Section 2: Judging Principles
2.1 Overview
The judging principles in this section outline an ethos that judges, judge advisors, and event partners should follow. Volunteer judges can have a tremendous impact on the students involved, and all judging volunteers must be able to interact with students and fellow judges rationally and respectfully. Volunteers who are unable or unwilling to abide by these principles should consider volunteering in other roles instead.
All judging volunteers should keep the principles in this section in mind.
2.2 Youth Protection
Judges must be mindful of student safety, and should work with at least one other judge in a public space such as a pit area.
- Non-public discussions with students must include a team adult
- Judges’ questions should all relate to the team, event, or robot
- Judges should use age-appropriate language
- The judging process should be a positive experience for students
2.3 Team Conduct & Student-Centered Ethos
The RECF considers the positive, respectful, and ethical conduct of teams to be an essential component of the competition. A team includes the students, teachers, coaches, mentors, parents, and anyone else associated with the team.
- Teams should be student-centered
- Teams should follow the RECF Code of Conduct
- Violations of either policy should be reported to the event partner, who will pass them along to the RECF as appropriate
- Team behavior, positive or negative, affects teams’ eligibility for judged awards
- Volunteers can report positive and negative behaviors using the Field Note to Judge Advisor
2.4 Confidentiality
The judging process includes discussions and written materials that concern teams. These must remain confidential.
- Conversations between judges must be private and confidential
- Judging information cannot be shared with teams, other event participants, or event staff*
- Judges should not retain notes, judging materials, or teams’ notebooks after the event
- All judging materials and notes must be disposed of by the judge advisor after the event
- Interviews, discussions, and other parts of the judging process cannot be recorded
*RECF staff may need access to information about judging.
2.5 Impartiality
Judges must be aware of any biases they may have and avoid allowing those biases to influence their ability to impartially judge teams.
- Teams at an event should be judged on their merits and behavior at that event only
- Judging volunteers should not wear any team-branded apparel or accessories
- Judging volunteers should avoid real and perceived conflicts of interest, and must declare them before the judging process begins
- Judges cannot participate in interviews, notebook reviews, or deliberations for teams they have conflicts of interest with
2.6 Consistency
Engineering notebooks and team interviews must be evaluated under consistent conditions, whether judging is conducted in-person or remotely.
All teams must have an opportunity to interview for awards, regardless of performance, engineering notebook quality, or other factors.
2.7 Qualitative Judgement
Judges should apply qualitative judgment to award criteria when making final decisions on all judged awards.
- A score on a rubric is not an automatic disqualification for any judged award
- The highest rubric score does not necessarily determine the winner of an award
- Judges can consider scores, but must still deliberate and apply qualitative judgement when ranking teams for any award
2.8 Balance
No team can receive more than one judged award at an event. Performance awards (such as Tournament Champion), volunteer-nominated awards (such as Sportsmanship), or awards presented to an individual (such as the Volunteer of the Year Award) do not affect a team’s eligibility to earn a judged award.
2.9 Integrity
Each award should go to the team that best matches the award description and meets the requirements of the award, while still respecting that no team can earn more than one judged award.
- Judged awards should not be reallocated based on performance awards
- Judges should not consider awards teams have earned at other events
- If no team at the event meets the criteria for an award, that award should not be given out
2.10 Independent Inquiry
All student work should be student-directed, whether they take inspiration from existing ideas or come up with an entirely original design or strategy. Independent inquiry means students are learning how and why things work, rather than accepting another source’s results or solutions without question.
Judging should reward teams that show evidence of their own work in their notebook, team interview, and robot design.
2.11 Why We Don’t Give Feedback About Judging
The RECF judging process includes comparisons between teams at an event to determine award winners. Providing feedback can cause issues including:
- Unintentionally harmful or discouraging feedback based on time limitations
- Arguments over whether or not judges made the “correct” decision
- Accidental sharing of confidential information about other teams
One judge’s feedback may not represent the other judges’ opinions or give the full picture. Teams should work with trusted adults to get feedback through practice judging sessions during a scrimmage, practice, or workshop, using the rubrics and other tools included in this document.
2.12 Judging and the Code of Conduct Process
As described in section 2.3, the RECF considers the positive, respectful, and ethical conduct of teams to be an essential component of the competition. RECF game manuals require teams to adhere to the RECF Code of Conduct and the RECF Student-Centered Policy.
The goal of the Code of Conduct process is to protect the integrity of the event and judging process, not to have judges serve to enforce or police these policies. However, judges may be in a position to observe potential violations. Judges who encounter potential violations of these policies should report them to the JA, who will work with the EP and head referees to follow the Code of Conduct Process. Judges should never inform a team that this process was initiated.
Due to the sensitive and confidential nature of the Code of Conduct process, judges will not be updated about any results of that process at the event.
Continue to the next section, Guide to Judging: Judging Roles & Timeline