Each year, HNMUN is proud to host 2000+ delegates from across ~30 different countries. However, we know that bringing together delegates from so many different circuits comes with clashes pertaining to Rules of Procedure and evaluation guidelines. To help foster constructive, inclusive, and collaborative debate, we have worked together to outline our evaluation criteria for delegates to reference in their preparations and throughout the conference.

Click here for the full Delegate Evaluation Criteria for HNMUN 2027. Continuing reading for an overview of some of the most important criteria. That being said, we caution delegates from using these criteria as an end-all-be-all but more so as guidance to understand the values of HNMUN substantive committee directors. At the end of the day, our evaluation process is holistic and comprehensive – we implore our directors to apply their discretion beyond these guidelines when making awards decisions. With the greatest level of diligence, we hope to foster a constructive, collaborative, and exciting environment of debate for the HNMUN 2027 delegates.

General

Use of Parliamentary Procedure

• Does the delegate follow the correct Rules of Procedure during committee proceedings?

• Does the delegate effectively propose motions that steer the direction of debate to more constructive and nuanced topics?

Country or Position Representation

• Does the delegate clearly and accurately outline their position on the issues and various subtopics being debated? Does the delegate sufficiently justify their decision-making and actions?

• Does the delegate integrate their represented stance into the solutions that they are proposing?

• Does the delegate seek reasonable compromise that aligns with the previous actions and viewpoints of the position/country that they are representing?

• Does the delegate vote in accordance with the policy and position they are taking?

Speaking and Presentation

• Does the delegate speak frequently and across a variety of different topics throughout the committee session?

• Does the delegate present their ideas in a compelling and logical manner that captures the attention of the committee? Is the delegate an engaging speaker that committee members listen to?

• Does the delegate demonstrate knowledge of the subject area and the committee debate in their speeches by referencing relevant evidence and employing compelling rationale?

• Does the delegate ensure an optimal balance of captivating delivery and robust content across all speeches?

Leadership and Diplomacy

• Is the delegate collaborative and encouraging? Is the delegate perceived as a bloc leader by other members of the committee inside and outside of their bloc?

• Does the delegate have a substantive impact on the policies and working dynamics of their bloc? 

• Does the delegate appear to be a leader during unmoderated caucuses? Are they facilitating discussion, ensuring others are included, and driving substantive actions taken by the bloc?

• Does the delegate make attempts to collaborate with a wide array of committee members?

Miscellaneous

• Is the delegate respectful to the Dais, Secretariat members, and other delegates?

• Does the delegate demonstrate good stamina to stay highly-involved in committee debate throughout the course of the conference?

Resolution Committees

Resolution Writing

• Does the delegate contribute significantly to the writing of the resolution operative clauses?

• Does the delegate have a firm understanding of all of the content within their working paper/draft resolution even beyond the scope of the clauses that they contributed?

• Are the clauses that the delegate has written high-quality, comprehensive, and central to the written document? How well are these clauses branded in the context of committee debate?

Bloc Building

• Does the delegate build a bloc that fosters a collaborative, non-toxic environment; represents diverse viewpoints; produces high-quality work-products; and effectively contributes to committee debate?

• Does the delegate choose to partake in a challenging but also strategic merge to create a more comprehensive and complete draft resolution?

• Does the delegate participate in the working paper and draft resolution author’s panel? Does the delegate participate in the working paper and draft resolution Q&A?

Crisis Committees

Directive Writing

• Does the delegate actively participate and sponsor documents in all directive cycles? Are they leading and contributing significantly to the authorship of directives?

• Does the delegate propose innovative, nuanced, and relevant solutions to the crisis breaks presented to the committee?

• Are clauses written by the delegate relevant, comprehensive, actionable, and detailed?

• Does the delegate effectively collaborate with other committee members to merge ideas within directives and debate potential points of contention?

Backroom Engagements and Crisis Notes

• Is the delegate actively engaged with the backroom via crisis notes in all note collection cycles?

• Does the delegate have an exciting, well-substantiated, and relevant crisis arc? Is the crisis arc timed well and effectively influence the debate/focus of the committee?

• Is the delegate’s arc justified within the purview of their character’s aims and portfolio powers?

• Does the delegate respond sufficiently to push-back from the backroom for more information and/or justification?

• Are crisis notes well-organized, interesting to read, and provide sufficient rationale and detail for the actions that are being requested?

Double Delegation Committees

Partner Dynamics and Balance

• Are the delegates within a partnership on the same page with respect to committee strategy?

• Are both partners contributing to committee debate – whether that be distribution of responsibilities or switching between roles? Are the partners accomplishing two-people’s worth of work throughout the committee session?

• Is there mutual respect and collaboration between delegates within a partnership and equitable say in decision-making?