Competition Matrix:
For delegates seeking awards & recognition, the matrix below can guide you in understanding the chair’s awards criteria. Points are not rigid metrics, rather they place different competitive elements in a loose relation.
All the criteria below are for General Assemblies, but apply very generally to Crisis (which has specific elements below).
Engagement
1 - Placard is raised more than half of the time for speeches
2 - Placard is raised more than half of the time for motions, speeches, and questions
3 - Placard is raised most of the time for motions, speeches, and questions
4 - Placard is raised near always for motions, speeches, and questions
Substance
1 - Delegate offers observatory speeches, without any clear direction or proposed solutions
3 - Delegate expands on topic knowledge with unique proposed solutions
4 - Delegate offers a range of unique solutions which drive committee debate
(+ 1) - Delegate offers procedural guidance to committee and/or uses speeches to foster collaboration
Knowledge
1 - Delegate writing and speeches demonstrate knowledge of background guide
2 - Delegate writing and speeches demonstrate wholistic topic knowledge, with both details and understanding of trends
3 - Delegate offers their wholistic expertise to committee, using their understanding of the topic to help others build better solutions
(+ .5) - Delegate questions use topic knowledge to point out important errors in solutions under consideration
(- 1) - Delegate clearly violates country policy in speech or writing
Professionalism
1 - Delegate speeches are not memorable, lack regard for tone and don’t indicate care
2 - Delegate speeches are somewhat memorable, word choice is effective and delegate appears engaged
4 - Delegate speeches are memorable, word choice is effective and interesting, while demeanor invites higher consideration of speech contents
(+ .5) - Delegate uses rhetorical devices effectively to make express ideas succinctly
(- .5) - Delegate consistently ends speeches on incomplete ideas, or speeches clearly don’t fit in allotted time
Solution Development
All writing in a paper which is sponsored by a delegate will reflect on their performance, as papers are group work. Delegates can be judged on working papers, but draft resolutions will be the higher consideration.
1 - Writing demonstrate understanding of goals, but scarcely offers any unique solutions to the committee
2 - Writing has unique solutions, but lacks considerations of feasibility or has occasional contradictions
3 - Writing has unique, feasible, and creative solutions, but has weak points or lacks organization
4- Writing is consistent and has an abundance of unique, feasible solutions with a simple, driving message
(+ .5) - at chairs digression, paper includes a truly exceptional idea or clause
(- 1) - Paper does not have proper formatting, fails to adhere to one sentence standard.
(- 1) - Paper includes a poor clause which would (by chair’s opinion) alienate the actual U.N. and cause disorder
(- 2) - Paper includes a Claus which is clearly in violation of international law or U.N. Charter
Diplomacy
Delegates will be judged as a whole working group for Diplomacy
1 - Working group is somewhat engaged on the debate floor, bloc policy is communicated to some degree
2 - Working group is often engaged on the debate floor, bloc policy is consistent and effectively branded
3 - Working group is most always taking part in dialogue, room is consistently aware of bloc opinions, which are communicated with clarity
(+ 1) - Working group effectively considers and incorporates the opinions of other blocs, making speeches which reference the work of others and potential differences or similarities
(+ 1) - Working group merges effectively, rebranding without ignoring inconsistent or disjoint opinions
(- X) - Working group fails to submit paper on time (gravity based on length of violation)
Advocacy
3 - Delegate is on introduction panel for their paper
4 - Delegate effectively communicates the points of their paper with confidence and clarity on author’s panel
4 - Delegate is on Q&A panel for their paper
5 - Delegate answers Q&A questions effectively and succinctly, demonstrating deep understanding of the paper’s main talking points and underlying principles
6 - On Q&A, Delegate demonstrates knowledge of the international system, offering effective answers to delegate’s concerns with the paper and bringing new knowledge to committee beyond the writing
(- 2) - Delegate speaks too much on authors panel, leaning little opportunity for their peers to talk
(- 2) - Delegate does not speak much on authors panel, failing to advocate for their paper
Best Bloc
During awards ceremony, the chair will select one bloc which had a wholly incredible paper and debate presence.
(+1) - Delegate is a part of the best bloc
(+ .5) - Delegate is a part of an incredible bloc, which was narrowly beaten out
It is recommended that delegates select their strongest candidates for Q&A as well as introduction panels, because this is central to the chair’s decision about best bloc.
This point system is a recommendation taught to chairs, they may use their discretion to award points for exceptional acts, deduct points for any poor performance, and settle ties. All chairs are different and assign a different gravity to different competitive elements. Many chairs will offer feedback sessions, during which you can pose questions about awards criteria.
Grave Misconduct:
All of these can result in instant disqualification, without consideration for performance otherwise.
For minor or unintentional violations, awards considerations may remain but be diminished.
Delegate is un-inclusive without cause
Delegate uses profane or unbecoming language
Delegate personally insults others
Delegate does not foster a healthy collaborative spirit, makes others intimidated
Delegate is dishonest with their peers
Delegate uses writing produced before the opening of debate
Delegate otherwise fails to reflect the intellectual and personal values of Rice University
And more (please be kind, chairs will have low tolerance for anything short of your best, considerate self.)
Crisis Criteria
In addition to the points above (excepting information about Q&A or international law), here are some criteria for success in crisis:
Private Notes
Characters are not required to have secret plans which align with their stated interests in committee. Subterfuge is compelling, but one must should establish why they are against the recognized interests of committee
1 - Notes lack specificity and memorability, no coherent plan conjoins a delegates’ notes
2 - Notes are specific, with clear actionable items, but lack memorability or a coherent plan
3 - Notes are specific & actionable, and it is clear how each note fits into a broader plan or direction
(+ 1) - Character interests are compelling. It is clear from reading the notes the way in which your character is motivated and those emotions are “felt” in the note
(+ 1) - The correspondants of notes are interesting, reader understands their character & motivations
(- 1) - Notes often fail to have compelling relationship established between writer & correspondent or characters lack the proper capacity to achieve the central note requests
(+ 1) - Delegates’ plan comes to fruition and compels a response from the debate room
Directives & Debate
1 - Delegate fails to have an impact on committee deliberations in face of crises. Solution points are uncompelling and little is contributed to writing.
2 - Delegate offers substantive points and asks interesting questions. Impact is often felt intellectually, but little initiative is demonstrated in solution writing
3 - Delegate is consistently driving the direction of committee response. Most points are highly compelling and typically end up in well written directives on the floor
(+ 1) - Delegate includes others in their directive writing process, whether inquiring for hostile feedback or including co-authors
(+ 1) - Delegate brings a compelling character into committee. Speeches demonstrate elements of characterization and emotional appeal.
(+ 1) - Delegate asks illuminating questions of crisis staffers after updates
(- 1) - Delegate does not demonstrate urgency during timed crises or consistently fights for more time instead of accelerating the writing process
(- 1) - Delegate appears as noxious to committee interests, it is clear to onlookers that a delegate’s character is a traitor & proposed solutions are essentially traps (Character lacks genuinity)