08. Rule Violations

Rule Violations

If a team believes an opponent committed an evidence or other ethics violation, the accusing team should stop the debate and ask the judge to adjudicate the challenge.

This type of challenge includes the following situations:

• a team reads evidence that is fabricated or meaningfully altered to change the author’s original meaning;

• a team misrepresents how much evidence they have read in a debate, such as improperly highlighting their evidence, “clipping cards” (the team says they read more than they actually did by clipping a card short of the indicated end), or “cross reading” (the team skips words or sentences in the middle of the text, but indicates that they read all the highlighted words);

• a team receives argument assistance or reads or responds to communications from a coach or other person after the debate has commenced, whether verbal or electronic, including (but not limited to) the transfer of evidence after the round starts. This does not mean that any text/call results in an immediate loss, but if the judge/team can determine communication aided in a team/student in the debate judges should adjudicate that specific situation;

• concerns about a student's disclosure practices not complying with tournament guidelines as outlined in the invitation.

The accusing team will explain to the judge what alleged violation is being asserted. The judge will evaluate the violation based on the evidence available to the judge. The judge should remind the accusing team that if the judge does not believe the opposing side committed a violation or cannot determine it based on the evidence provided, the accusing team will lose the debate. At this point, the accusing team should have an opportunity to withdraw their challenge without consequence.

If the judge finds that an ethics or evidence violation was committed, the offending team will be assigned a loss. If a single team member committed the violation, that debater will receive zero speaker points. The judge may assign speaker points to the non-offending debater. If the violation occurs prior to the non-offending team member delivering a speech, the judge may award points based upon the cross-examination, if applicable. If the non-offending team member has not delivered a speech or participated in a cross-ex, then the tab room will assign the average of the non-offending debater’s speaker points from prior debates.

Any decision to challenge evidence violations or unethical behavior must be made during the round in which the infraction occurred before the judge submits a decision. No challenge can be made in any round after the ballot has been submitted. The judge assigned to the round will decide the challenge made in the round based solely on the evidence submitted by the teams in the round.

If a coach has concerns about a judge’s decision or handling of an evidence ethics challenge, they have one hour to submit an appeal by following the tournament’s Equity & Rules Committee process.