at its discretion, on a case-by-case basis.
The number of participating institutions
is currently limited. Each year, the competition
organizers decide on the number of participant
institutions and select interested institutions
accordingly. Institutions interested in
participating in the future are invited
to contact the Steering Committee.
|
| 2.2 |
Team Member
Eligibility |
Students
currently enrolled in a J.D., LL.M, or
other degree program at a participating
law school, or in a graduate degree program
related to international law, shall be
eligible to participate in the Competition.
Where institutions offering a Joint Degree
Program are not sponsoring a combined
team, students enrolled in the Joint Degree
Program may represent any one of the institutions
that is part of the Joint Degree Program.
Students affiliated with an institutional
unit of a university other than the institutional
unit fielding the team shall be permitted
to participate on that team on a case-by-case
basis at the discretion of the Steering
Committee. (For example, a graduate student
attending a university that is fielding
a law school team, if not enrolled in
a Joint Degree Program with the law school,
may be permitted to participate on the
law school team at the discretion of the
Steering Committee.) |
| 2.3 |
Team Composition
and Selection |
| A team shall
be composed of a minimum of three and a
maximum of six student members. All team
members may be oralists (i.e., team members
making oral submissions on behalf of the
team) in the Competition. However, in any
given session of oral arguments, only two
team members may make oral submissions on
behalf of the team. |
|
2.3.1 |
Internal Team Selection |
|
Each participating
school or program shall be responsible for
the internal selection of its Competition
team. The participating school or program
may select the team by any method approved
by the responsible authority within the
participating school. The selection process
shall be organized to comply with the registration
deadlines for teams and submission of names
of team members (see Official Rules 3.1
and 3.2). |
|
2.3.2 |
Prohibition of Academic
Screening |
|
Participating
schools shall provide all students with
an equal opportunity to apply for the Competition
team. In no instance may grade-point average,
class rank, or any other academic ranking
factor be used to disqualify a student from
applying to participate or participating
in a Competition team, unless a student
is subject to academic probation at the
participating school. |
| 2.4 |
Outside
Assistance to Teams |
| All research,
writing, and editing shall be solely the
product of team members. |
|
2.4.1 |
Assistance from Faculty
Members or Any Other Persons |
|
Outside
assistance rendered to a team in the preparation
of its case by faculty members or any
other persons shall be limited to a general
discussion of the issues, suggestions
as to research sources, consultations
regarding oral advocacy technique, and
decision-making as to pleading option.
Assistance on Written Submissions shall
be limited to general commentary on the
organization, structure, and format of
each Submission.
A team may receive outside assistance
pursuant to this subsection from a maximum
of three persons, including its faculty
advisor(s). |
|
2.4.2 |
Assistance from Librarians
and Other Research Professionals |
|
Assistance
from librarians, computer research advisors,
and other legal resource specialists in
preparing Competition materials shall be
limited to answering specific questions
regarding the location of legal sources
and general methods of legal research. |
|
2.4.3 |
Elimination from Competition |
|
Teams found
to have received inappropriate outside assistance
(e.g., use of non team members as student
researchers or plagiarism) shall be eliminated
from the Competition. |
| 2.5 |
Use of
Opposing Team's Submissions |
| No team shall
view or otherwise become privy to any Submission
other than the respective Complainant and
Respondent Submissions of opposing teams
in the course of Competition Rounds. |
| 2.6 |
Ethical
Violations |
| All allegations
of ethical violations shall be referred
to the Steering Committee. All decisions
regarding ethical violations shall be made
by the Steering Committee after careful
deliberation. All teams involved in an alleged
ethical violation under consideration by
the Steering Committee shall have the right
to be heard (in person or in writing, at
the discretion of the Steering Committee)
before the Steering Committee makes its
final decision. |
| 2.7 |
License
Agreement and Audio/Video Recording Release |
| Participation
in the Competition is conditional on the
agreement of each team member to grant to
the Steering Committee the licenses and
authorizations provided in Official Rules
2.7.1 and 2.7.2. By choosing to participate
in the Competition, a team member expresses
his/her knowledge of, and consent to, these
licenses and authorizations. No separate
consent shall be solicited or required to
render these provisions effective. |
|
2.7.1 |
License Agreement |
|
Each team
member grants to the Steering Committee
a royalty-free, non-exclusive license to
publish, on the internet, in print, or in
any other form, all Written Submissions
or other documents presented by the team,
or by any members thereof, in the course
of the Competition. This license shall be
effective as of the deadline for team registration
posted in the Official Timetable (which
shall be available on the Competition website,
at www.wtomootcourt.org), and shall be of
unlimited duration. |
|
2.7.2 |
Audio/Video Recording
Release |
|
Each team
member authorizes the Steering Committee,
and those acting within its authority, at
no charge: (i) to record his/her appearance
and participation in the Competition on
video tape, audio tape, film, photograph,
or any other medium; (ii) to copy, distribute,
and present these recordings, in whole or
in part, as deemed appropriate by the Steering
Committee, in any and all media existing
or hereafter developed; and (iii) to use
the team member’s name, likeness,
voice and biographical material in connection
with these recordings. This authorization
shall be effective as of the deadline for
team registration posted in the Official
Timetable (which shall be available on the
Competition website, at www.wtomootcourt.org),
and shall be of unlimited duration. |
OFFICIAL
RULE 3.0:
|
REGISTRATION OF
TEAMS
|
3.1 |
Registration
of Participating Law Schools and Teams
|
| Each school
participating in the Competition shall submit
written confirmation of its participation
in the Competition at the earliest possible
time, but no later than the date posted
in the Official Timetable, which shall be
available on the Competition website, at
www.wtomootcourt.org.
Submission of details about team members
and team selection is not required by this
date. This deadline requires only that each
participating school shall confirm that
it will field a team for the Competition. |
3.2 |
Team
Member Registration Form
|
| Once a participating
school has selected the team that will represent
it at the Competition (see Official
Rule 2.3), the team shall complete the
Competition
Registration Form and submit this form
to the Competition Office by the date posted
in the Official Timetable, which shall be
available on the Competition website, at
www.wtomootcourt.org.
The Registration Form will require information
about each team member. After submission
of the Registration Form, any changes to
the constitution of a team will require
the express permission of the Steering Committee.
Registration Forms will be made available
to the relevant authorities in each participating
institution and also will be available on
the Competition website, at www.wtomootcourt.org. |
| 3.3 |
Team
Number as Identification |
| Each team
shall be assigned an official team number
selected by the Steering Committee. |
| |
3.3.1 |
Team Number as Identification
on Submissions |
|
Names of
participant schools or names of team members
may not appear on or within Written Submissions.
Teams shall ensure that no references to
team member or school names appear in the
Written Submissions prior to their presentation
to panelists. |
OFFICIAL
RULE 4.0:
|
PANEL MEMBERS
|
4.1 |
Three Member
Panels
|
|
Panels
shall be composed of three individuals.
Students shall not serve as members of
any panel.
|
| |
4.1.1 |
Oral Argument Panelists |
|
Oral Argument
Panelists are encouraged to provide direct
feedback to teams regarding their performance
at the completion of each Round. Panelists
shall not engage in any commentary that
may reveal either the content of the Bench
Memorandum or the winner of a Round. |
| |
4.1.2 |
Submission Panelists |
|
Submission
Panelists should not provide feedback to
teams regarding their performance other
than the official, written feedback provided
through the scoring process. |
| 4.2 |
Persons Excluded
from Service as Panelists
|
| Faculty
advisors or other persons providing outside
assistance to teams pursuant to Official
Rule 2.4.1 shall not serve as panelists
in any Competition Round.
Other persons having
a significant professional or personal
relationship with a school, a team member,
or a team advisor shall not serve as panelists
in Competition Rounds in which the affiliated
parties participate.
The Steering Committee
shall determine, on a case-by-case basis,
whether it is appropriate for persons,
other than faculty advisors, having significant
professional or personal relationships
with participating schools, team members,
or team advisors to serve as panelists
in Competition Rounds in which these affiliated
parties do not participate.
A person who is an
alumnus of a participating school/program
shall not be deemed to have a significant
professional or personal relationship
with the team representing that school/program
merely due to his/her prior attendance.
|
| 4.3 |
Bench
Memorandum
|
| A Bench
Memorandum shall be distributed to the
Panelists for the purpose of briefing them
on the legal issues raised by the Competition
Problem. The Bench Memorandum is strictly
confidential and may not be viewed by any
person other than panelists, Steering Committee
members, and other Competition Organizers.
Any team found making use of the Bench
Memorandum shall be eliminated from the
Competition. Teams discovering a copy of
the Bench Memorandum should immediately
return it, without examining the contents,
to the Competition Office. |
OFFICIAL
RULE 5.0:
|
CLARIFICATIONS
OF THE COMPETITION PROBLEM OR RULES
|
| Teams, acting through
their team representative, may submit
written requests for clarifications of
the Competition Problem or the Official
Rules. A team is responsible for ensuring
that the Competition Office receives its
request in either paper or electronic
form.
In the event that the
Steering Committee issues a clarification
pursuant to such a request, it shall notify
all team representatives of the clarification
simultaneously. The Steering Committee
will also make available any clarifications
on the Competition website, at www.wtomootcourt.org.
All requests for clarification
of the Competition Problem or the Official
Rules shall be made on or before Monday,
January 17, 2005. The Steering Committee
shall not issue clarifications after this
date.
|
OFFICIAL
RULE 6.0:
|
SUBMISSIONS
|
| 6.1 |
Written
Submissions |
Each
team shall prepare Written Submissions
on behalf of both the Complainant and
the Respondent. All Written Submissions
shall be submitted via electronic mail
to the Competition Office no later than
the time and date listed in the Official
Timetable on the Competition website,
at www.wtomootcourt.org.
Each Written Submission shall be formatted
either as a Word for Windows or a Word
Perfect document. No other formats shall
be accepted without express prior consent
from the Steering Committee. All electronic
documents shall be virus-free.
Teams that fail to submit a Written
Submission on time shall be penalized
in accordance
with Official Rule 10. Equipment failure
and/or other logistical problems shall
not be accepted as an excuse for improper
formatting or late filing.
Once presented to the
Competition Office, Written Submissions
shall not be altered.
|
| 6.2 |
Format
of Written Submissions |
| Submissions
shall be typed on U.S. letter size paper
(8.5 by 11 inches). The font and size of
the text of all parts of the Submission,
including footnotes, shall be Times New
Roman, 12 point. The text of all parts
of each Submission, except for footnotes
and quotations of fifty words or more shall
be double-spaced. The text of footnotes
and quotations of fifty words or more may
be single-spaced, but double-spacing shall
be used between separate footnotes, quotations,
and the texts of the arguments. Each page
of a Submission (regardless of content)
shall have margins of at least one inch
or 2.6 centimeters on all sides, excluding
text that appears in headers and footers
(e.g., page numbers). |
| 6.3 |
Parts
of the Written Submissions |
Notwithstanding
any WTO procedural rules, Written Submissions
shall comply with the following provisions:
|
|
6.3.1 |
Statement of the Facts |
|
Each Submission shall include
a full Statement of Facts. The Statement
of Facts shall be limited to the stipulated
facts and necessary inferences from the
problem. The Statement of Facts shall not
include unsupported facts, distortions of
stated facts, argumentative statements,
or legal conclusions. A mere narration of
facts as presented in the Problem is not
sufficient and may negatively impact the
scoring of the Written Submission. |
| |
6.3.2 |
Executive Summary of Arguments |
|
Each Written Submission shall
include an Executive Summary of the Arguments.
The Summary shall consist of a substantive
summation of the arguments presented. The
Summary shall be no more than two pages
in length. |
| |
6.3.3 |
Respondent's Submission |
|
The Respondent’s Submission
shall be drafted in rebuttal form and shall
contain a presentation of the facts and
the pertinent legal argumentation as well
as any applicable affirmative defense. |
| 6.4 |
Length |
| Each Submission,
excluding the cover page and the index/table
of contents, shall be no longer than twenty-five
pages in length on U.S. letter-size paper
measuring 8.5 x 11 inches. |
| 6.5 |
Covers |
The
cover of each Submission shall include:
(a) the team number; (b) the name “Sidley-IIEL
WTO Moot Court Panel”; (c) the
year of the Competition; (d) the name
of the case; and (e) the document title
(i.e., “Complainant’s Submission” or “Respondent’s
Submission”).
|
OFFICIAL
RULE 7.0:
|
COMPETITION ROUNDS
|
|
7.1 |
Structure of the
Rounds
|
| The Competition shall be
divided into Preliminary Rounds and the
Championship Round. During the Preliminary
Rounds, each team shall participate in
three oral argument sessions. Each session
shall consist of the oral argument of the
moot court problem between two participating
teams, with one team representing the Complainant
and the other team representing the Respondent.
Each team shall represent the Complainant
and Respondent at least once in the course
of the three oral argument sessions of
the Preliminary Rounds. Based on the results
of Preliminary Rounds and in accordance
with Official Rule 9.5, two teams shall
be selected to participate in the Championship
Round. |
| 7.2 |
Team Members as
Oralists
|
| As specified in Official
Rule 2.3, in any given session of oral arguments,
only two team members may make oral submissions
on behalf of the team. |
| 7.3 |
Teams Divided into
Three Groups of Four
|
Twelve teams shall participate
in the Competition in 2005. The day before
the Competition, these teams shall be
divided into three groups of four. The
Competition organizers shall “seed”
six teams, based on their Written Submission
scores. The object of the seeding is to
ensure that the Competition Rounds are
evenly balanced. Teams seeded first, second,
and third shall be in different groups.
Teams seeded fourth, fifth, and sixth
shall be in different groups. The Competition
Organizers shall not reveal seedings.
All other determinations regarding these
groupings shall be by lot.
Within each group of four teams, every
team shall argue against every other team
during the Preliminary Rounds.
|
| 7.4 |
The Rounds
|
Preliminary Rounds shall
consist of three sessions of oral arguments
for each team. Each session shall consist
of the oral argument of the moot court
problem between two participating teams,
with one team representing the Complainant
and the other team representing the Respondent.
Each team shall argue at least once as
Complainant and once as Respondent. The
Rounds shall be scheduled over a period
of two days. Preliminary Rounds shall
be held on the first day and the morning
of the second day. The Championship Round
shall be held on the afternoon of the
second day.
Each
session of oral arguments shall last
ninety minutes. Each side shall
be allotted
forty five minutes. The forty five minute
allotment of time shall include oral
arguments, rebuttal or surrebuttal,
and answers to
questions posed by panelists. Each oralist
shall argue for a minimum of twenty minutes
and a maximum of twenty five minutes,
including rebuttal or surrebuttal,
except as provided
in Official Rule 7.4.1. |
|
7.4.1 |
Extension of Time at Panelists' Discretion |
|
Panelists, at their discretion,
may extend total team oral argument time
beyond forty five minutes, up to an additional
ten minutes per team. Such time shall not
be counted against the twenty-five minute
maximum for each oralist. |
| 7.5 |
Pleadings |
|
The order of the oral arguments in each
Competition Round shall be as follows:
Complainant 1 (first oralist)
Complainant 2 (second oralist)
Respondent 1 (first oralist)
Respondent 2 (second oralist)
Rebuttal (Complainant oralist 1 or
2)
Surrebuttal (Respondent oralist
1 or 2) |
|
7.5.1 |
Rebuttal and Surrebuttal |
|
Each team may reserve up
to ten minutes at the start of a Round
for rebuttal or surrebuttal. Only one oralist
may deliver the rebuttal or surrebuttal.
A reservation of up to ten minutes for
rebuttal or surrebuttal counts as part
of the total time allotment for each team
(i.e., maximum forty-five minutes) and
for each team member (i.e., maximum twenty-five
minutes). |
|
7.5.2 |
Scope of Pleadings |
|
The scope of the oral arguments
is limited to the scope of the Written
Submissions. |
| 7.6 |
Ex Parte Procedure |
In extreme circumstances,
such as when a team fails to appear for
a scheduled Round, the Steering Committee
may allow the Round to proceed ex parte.
In an ex parte proceeding, the attending
team presents its oral pleading, which
the panelists shall score as if the team
had appeared against the opposing team.
In such a case, the team that failed to
appear for the scheduled Round shall forfeit
all of the Round's oral argument Round
Points.
The Steering Committee may schedule
an additional ex parte proceeding
for the
absent team later in the Competition,
if time and administrative concerns
permit.
In this case, the scores from the absent
team's ex parte proceeding shall not
affect the scoring of the original
Round and shall
be used only for purposes of calculating
individual oral pleading scores. |
| 7.7 |
Decorum During Oral Arguments |
|
7.7.1 |
Communication between Oralists and
Panelists |
|
Only the panelists and the
oralists may communicate orally during
the oral arguments. During the oral arguments,
team members present at the team table
may communicate with each other or with
any of their team members making oral submissions
only through the exchange of written notes. |
|
7.7.2 |
Oral Communication |
|
Courtesy shall be accorded
to oralists during oral argument. Teams
shall be subject to penalties for unnecessary
noise or any other inappropriate behavior
that distracts from oral argument. |
|
7.7.3 |
Written Communication |
|
No written communication
shall take place between the oralist and
spectators or team members, except those
present at the team table, while oral argument
is in progress. |
|
7.7.4 |
Ex Parte Communication
between Panelists and Participants |
|
There shall be no ex
parte communication between participants and
panelists at any time during the Competition.
In the event that a team or team member
discovers, during the course of the Competition,
that they have inadvertently communicated
with a panelist, it is the obligation
of that team or team member to notify
the
Steering Committee, in writing, to ensure
that the panelist does not judge the
team in oral arguments.
|
|
7.7.5 |
Exhibits |
|
The use of exhibits is prohibited.
No written or other prepared material (e.g.,
maps or diagrams) shall be shown or otherwise
transmitted to panelists during the Competition. |
| 7.8 |
Spectators |
| Subject to Official
Rule 7.8.1, all Rounds shall be open to the
public. |
|
7.8.1 |
Scouting |
|
No team member or person directly
affiliated with any team may attend a session
of oral argument in which a prospective
opposing team is participating, or any other
Preliminary Round session of oral argument
other than those in which their team is
competing, except as waived by the Steering
Committee in the interests of the Competition.
Violation of this Rule shall be considered
impermissible scouting. Scouting is the
observation of competitors, or the receipt
of information regarding competitors, and/or
communication of that information to other
competitors. Participants shall immediately
alert the Steering Committee of scouting. |
| 7.9 |
Audio and Videotaping |
| No audio or videotaping of
oral pleadings shall be permitted without
the advance permission of the Steering Committee
and the affected panelists. Under no circumstances
shall participating teams review videotapes
or audiotapes of Competition Rounds until
after the completion of the Competition.
The IIEL and Sidley Austin Brown & Wood
LLP reserve all rights with regard to audiotaping,
videotaping, and any other form of reproduction
of any Competition Rounds. |
| 7.10 |
Anonymity of Teams during
Rounds |
During Competition
Rounds, teams shall be identified only
by the names of the team members and
the side of the dispute that they represent
(i.e., Complainant or Respondent). Participants
shall not reveal the identity of their
team, directly or indirectly, through
questioning by panelists, name tags,
or any other means including, but not
limited to, the placement of folders
or other materials bearing the name or
logo of the school on the team table.
|
OFFICIAL
RULE 8.0:
|
COMPETITION PAIRING
PROCEDURE
|
|
8.1 |
Determination Complaintants
and Respondents
|
| Once the three groups
of four teams have been established for
the Preliminary Rounds, the order of arguments
and the determination of which team shall
serve as Complainant and Respondent in
each session shall be determined by lot.
Pursuant to these determinations, each
team shall receive copies of the Written
Submissions for the teams that they will
oppose in each Preliminary Round.
For the Championship Round, the order
of arguments and the determination of
sides shall be determined by lot.
|
OFFICIAL
RULE 9.0:
|
COMPETITION SCORING
|
9.1 |
Preliminary
Rounds
|
Scoring
of the Preliminary Rounds shall consist
of two parts: (1) the scoring of the
Written Submissions and (2) the scoring
of the oral arguments.
Three Submission panelists shall review
and score each Submission on a scale
of fifty to one hundred points.
Three oral argument panelists shall
review and score each oral argument
on a scale
of fifty to one hundred points. |
| 9.2 |
Calculation
of Scoring Points |
| Two categories
of points shall be awarded in each stage
of the Competition: (1) Raw Score and (2)
Round Points. |
|
9.2.1
|
Raw Scores |
|
Raw Scores
shall be subject to the deduction of Penalty
Points. |
|
|
9.2.1.1 |
Written Submission Raw Scores |
|
|
In the
Preliminary Rounds, the Total Submission
Raw Score for each team in each session
of oral argument shall be determined
by adding the scores assigned by the
three Submission panelists for the side
(i.e., Complainant or Respondent) that
the team argued in the respective Round.
The Total Competition Submission Raw
Score shall be determined by adding
all six scores
assigned for the Complainant and Respondent
Submissions. |
|
|
9.2.1.2 |
Oral Raw Scores |
|
|
In the Preliminary
Rounds, the Oral Raw Score for each team
in each session of oral argument shall
be determined by adding the scores assigned
by the three panelists for each oralist.
A total of six scores shall be assigned
for each team in each Round of oral argument
(i.e., three scores x two oralists). |
| |
|
9.2.1.3 |
Total Raw Scores |
|
.
|
In the
Preliminary Rounds, the Total Raw Score
for each team in each session of oral
argument shall be the sum of the team's
Total Written Submission Raw Scores (for
either the Complainant or Respondent
Submission, depending on which side the
team is arguing in the particular session)
and the team’s Total Oral Raw Score
in the session.
The Total Competition Raw Score is
determined by adding the Total Raw
Scores from all
of the sessions (the Preliminary Rounds)
in which the team has participated. |
|
9.2.2 |
Round Points |
|
|
9.2.2.1 |
Written Submission Round Points |
|
|
Three Round
Points shall be awarded to Written Submissions
in each session of oral argument. The individual
scores assigned by panelists judging the
Written Submissions for each team participating
in an oral argument shall be compared to
those of the opposing team. The highest
score assigned for each team shall be compared
to the highest score given to the opposing
team in a particular Round. The team with
the higher score shall receive one Round
Point. A similar comparison and assignment
of one Round Point shall take place for
the next highest and, finally, the lowest
score assigned to each Written Submission.
If the highest, middle or lowest Written
Submission score of two teams opposing
each other is identical, then both teams
shall receive 0.5 Round Points. |
|
|
9.2.2.2 |
Oral Argument Round Points |
|
|
Six Round
Points shall be awarded in each session
of oral argument. A team shall receive
two Round Points for each panelist that
assigns it a higher score than its opposing
team (for a possible total of six Round
Points, i.e., two points x three panelists).
If a panelist assigns identical scores
to opposing teams, then each team shall
receive one Round Point. |
|
|
9.2.2.3 |
Total Round Points |
|
|
The Total
Round Points for each Round shall be the
sum of a team's Written Submission Round
Points and its Oral Round Points. |
| 9.3 |
Two-Member Panels |
| In exceptional
instances, a two-member panel for the scoring
of Written Submissions or oral arguments
shall be permissible. A one-member panel
shall not be permissible. In the case of
a two-member panel, the following adaptations
shall be made to the scoring process: |
|
9.3.1 |
Submission Scoring for
Two-Member Panels |
|
Submissions
scored by two-member panels shall have
a third averaged score added to their total.
The third score shall be an average of
the scores of the two Submission panelists.
The third score shall be treated as a third
panelist's score for purposes of calculating
Submission Round Points. |
|
9.3.2 |
Oral Arguments Scoring
for Two-Member Panels |
|
Oral
arguments scored by two-member panels
shall have a third averaged score added
to their total. The third score shall
be an average of the scores of the two
oral panelists. The averaged third score
shall be treated as the third panelist's
score.
The third averaged score may not be used
for purposes of determining the Best Oralist
Award. In such a case, only the two “real” scores
may be averaged with the oralist's scores
in other Rounds. |
| 9.4 |
Determination of Winner
of an Individual Round |
The
winner of each session of oral argument
shall be determined by Round Points.
The team receiving the greatest number
of the nine available Round Points (six
for oral arguments and three for Written
Submissions) shall be the winner of the
Round. If teams have an equal number
of Round Points, then the team with the
highest Total Raw Score shall be the
winner of the Round. Round Points control
over Raw Score in the Preliminary Rounds.
|
| 9.5 |
Determination of Winners
of Preliminary Rounds |
|
9.5.1 |
Win-loss Record, Team
Ranking, and Championship Finalists |
|
The overall
win loss record for the Preliminary Rounds
shall govern team rankings. A winner shall
be designated within each group of four
teams that compete against each other
in the Preliminary Rounds based on the
win-loss record. Thus, three teams shall
be designated winners of the Preliminary
Rounds.
Of these three Preliminary Round winners,
the two teams with the best win-loss records
shall compete as the finalists in the
Championship Round. A team with a win
loss record of 3 0 (three wins, zero losses)
shall rank higher than a team with a win
loss record of 2 1 (two wins, one loss),
and so forth. |
|
9.5.2 |
Total Competition Raw
Scores |
|
If
two or more teams are tied after comparing
win loss records, then the Total Competition
Raw Score shall control and the team
with the highest Total Competition Raw
Score in the Preliminary Rounds shall
be ranked higher. The Total Competition
Raw Score shall be calculated by adding
the Raw Scores from every Round in which
a team has participated.
After the win loss record, the Total
Competition Raw Score shall govern
even when two or
more teams that are tied with the same
win loss record faced each other during
the Preliminary Rounds and the team with
the higher Raw Score was not the winner
of the Round where the two teams opposed
each other. |
|
9.5.3 |
Total Competition Round
Points |
|
If
two or more teams remain tied after comparing
both win loss records and Total Competition
Raw Scores, then the team with the highest
Total Competition Round Points in the
Preliminary Rounds shall be ranked higher.
Total Competition Round Points shall
be calculated by adding the Total
Round Points
from each Round in which a team has participated.
|
|
9.5.4 |
Result of the Oral Arguments
Session of the Two Teams Involved in
a Tie |
|
If two or
more teams remain tied after the application
of Official Rules 9.5.1, 9.5.2, and 9.5.3,
then the team that won the session of oral
arguments in which such teams opposed each
other shall be the team that advances to
the Championship Round. |
|
9.5.5 |
Tie Breaking Procedure
to be Determined by the Steering Committee |
|
If two or
more teams remain tied after the application
of Rule 9.5.4, then the Steering Committee
shall devise a procedure, at its discretion,
to break the tie and determine which team
shall advance to the Championship Round. |
| 9.6 |
Scoring in
the Championship Round |
Special
scoring procedures shall apply in the
Championship Round.
|
|
9.5.1 |
Method of Scoring |
|
Panelists
for the Championship Round shall make
an independent review of each team’s
Written Submissions and oral arguments.
Panelists may employ a point scoring
system of their own choice, including
the use of the scoring system from the
Preliminary Rounds. A Preliminary Round
Oral Scoresheet shall be provided to
each of the panelists to use at their
discretion. The decision regarding the
winner of the Round shall be by majority
of the panelists. No ties shall be allowed.
Panelists
shall not decide the case on the merits.
Rather, panelists shall judge
the teams on their overall performance
considering—but giving no particular
fixed weight to—both Written Submissions
and oral arguments. |
|
9.5.2 |
Preliminary Round Scores
and Penalties |
|
The
panelists in the Championship Round shall
not be informed of any scor | |
