Today we're working on a competitive project to learn how to be better campaigners. In the first round of the exercise there was a massive differential of points between the teams. When we asked the judges to explain the scores to help us understand why they felt some teams were four times better than others, they we're unable to provide any justification.
A scoring differential that large would seem to indicate a massive difference in the quality. Assuming the best of the judges, we would like a clear and honest explanation of the scores and once they are given due reflection, adjusted to fairly reflect the quality of work.