� �

� �

Spring 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55

Decoding Forensics SlangCharles Parrott, Clemson University

Abstract

One way in which long-time coaches attempt to simplify forensics dialogue is through forensic slang. Whether it be acronyms, jargon, or other abbreviations, a new coach may feel lost when presented with terminology that is foreign to them. This article aims to alleviate that stress by helping explain how forensics shorthand equates to forensics longhand.

A former forensic student of mine once noted that forensics outsiders would be perplexed at the language that we use. As an example he noted that if, "you say that you broke your POI, people wonder, 'why do we hurt fish?" A joke, yes, but the best jokes are based in truth. It has been previously acknowl-edged that forensics enjoys its own special kind of language. "Forensics lingo," as it is referred to here, can be a valuable part of forensic culture but can also cause confusion and division when it is misunderstood and overused. The pur-pose of this essay is to provide a limited overview of terminology and slang terms common in forensic competition, particularly individual events. For new coaches, the need to understand the terminology associated with competitive forensics is significant as they are about to be immersed in a culture that, indeed, has it's own language. Perhaps the surest sign of sub-cultural membership is the ability to skillfully navigate the jargon and terminology that surrounds that sub-culture. An inability to interpret and utilize these terms can make an individual feel out of place and ineffectual when in contexts related to the subculture in question. This essay merely provides the broadest stroke of the terminological brush in discussing the utility of forensics lingo and providing a list of terms commonly used in individual events.

Utility of Forensics Lingo

The world of competitive forensics has spawned a large vocabulary of terms that serve several purposes. These terms can be inherently subdivide into three categories: (a) acronyms, (b) abbreviated terms, and (c) genuine slang terms which have risen out of competition.

Many terms are acronyms that act as a kind of shorthand for common yet cumbersome words and phrases. For instance, the American Forensics Association National Individual Events Tournament is more than a mouthful, while AFA-NIET us far less unwieldy. Further, abbreviated terms help facilitate the quick exchange of ideas that unique to competitive individual events. For example, a performer who competes most often or most successfully in oral inter-pretation events may be known as "an interper." The proper word in this case would be "interpreter" but it is disregarded in favor of the shortened term. A third category exists in the form of genuine slang terms that have grown out of indi-

56 Spring 2005

vidual events participation. For example, speakers who appear too prepared in limited preparation events may be accused of having "canned" speeches, or broad speeches prepared ahead of time to fit multiple topics/occasions. The need to labeled these speeches "canned speeches" could only happen in an activity that strictly demands an impromptu or extemporaneous style in some events. Outside of forensics its seems unlikely that such a distinction would be important to an audience. Furthermore, these categories often intersect. For example, the inter-pretation event Program of Oral Interpretation, is often spoken as the three letters P-O-I. It is just as often spoken as if the three letters were themselves a word, "Pu-oi" which could be considered a slang term.

Through the understanding of why and how slang and abbreviations are used within the forensic world, one is now ready to immerse themselves in some prime examples. Below is a list of key terms/abbreviations that you will likely find within the forensic subculture.

Term Definition

AFA American Forensics Association. One of the national sanctioning bodies in forensics. Sponsors one of the national tournaments we attend, called the American Forensics Association National Individual Events Tournament or AFA-NIET.

Awards Refers to the awards ceremony (not necessarily the prizes themselves) that follows each tournament. This is where final round rankings are revealed and trophies are given out.

Ballots Documents filled out by judges in rounds at tournaments. They include a rank in the round for each speaker and a point rating as well. The NFA (see NFA) point system runs from 100 to 70 and the AFA (see AFA) point system runs from 25 to 1. Ballots also include constructive criticism and reasons for the judge's decision, often referred to as the "RFD."

Black Book/ Small black three ringed binders used to contain manuscripts Interp Book for all interpretative events. No rule requires that students hold their manuscripts in a binder, yet students predominantly do.

Break Advancing to final rounds is commonly known as "breaking" to finals.

Canned An abstract concept related to limited preparation events. It Speeches refers to preparing a detailed version of the entire speech ahead

of time rather than preparing it on the spot. An unethical practice and a serious accusation to make.

Spring 2005

Crit / C.A.

Cumes

DI

Districts

57

Slang terms for the events rhetorical criticism and communication analysis. The same speeches compete in the event regardless of what name is used to designate it. AFA offers communication analysis and NFA offers rhetorical criticism.

Short hand for documents that contain the ranks and rates accumulated by each competitor through out a particular tournament.

An acronym for dramatic interpretation. This is an event that is only offered, on a national level, at the AFA-N1ET. It is a cutting from a play, television or film script, radio play, or dramatic monologue, which may or may not be "dramatic" or serious in nature.

A tournament hosted once a year by each AFA district. Each state belongs to an AFA district. For example, most of the south is in District 6 while the high plains are in District 4. The district tournament provides and opportunity for an automatic qualification for the AFA-NIET (American Forensics Association National Individual Events Tournament).

D.O.F. /A.D.O.F. / D.O.I.E./ D.O.D.

Director of forensics and assistant director of forensics and director of individual events and director of debate. These are the coaches, instructors, and faculty that are appointed by the department or institution to administrate the forensics program.

Double Entered / Triple Entered / Quad Entered

Finals

When a competitor has more than one round to compete in at a particular time they are one of the above. A DE, TE, or QE indicates this after the competitor's name when they sign into the round. Being DE or the like may move you up sooner in the order of the round. Occasionally, someone will sign in with an XE after their name meaning "Cross entered" which is the same as being double entered.

Refers to final rounds at any given tournament. Competitors must get high rankings in preliminary rounds to advance to final rounds. Generally, finals are comprised of the top six competitors in a particular event at a particular tournament.

58 Spring 2005

Golden Leg If a competitor is left out of finals or off of postings, and thus out of a final round, when they should have been included, they receive a golden leg or golden 1, which means they receive credit as if they had won the event in which they should have made finals. This is not announced but made clear by reading the cumes. This only of real importance to students attempting to qualify for the AFA-N1ET.

Hired Judges Former competitors, faculty, or other people who have offered to judge at a tournament. These people are not coaches but their opinion and impression of a performance is treated with the same weight as any other critic.

lEs Acronym for individual events. This includes all of the public speaking, limited preparation, and interpretive events. Debate styles are not individual events, even when they only feature one debater competing against another, such as Lincoln Douglas Debate.

Leg(s) These are rankings received overall at any given tournament in a particular event. Three legs that add up to eight or less must be received to qualify for the American Forensics Association National Individual Events Tournament (AFA-NIET).

Lit Shorthand for literature that is performed in interpretative events.

NFA National Forensics Association. One of the national sanctioning bodies for forensics. Host of the National Forensic Association Championships.

Out Rounds Particularly relevant at national tournaments, out rounds refer to elimination rounds such as quarterfinals or semi-finals.

Parli Shorthand for parliamentary debate. This value driven two- person debate is offered at many IE tournaments.

POI Program of oral interpretation also known as "program" in some circles. It involves constructing a program of literature under a particular theme. This event is only offered on the national level at the American Forensics Association National Individual Events Tournament (AFA-NIET).

Spring 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59

Postings Large visual displays that list the finalists in each event. Looking at postings is the only way to know for sure if you have advanced to final rounds in a particular event.

Prelims Shorthand for preliminary rounds of competition. Ranks and rates in prelims determine who advances to out-rounds or finals.

Quals Shorthand for national qualifications. Generally referring to the number of events that have qualified for a national tournament. Note: a number of variations are possible such as an event that just broke being referred to as having just "qualed."

Slicks Small page protectors with a black background used to contain manuscripts held in interp books.

Tab Sheets See "cumes" above.

VAs An acronym for visual aids. These are large visual depictions of something that appears in a public address speech. VAs demand the use of a large VA case and a VA stand, or easel.

60 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spring 2005

Conclusion

The above list is a very limited organization of terms that surround and per-meate participation in individual events. Furthermore, many of these terms may quickly become outdated or may be undecipherable to coaches and competitors in another region. Nonetheless, 1 contend that the use of these terms has a distinct set of values.

First, I use a customized version of the above list to familiarize novices with terminology of individual events. It has been my experience that students feel much more a part of the activity when they are able to use its language. It can be a very effective tool for new coaches and students to have a glossary terms to help navigate future forensics participation.

Second, while the use of forensics lingo can make an individual feel con-nected to the activity it can also build a sense of community within the activity. When forensics lingo is exchanged between competitors it reinforces the impor-tance of the activity for both participants. It allows groups of students to identify with one another because they share the same language.

Some coaches and critics cringe at the sound of shorthand and slang to describe the various facets of forensics. I would encourage them to embrace the use of forensics lingo for all of the positive benefits it can bring to participation in the activity.

ACCIDENT

RECONSTRUCTION

RULES OF EVIDENCE

Paragraph B(6) was changed in 1976 to conform to federal rule. This rule is identical to amended Rule 11-803. See commentary to 11-803, supra.

Committee Commentary for 2007 Amendment. — Eliminating the identical "catch-all" exception in Subparagraph (5) of Paragraph B of this rule and Paragraph X of Rule 11-803 NMRA and combining them in new Rule 11-807 NMRA, with no intended change in meaning, tracks the 2000 amendments to the corresponding federal rules.

The new exception added to Subparagraph (5) of Paragraph B was taken verbatim from federal rule 804(b)(6), which was adopted in 1997, and reflects a substantial body of state and federal case law. See, e.g., State v. Romero, 2007-NMSC-013, 141 N.M. 403, 156 P.3d 694; State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030, 136 N.M. 309, 98 P.3d 699 (2004). It would lessen a party's ability to benefit from intentionally making a witness unavailable.

11-805. Hearsay within hearsay.

11-806. Attacking and supporting credibility of declarant.

11-807. Residual exception.

A statement not specifically covered by Rule 11-803 NMRA or Rule 11-804 NMRA but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that:

A. the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;

B. the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and

C. the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.

Committee Commentary. — This new "catch-all" hearsay exception provision applies to Rule 11-803 NMRA and Rule 11-804 NMRA and replaces the redundant provisions previously repeated in both of those rules.  

 

 

 

JUDICAL VOLUME 11‐ ARTICLE 7 – OPINIONS BY EXPERT TESTIMONY 

 

11-701. Opinion testimony by lay witnesses.

If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness's testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are

A. rationally based on the perception of the witness,

B. helpful to a clear understanding of the witness's testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and

C. not based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 11-702 NMRA.

Committee Commentary. — The addition of Paragraph C will bring this rule into alignment with federal rule 701. This amendment was made to the federal rule in 2000 to avoid the misuse of the lay witness opinion rule as a guise for offering testimony that in reality is based on some form of claimed expertise of the witness. The amendment reflects New Mexico and federal case law. The amendment is a non-substantive change designed to clarify that lay witness testimony under this rule should not be based on "scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge". If the witness testifies to such scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, then the admissibility of such testimony must be analyzed under Rule 11-702 NMRA for expert testimony.  

11-702. Testimony by experts.

If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.  

11-703. Bases of opinion testimony by experts.

The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.

Committee Commentary. — The added clarifying language is consistent with New Mexico and federal case law and is identical to language added to federal rule 703 in 2000. It is intended to strike a balance between an expert's need to rely upon sources of information used in the expert's field in arriving at decisions, but at the same time to avoid using the expert witness as a conduit for inadmissible evidence to be transmitted to the jury and improperly used as substantive evidence. When information is reasonably relied upon by an expert and yet is admissible only for the purpose of assisting the jury in evaluating an expert's opinion, a trial court applying this rule must consider the information's probative value in assisting the jury to weigh the expert's opinion on the one hand, and the risk of prejudice resulting from the jury's potential misuse of the information for substantive purposes on the other. The information may be disclosed to the jury, upon objection, only if the trial court finds that the probative value of the information in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. If the otherwise inadmissible information is admitted for such a limited purpose under this balancing test, a limiting instruction under Rule 11-105 NMRA would be appropriate.

11-704. Opinion on ultimate issue.

Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.

11-705. Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion.

The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without first testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.

11-706. Court-appointed experts.

A. Appointment. The court may on its own motion or on the motion of any party enter an order to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed, and may request the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert witnesses of its own selection to give evidence in the action except that, if the parties agree as to the experts to be appointed, the court shall appoint only those designated in the agreement. An expert witness shall not be appointed by the court unless the witness consents to act. A witness so appointed shall be informed of the witness's duties by the court in writing, a copy of which shall be filed with the clerk, or at a conference in which the parties shall have opportunity to participate. A witness so appointed shall advise the parties of the witness's findings, if any; the witness's deposition may be taken by any party; and the witness may be called to testify by the court or any party. The witness shall be subject to cross-examination by each party, including a party calling the witness.

B. Compensation. Expert witnesses so appointed are entitled to reasonable compensation in whatever sum the court may allow. The compensation thus fixed is payable from funds which may be provided by law in criminal cases and civil actions and proceedings involving just

compensation under the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution. In other civil actions and proceedings the compensation shall be paid by the parties in such proportion and at such time as the court directs, and thereafter charged in like manner as other costs.

C. Disclosure of appointment. In the exercise of its discretion, the court may authorize disclosure to the jury of the fact that the court appointed the expert witness.

D. Parties' experts of own selection. Nothing in this rule limits the parties in calling expert witnesses of their own selection.

Committee Commentary. — The 1976 amendment of Paragraph B follows the federal rule in substituting the phrase "civil actions and proceedings" for "civil cases" and also adds a reference to the just compensation provision of the New Mexico Constitution.

The committee reviewed this rule in 1993 and decided not to recommend changes to be consistent with the comparable federal rule other than those needed to make this rule gender neutral.

11-707. Polygraph examinations. 

 

 

THINGS TO REMEMBER WHEN COMING TO COURT:

1. Prepare Refresh your memory so you can avoid confusion. Before testifying, picture the scene, the objects and people there and what occurred. If you have a written statement or deposition, review that as well. 2. Dress appropriately, act courteously Court rules specify that witnesses shall be properly attired. Please do not wear jeans, shorts, “work out clothes” short skirts, low-cut or “tight” clothing. If you are not used to or are uncomfortable wearing a suit or dress, don’t. This will only distract you during your testimony. Slack and a nice shirt are a good choice. Dress comfortably, but conservatively. 3. Control your temper Losing your temper reduces your credibility as a witness. Remember to stay calm, even if the attorney seems rude or makes you angry. Do not take things personally. The defense attorney is trying to represent their client as best as he/she can. If the defense sees that he/she can get to you, he/she will continue to do so. 4. Be attentive If you appear bored or indifferent, the judge or jury may disregard your testimony. Do your best to stay alert. Remember that your attentiveness and cooperation will help keep things moving. 5. Speak clearly and loudly Everyone in the courtroom must be able to hear distinctly what you have to say. Any mumbling or speaking softly detracts from your testimony and may give the impression that you are not certain of what you are saying. Don’t be afraid to speak up—you are not the one on trial. Remember to answer in words instead of nodding or saying “uh-huh” and “un-huh”. The court reporter writes down everything you say and if you answer without using “words”, the attorneys will ask you if that is a “yes” or “no”. 6. Be honest Don’t exaggerate or try to slant your testimony. Justice will be served only if your testimony is as accurate as possible. Tell the truth, as best as you remember it. 7. Be helpful and professional A trial is a serious and important matter. The court wants the facts, not comedy or attitude. Conduct yourself in a professional manner. 8. Answer all questions directly. Follow this simple guide:

A. Listen carefully to the question. Take time and think about your answer. B. If there is an objection, wait until the court rules before answering. The judge will tell you if it is

okay to answer the question. C. Answer the question asked—then stop. D. If you do not know the answer to a question, say so. Don’t guess! E. Don’t try to answer a question that you do not understand. Ask that it be explained. F. Do not argue with the defense attorney. G. Look at the Jury whenever possible