COMMENTS FROM THE 2003 JUDGES

Special Political - Mr. James Tiefenthaler

1. What were the qualities that made China the victor in the GA?

In the GA the speaker was calm, concise, spoke well, spoke on subject.
The other judges liked his demeanor.

(Q research: The decision for China as best in GA was one reached
through vote by the judges and Jamie does not want to reveal his vote.
I have not yet received GA rankings from Mr. Emerson.)

2. What could the PA have done to win first place?

Had more facts. PA won the arguments, made logical sense, was perfect,
but S. Korea, the winner in SP, was loaded with research. PA can not make
the argument that he had more facts and research than ROK, he knows that
ROK was the most prepared speaker in that room. His debating skills are what
brought him to the top, her research brought her. She demonsrated a
preparedness that was not only professional and direct, but on topic, added
to her arguments and blew the unprepared and unknowledgeable delegates
out of the water. PA would have won if he would have been able to match
her fact for documented fact. She began a war of stats that no one could match.

3. What impresses you the most as a judge?

Dedication to the MUN process, excitment, researched "real" facts,
presenting said facts in a manner that adds to a debate, quality use
of C rules, dictating the occurrences in a room, power plays, and overall
communication of intelligence, comprhension and solution.

Humanitarian - Mr. Ed. Kehdi

I looked for someone who spoke up, spoke clearly, seemed to know what they were talking about, answered questions in a diplomatic yet firm manner, asked good questions, and wasn't talking just to be talking.