during the interviews we noticed that we (@mhshirani and me who did interviews in Incheon) had to ask @willplum a couple of times to keep our judging consistent with previous years whee Will was doing interviews.
This made us notice that if you are a team who can not just “ask Will” (I mean you could via the forum or Discord but nobody really did that) it would be helpful for you as well to be more clear what the expectations are for what level of the different categories.
In that spirit: please tell us everything that you find confusing about the scoring. I’ll start (see next post)
A description of what makes a TDP “good” is more or less missing.
A description of what makes a poster “good” is also more or less missing.
The process of how an interview goes seems to be described decently well (please let us know if the description in there matches what you experienced during the interview.
Sportsmanship is a of course difficult to assess because we can’t see how everyone treats everyone else at all times - we do notice a lot of things though (either ourselves or what we get told by referees, also what gets written down in the referee notes at games) and make sure we give credit where credit is due (both for positive and negative deviations from normal). I’m not sure how you would explain that properly though.
Documentation and Community contribution I think is fairly clear, the idea being (as with many of the other categories) that the more helpful you are to the commuity with what you put out the more points we award.
The community award vote was a bit more scattered than ususal this year but I think that is due to us not reminding people of the explanation for it enough.
Are these things you also find to be difficult to understand? Are there others? let us know.