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 second part of a two part interview piece.
Logan Scisco: Is there anything that speakers do in rounds that really gets on your nerves and will penalize them on your ballot quicker than anything else?
Dr. Steve Moss: No (apart from not answering the question). I personally don’t like (for example) two-minute canned intros, and I wouldn’t teach that, but if the speaker does that, it’s what he was taught to do, and it gives me a chance to look very closely at his delivery and his interaction with the audience, and to find something constructive to write on the ballot about those aspects of his performance.
On the other hand, borrowing my pen and not returning it will get you ranked 8th every time.
Scisco: During major tournaments several Extempers actively seek out your advice. Why do you think you have acquired a good reputation on the circuit?
Moss: I receive far more deference than I have ever earned. I don’t run a school program or a speech camp, I don’t hold any office, I don’t host a tournament, and I will die with no NFL points and no coaching diamonds.
Scisco: Speaking of answering the exact question that is asked …
Moss: OK, you got me. I think it’s for three reasons.
First, I make myself available, accessible, and accountable. In any youth activity, the adults should exist only in order to enable the kids to do wonderful things; many coaches and judges lose sight of that. It has to be for and about the kids, not the adults.
Second, I have a lot of enthusiasm for the activity, and I bring a lot of energy to it. That draws in a lot of kids; others run away screaming.
Third, when the kids engage me as a judge and not as a coach, I have a luxury that the kids’ own coaches do not have: I can be 100% supportive and encouraging, and 0% demanding.
Fourth, I write ballots. My proudest moment in Forensics was when Kevin Troy took me aside, moments before he went on stage for the last time to complete his sweep of MBA, TOC Extemp, and both Nationals, and told me that I had always written him ballots that were honest, constructive, and helpful, even though I was coaching a competitor.
Fifth, I don’t want anything for myself, and I think the kids get that. If I leave a tournament thinking that I have helped any kid at any level who wants to maximize his potential, then I’m a happy man.
Scisco: That’s five reasons.
Moss: So it is.
Scisco: Do you coach?
Moss: Individually, yes. I prefer to be open about it, but I leave it to the kid to decide whether to acknowledge the relationship publicly. Fortunately, tournament directors generally allow you to code yourself against a particular player, even if the coaching relationship is not public.
Scisco: Is there anything that you would like to see change in the Extemp community or at any tournaments in particular? If so, what?
Moss: I like transparency and accountability. The first time that I ever judged in Texas, I saw ballots being distributed after every round, and the coaches and the kids were engaging the judges with them. That’s a brilliant idea. Even better, oral critique; I’ve judged at a couple of speech tournaments that did it, and the kids loved it – they can ask the judge why he wrote what he wrote. Oral critique is routine in debate, but in most places it’s anathema in speech; a lot of judges just don’t want to be accountable.
I would like to see ballots at NFL Nationals, of course. It’s something that CFL Nationals gets right; you might not like the outcomes there, but at least the coaches get some feedback that they can use for next year’s players.
And laptops instead of tubs. Let’s get ourselves into the new century.
Scisco: In all of your years of judging Extemp are there any speeches that stand out to you as being very good or memorable? If so, which ones do?
Moss: Remember that I’m still relatively young in Forensics. But there was a sparkling cross-ex between Michael Garson and Dan Rauch at NJ Districts a few years ago – they both ended up in the National Final – the audience was cheering and applauding for both of them all the way through. I’m afraid I completely forgot to watch the clock, and it ran on for five or six minutes.
Then there was the ultimate Josh Bone cross-ex at MBA, the one where somebody asked him if a particular New York Times article said something that was apparently very damaging to his case. Josh shot back, “Yes, it does. And that article goes on to say … ” something that clinched his case. You could almost hear the sound of the jaws hitting the ground all around the room. It was over right there.
Scott Cheesewright’s speech as a junior in the Finals at Salt Lake City made a huge impression on me. I had never seen brilliance like that, I couldn’t wait to meet him at MBA the next January.
Scisco: What advice do you have for younger Extempers who want to get into big rounds and win national circuit events?
Moss: DI is a very fine event. You don’t have to read newspapers every day and schlep tubs all over the country.
But if you’re hooked, and you insist on doing Extemp, then do a pure delivery event too. It forces you to learn how to invite the audience into your speech.
Scisco: What were your impressions of the competition at this year’s MBA and TOC Extemp tournaments?
Moss: The lobster bisque at MBA is to die for …
Scisco: Indeed it is. If we could just return to the question that was actually asked …
Moss: Adam Johnson did a great job in putting that field together, as he always does. All credit to the kids who emerged from that, there was a lot of parity this year. TOC Extemp is finally starting to recover from the loss of its founding visionary, Ric Roe; give a huge assist to the co-founder, Jason Warren, who has stepped up and helped one new Director of Forensics after another. The elite-level tier was not quite as deep this year as in some years, but the next level was surprisingly good, and you can’t duck TOC Extemp if you want the respect of the whole Extemp community.
These two tournaments are judged almost entirely by Extemp enthusiasts, who may disagree with each other a lot, but they’re credible and legitimate. The kids find the ballots tremendously valuable, and nobody goes home thinking they got scr*w*d.
Scisco: Is there such a thing as “pedigree” in Extemp?
Moss: Not literally, unless, for example, in your generation, you married Amaris Singer and you had children who did Extemp, then there would be pedigree in Extemp.
Scisco: Let’s not go there… Moving on, which coaches do you most admire?
Moss: Tommy Lasorda, Hubie Brown … the coaches who don’t care what the level is, they’re always teaching something, they’re always looking for coachable moments and chances to teach life lessons through sports, and they really care about their players as people, even afterwards.
Scisco: And in Forensics … ? Didn’t you once say that Harry Strong was one of your boyhood heroes?
Moss: True, I did once say that. And Harry Strong is definitely one of the coaches I admire.
In general, if you want to know who I admire, look for coaches who are authoritative without being authoritarian, whose kids are empowered and energized, and think for themselves and know what to do without the coach telling them all the time. It’s the coaches who are there for the kids, and not for themselves. It’s the coaches who live by what the Jesuits call “cura personalis”, but that’s a universal concept, and it takes many forms; somehow, the kids seem to know instinctively which coaches practice it, and they swarm all over them.
Scisco: Any final thoughts you’d like to share?
Moss: I’m thinking about the possibility of asking the NFL to create, and allow me to sponsor, an “Extemp Pentathlon”, similar to the Debate Pentathlon trophy that was awarded for the first time last year at the end of NFL Nationals. If this can be done, my first thoughts would be to use the results from Yale, MBA, Harvard/Berkeley, TOC Extemp, and NFLs; these five major tournaments are judged very differently from each other. I would be very interested to get feedback from the Extemp community on this idea.
Scisco: That is an interesting idea. We try to do that with our National Points Race, although your idea sounds more selective than the one that we use. So if it had been done this year, as we head into Nationals, who would be in the lead right now?
Moss: Nabeel Zewail. He won the Final head-to-head at Yale and lost the tournament on “cume”, he made the Exhibition Round at MBA, he ground out a spot in the Final at Berkeley on the weekend that the other contenders fell in Quarters at Harvard. At the TOC Extemp, when other contenders made excuses and stayed home, he made the trip and won the tournament. He has always given his opponents a chance to beat him fair and square. So there have been better Extempers at particular points in the year, but he looks like the best pentathlete with one leg to go – he has been in all four Finals (counting the MBA Exhibition Round as if it were a Final, even though it is not), and nobody else has been in more than two.
Scisco: Thanks for talking with us Dr. Moss, it is much appreciated.
Moss: My pleasure!