Student representatives are judged by a panel of judges who observe their actions for the entire round. Each time a representative goes to the well/podium they are rated based on the following parameters during the time spent at the well (including both a speech and responses to questions)

1) delivery of the speech,
2) knowledge of the subject,
3) use of evidence and logic
These ratings contribute to results of a representative’s performance in a session. The results determine a representatives’s ranking.

The final ranking is based on the average of three measures.
1) total effort made at the well - Total of all points given for speeches
2) quality of the effort spent at the well - Average of points earned for speeches
3) overall performance in the session, including motions, questions asked of senators at the well, and professionalism. This is reflected on the final ranking sheet that the judges turn in. Someone who spoke really well but didn't conduct themselves professionally might suffer in this area.

The goal of this criteria is to allow a student representative who goes to the well a small number of times but gives high quality speeches and answers, demonstrating a knowledge of parliamentary procedure and a professional demeanor to score as high as an active representative who goes to the well a greater number of times with lesser quality speeches/answers (similar parliamentary proedure and professionalism).

Presiding Officers are judged by a panel of judges that rotate from room to room throughout a congress session. Each judge is scheduled to observe each presiding officer for approximately 40 minutes per session. The officers are rated on these parameters:
1) order of the room’s proceedings
2) control of the session
3) knowledge of parliamentary procedure
4) handling of disputes

Ranking is based on the raw points earned by each presiding officer.