Reaching a fair decision

Both texts are newly written practice sources about invented people, places or projects.

Text One: An original report on an invented short-story competition.

Before entries opened, the organisers published four judging criteria and explained how much each would contribute to the final score. Writers submitted their stories through an online form, but the judges did not receive the names. An administrator replaced each name with a code and kept the list linking codes to entrants.

Three judges read every shortlisted story independently. They recorded comments as well as scores, so a high or low mark had to be supported by evidence from the writing. If the judges' totals for a story differed by more than twelve points, a moderator read it and led a discussion about how the published criteria had been applied.

The records also allowed an administrative mistake to be corrected. One story was initially left out because it appeared to have arrived after the deadline, but its submission receipt showed that it had been uploaded on time. It was returned to the competition before judging began.

Entrants' identities were revealed only after the shortlist had been agreed. At that stage, one judge reported that she had taught a shortlisted writer several years earlier. Another judge reviewed that story in her place. The organisers published the winning scores, but not the names attached to unsuccessful entries.

Text Two: An original account of an invented working-model competition.

The working-model competition could not hide the entrants' identities because each team had to demonstrate its model to the panel. Instead, the organisers tried to make the demonstrations consistent. Every team received six minutes and answered the same three questions. The criteria (reliability, resourcefulness and clarity of explanation) had been sent to entrants in advance.

An audience vote was held, but it decided a separate visitors' award and did not affect the panel's decision. This prevented the largest group of supporters from determining the main result.

During one demonstration, a power lead became loose and the model stopped. A rule issued before the event allowed every team one restart following a setting-up problem, so the team was permitted to begin again. The judges did not create a special exception after seeing which team was affected.

Two teams eventually received the same total score. The panel returned to its written notes instead of judging another demonstration or choosing the more confident speakers. The notes showed that one model had performed reliably in every test, while the other had needed help before its first run. The panel awarded the higher place by applying the reliability criterion already given to all entrants.

Synthesise what you learn from both texts about making fair decisions in competitions.