1. Introduction
These Judge Terms & Conditions (“Judge Terms”) govern your participation as a judge (“Judge” or “you”) in the ECDMA Global Awards program (the “Awards Program”).
By accepting a judging invitation, accessing the judging platform, or submitting any scores or feedback, you agree to be bound by these Judge Terms and the general ECDMA Global Awards Terms & Conditions (the “General Terms”). If there is a conflict between these Judge Terms and the General Terms, the General Terms prevail.
Important: The Awards Program includes categories covering the full spectrum of e-commerce and digital marketing, including technology, product, operations, agencies, content and media, workplace excellence, and related business functions. Judges are assigned only to categories aligned with their expertise.
2. Definitions
Organizer: Community Management LTD (Company No. 15674628), registered office: 71–75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2H 9JQ, United Kingdom.
Category: An awards category published for the cycle.
Nomination: A submission for consideration in a Category, including any supporting materials.
Confidential Information: Any non-public information relating to the Awards Program, including (without limitation) Nominations and attachments, nominee information, judge assignments, scoring and comments, platform data, and internal deliberations.
Category Scoring Framework: The published criteria, weights, scoring scale, and calculation method applicable to a Category for the cycle.
Final Score: The 0–100 score calculated from criterion scores and weights under the Category Scoring Framework and the General Terms.
Conflict of Interest: Any circumstance that could reasonably be perceived to compromise your independence or objectivity, including personal, financial, or professional relationships with a nominee.
3. Judge eligibility, selection, and assignment
3.1. Judges are appointed by invitation based on demonstrated expertise, ethical standing, and subject-matter fit for the assigned Categories.
3.2. The Organizer assigns Judges to Categories and may reassign work at any time to manage conflicts, quality, and capacity.
3.3. Judging is a volunteer professional service. Judges receive no financial compensation for evaluating Nominations.
4. Core judging obligations
- Fairness and independence: evaluate each Nomination impartially using only the applicable Category Scoring Framework.
- Confidentiality: keep all Confidential Information strictly confidential during and after participation.
- Conflict management: disclose conflicts promptly and recuse yourself when instructed or when a conflict exists.
- Timeliness: complete assigned evaluations within the published Judging Period.
- Quality of feedback: provide brief, professional justifications that match your scores and reference evidence from the submission.
5. Confidentiality, data handling, and platform security
5.1. You must not share, publish, or discuss any Confidential Information with any third party. This includes (without limitation) nominees, colleagues, clients, media, or other participants.
5.2. You must not attempt to identify other Judges’ assignments or scores, and you must not disclose your assigned Categories or any nominee information unless the Organizer expressly authorizes disclosure.
5.3. You must not take screenshots, screen recordings, or otherwise copy Confidential Information. If the platform provides downloadable attachments, you may access them only as necessary to evaluate a Nomination, and you must not retain copies after your evaluation is complete.
5.4. You must use reasonable security practices (secure device, strong passwords, updated software) and notify the Organizer immediately if you suspect unauthorized access.
6. Conflicts of interest and recusal
6.1. You must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest as soon as you become aware of it and before scoring the relevant Nomination.
6.2. A conflict may include, for example, current or recent employment/consulting relationships, significant financial interest, close personal relationships, or direct competitive relationships likely to bias judgment.
6.3. When a conflict exists, you must not score that Nomination and must follow the Organizer’s instructions for recusal and reassignment.
7. Scoring methodology
7.1. Scale: Each criterion is scored on a 1–10 scale. Broad guidance: 1–3 below standard; 4–6 meets basic standard; 7–8 strong; 9–10 exceptional.
7.2. Weights: Criteria weights are published for each Category and sum to 100%.
7.3. Final Score: The platform calculates the Final Score (0–100) from your criterion scores and the published weights. Example:
| Criterion | Score (1–10) | Weight | Weighted contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion A | 8 | 35% | 2.80 |
| Criterion B | 9 | 25% | 2.25 |
| Criterion C | 7 | 20% | 1.40 |
| Criterion D | 8 | 15% | 1.20 |
| Criterion E | 7 | 5% | 0.35 |
| Weighted score (0–10) | 8.00 | ||
| Final Score (0–100) | 80.0 | ||
7.4. Winner determination: Winners and any minimum standards (including any “no award” outcomes) are determined under the General Terms. Judges should score honestly based on the evidence; Judges must not attempt to “force” an outcome.
8. Evidence standards
8.1. Judges evaluate based on the information provided in the Nomination and attachments. Strong submissions typically include clear scope, timeframe, measurable outcomes, and attribution of results.
8.2. Where claims are vague, lack timeframe, or lack substantiation, Judges should score accordingly and note the evidence gap in feedback.
8.3. Judges must not conduct investigative work, contact nominees, or request external confirmations. If you suspect material misrepresentation, you may flag the Nomination to the Organizer for an integrity review.
9. Prohibited contact and influence
9.1. You must not communicate with any nominee about any Nomination. If a nominee attempts contact, do not engage and report it immediately to the Organizer.
9.2. You must not accept gifts, discounts, services, or any benefit from any nominee or related party in connection with your judging role.
10. Judge recognition and optional items
10.1. Judges who complete the evaluation of at least 80 Nominations (or all assigned Nominations if fewer than 80 are assigned) may request a reference letter and a digital certificate from the Organizer.
10.2. Fees (where applicable): €269 for non‑ECDMA members and €90 for ECDMA members. Requests should be submitted to [email protected] after the Judging Period.
10.3. Printed certificates (if offered) may be purchased for an additional fee. Details are provided separately.
10.4. Judges are welcome to attend the Awards Ceremony by purchasing a ticket (where an in‑person or virtual ceremony is held). Ceremony details are announced separately.
11. Intellectual property
11.1. The Awards Program, judging platform, and all Organizer materials are the intellectual property of the Organizer or its licensors.
11.2. You may use Organizer materials only for the purpose of performing judging responsibilities and must not reuse, distribute, or commercialize them.
12. Disclaimer and limitation of liability
12.1. The Organizer provides the judging platform and process “as is” and makes no warranties regarding uninterrupted operation or outcomes.
12.2. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Organizer is not liable for any loss or damage arising from your participation as a Judge, including platform outages or administrative errors, except to the extent caused by the Organizer’s willful misconduct.
13. Termination
The Organizer may terminate or suspend your judging participation at any time to protect program integrity, including for breach of confidentiality, conflict violations, misconduct, or failure to complete assigned work.
14. Governing law and jurisdiction
These Judge Terms are governed by the laws of England and Wales. Any dispute arising out of or relating to these Judge Terms is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
15. Modifications
The Organizer may modify these Judge Terms from time to time. The latest version will be posted on the Awards Program website. Continued participation after an update constitutes acceptance of the revised terms.
16. Contact
Judge support and conflict disclosures: [email protected]
General inquiries: [email protected]
Postal address: Community Management LTD (Company No. 15674628), 71–75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2H 9JQ, United Kingdom
Appendix — Judging best practices
A. Consistency
- Use the full 1–10 scale when warranted; avoid clustering all scores in a narrow band.
- Apply the same standard within the same Category and framework.
B. Feedback quality
- Be specific and constructive; reference concrete elements of the submission.
- Separate opinion from evidence; explain why the evidence supports your score.
C. Avoiding common pitfalls
- Brand bias: do not favor famous brands over lesser-known ones.
- Halo effect: a strong aspect should not inflate unrelated criteria.
- Recency bias: avoid overweighting the most recent result if the submission covers a longer period.
- Leniency/severity bias: avoid consistently over-scoring or under-scoring.
Acknowledgment: By participating as a Judge, you confirm you have read, understood, and agree to these Judge Terms.