Photo courtesy of David Tucker

When extempers attend national circuit events there are a few recognizable figures that they will run into.  Dr. Steve Moss is one of those recognizable figures.  For the last decade he has been a fixture on the national circuit and he regularly judges marquee events like the Montgomery Bell Extemp Round Robin and the Extemporaneous Speaking Tournament of Champions.  Dr. Moss agreed to sit down for an interview with Extemp Central to discuss his involvement with forensics and give extempers some insight into his judging philosophy.  This is the first part of a two part interview piece.

Logan Scisco: First of all, thank you Dr. Moss for sitting down and talking with us.  For anyone that hasn’t seen you on the circuit or knows you very well, explain what you do and tell us a little bit about yourself.

Dr. Steve Moss: I was born and educated in England and came here thirty years ago, so I sound foreign in both countries.  In real life I am a Risk Manager for a European financial institution with a branch in New York.  On the weekends, I am a Forensics enthusiast and a very active judge; this season, for example, with just NFL Nationals to go, I have judged 114 rounds of speech in 23 tournaments.  I have held a National Coach certification from the National Archery Association for twenty years, and I still coach archery during the summer, but I don’t shoot any more.  Also, I am an active mentor and workshop leader in the New York City Academy of Finance, which is a program in the New York City public schools.  I strongly support the aims of the Positive Coaching Alliance, which promotes “Double-Goal Coaching”.  And, in my spare time, I am the Honorary Chairman of the Campaign for the Restoration of Authentic Public Forum.

Scisco: How did you get involved with forensics?

Moss: Growing up in England, I was very active in my high school Debating Society, which was nothing like the Forensics that exists here.  Debate in England in that era was all about capturing the hearts of the audience, by any means that worked; casting a spell with your oratory, witty ad hominem attacks on the opponent, making arguments that accessed the audience’s beliefs and spoke to their commitments, and so on.  You can still see that style in Cambridge Union Debate.

Scisco: How was evidence used in that style of debate?

Moss: Evidence???

Scisco: Well if evidence was not used how were these debates judged?

Moss: Judged???  There were no judges.  The audience voted on the motion.

Scisco: You mean, you could give a great speech and lose?

Moss: Vox populi, vox dei. At least you didn’t have the situation there that happens far too often here, where there is a audience that is knowledgeable and a judge panel that is not.  We have all heard audiences groan loudly in Award Ceremonies, when the runaway best performer gets sixth place from the judges, who were apparently on a different planet during the round.

Scisco: How long have you been involved with high school speech and debate?

Moss: After high school there is a thirty-year gap.  A few years ago, a good friend of mine inherited the remains of a speech team at a small high school in New York, and desperately needed judges.  One thing led to another.

Scisco: How?

Moss: The first time I went, I was struck by two things:  the passion of the kids for the activity, and the contempt that the kids had for most of the judges.  We all start off clueless, and I was no exception, but I didn’t want to stay clueless.  I wanted to have something to offer the kids, so I have always been very aggressive about making myself a better judge and a better coach, by seeking out opportunities to judge in places where things are done differently, and by engaging coaches, other judges, and the kids themselves.

Scisco: What led to your heavy involvement in Extemp?

Moss: Availability.  I was associated with programs that had good Interps, so I was always clean to judge Extemp, and a lot of people would rather eat glass than judge Extemp.  I very quickly got the feeling that a bunch of 15-year-olds were blowing smoke up my tailpipe, and that motivated me to improve my subject knowledge very quickly.

Scisco: What are your favorite events in forensics?  Why?

Moss: I enjoy all the speech events, including Public Forum.  Although I am widely associated with Extemp, I love good Interp too, but I don’t get to judge it as much because the schools that have hired me to travel with them have always had Interpers who go deep into tournaments.  I get to see a lot of good Interp in the hotel room on the day before the tournament, but that might be all I get.

Scisco: So you have a right-brain as well as a left-brain?

Moss: Yes.  Neither of them works, but they’re both there.

Scisco: In your opinion what makes a great extemporaneous speaker?

Moss: To be a great speaker, rather than just a good speaker, three things, of course.

First and foremost, he or she has to answer the exact question that was asked, or at least address its apparent intent.  Second, he or she has to display a crystalline understanding of how the argument goes, and how the pieces fit together; you don’t want the audience to leave the room thinking how smart the speaker is, you want them to leave the room thinking how smart they are.  Third, he or she has to have presence and command, and engage the audience; it’s a communication event, the speech is not given in a vacuum.

Scisco: That last point is why you like to judge from the back of the room, not the front row?

Moss: Exactly.  Mirza Germovic got it half-right in the TOC Extemp Final when he made that humorous  reference to me judging from above; I’m actually judging from behind (the audience).

Scisco: Humorous?

Moss: Give the kid a break, it was clearly intended to be humorous.

Scisco: Are there any trends developing in Extemp that you have disliked over the last decade?

Moss: I don’t know about trends, but I was disturbed by the ill-considered decision to cripple cross-ex at Nationals by cutting it from three minutes to two.  That’s a decision that needs to be revisited.

I have probably judged more rounds of Extemp with cross-ex than most people, and I can tell you that the third minute creates a lot of separation.  You’ll notice that the two tournaments in the vanguard of Extemp, MBA and TOC Extemp, as well as some university tournaments, have retained the three minute cross-ex.

Scisco: When you are judging rounds, and you have judged several big ones throughout the year at MBA, Harvard, and the TOC Extemp, for example, what usually determines who gets first place on your ballot?

Moss: The book on me is that I hold the speaker accountable for answering the question, and I discredit speeches that just tell me three things that are loosely related to the topic.  That’s true.  Other people will tell you that I’m a sucker for delivery.  That’s also true, in the sense that you have to sell me on the idea that you believe what you are saying, and you care about it.  But answering the question comes first.

Judging all over the country in national-circuit tournaments makes you realize that there is more than one way to do things.  So I give a lot of latitude to different styles and different structures, as long as the intent of the question is answered, and the speaker is performing well in the style in which he has been taught.

I also put far more weight on the cross-ex than most judges do.  The main speech, the offensive cross-ex, and the defensive cross-ex, are three very different skills; ideally you have all of them.

What I have noticed in the big rounds that I don’t get called to judge – CFL Nationals and NFL Nationals – is that well-scrubbed wholesomeness beats caffeinated brilliance every time; I think that’s a pity.

Check back tomorrow for part 2 of this interview!