Updated for 2020-21

Pronouns: she/her/hers

If you have questions about anything here, just ask!

Congress:

-I don't have a preference between early/mid/late round speeches - just give the best speech. I evaluate each speech for the role it needs to serve in the round. So, if you're sitting on a neg and we go to a 2-minute recess because you're insistent on doing a crystallization speech and no one else has a neg, I'll be annoyed. If you're able to show me multiple types of speeches throughout the session (especially if I'm the parli), that's great.

-I hate one-sided debate - it isn't debate. I don't have a set rule "if you speak on the same side as the previous person I'll mark you down x # of ranks," but it definitely has a negative impact on the final ranks. If you speak on the same side as the previous person, it is very, very unlikely (albeit not impossible) I will rank you in the top 3. This is even more true for a crystallization speech.

-Expectations for authorship/sponsorship/1st aff: problem/solution; identify a framework/burden/scope to evaluate debate; have a central narrative

-Expectations for mid-round speech: Refute; have a central narrative

-Expectations for late speech: Refute & boil the debate down to a main issue or 2; have a central narrative

-Have a clear, specific, and offensive thesis coming out of the introduction.

-Have clear warrants; if they stem from the legislation directly, even better. Particularly in mid/late speeches, weighing/clash is super important.

-Clear, humanized impacts are key.

-I'm not going to open the legislation packet - it's your job to bring it to life for me. If I know a detail of the leg from coaching my own students but you don't mention it, it won't help you - I'll be as tabula rasa as possible with the docket.

-No rehash. It's possible to extend something from your own side with new warrants/impacts, but new data is just rehash.

-Neg speeches can't say the leg is bad because it doesn't do something unless that thing is mutually exclusive with the action of the legislation; if the leg is that we should all eat more bananas and your neg is no we should eat more apples, unless you can prove that we can't eat apples AND bananas the point doesn't work. I also don't love points about complacency - they generally feel stock to me (unless you're talking about a social issue when the issue attention cycle is a legitimate concern). Both of these types of points (do x not y; complacency) feel like avoidance of engaging with the actual legislation - neg speeches must demonstrate the inherent harm(s) of passing.

-No stock intros/conclusions - if it could work for any piece of legislation, it's too vague. I like an attention-grabbing intro of some kind and when the conclusion ties a bow with the opening.

-I don't have a preference for being in the simulation or avoiding it. If you start talking about your constituents and your office in D.C., I will likely roll my eyes. On the other hand, talking about your current high school Bio class doesn't work either.

-Stay involved throughout the entire session. If you give an A+ speech but ask zero questions, you'll get ranked below an A- speech and strong, well-spaced questions.

-I will rank you as the PO if you're a strong PO (fast & efficient, knowledgeable about RR, clear command of chamber). Being the PO is neither a guarantee of a rank nor of a drop for me - if you do an A job as the PO, it'll be ranked the same as if you did an A job as a speaker.

PF:

-I don't flow cross; if you want me to evaluate something out of cross, you need to mention it in a later speech.

-If you want me to evaluate something from FF, it also needs to appear in the summary.

-Make sure to identify moments of clash. Don't let the two ships just pass in the night; tell me where the boats crash and why yours stays afloat.

-Make sure to weigh arguments. Tell me what the key points of the debate are so that I don't have to determine them myself.

-I won't make a decision based on politeness, but being excessively rude/abrasive in cross annoys me and will negatively impact your speaker points.

-Unless there's true abuse in the round, I won't vote on theory.

-I haven't judged circuit PF since Stanford 2019, so you're better off avoiding "progressive" PF stuff. Treat me as more flay.

Personal History:

I have judged PF in the State of Ohio for 3 years. I also judged Speech for a year before that. My background is in business (MBA) so I will easily understand any business arguments. You may have to lead me through the political arguments with more patience.

Speed:

I don't mind a moderately fast rate of speed as long as I can understand what you're saying. But, please don't spread.

Expectations for the debaters:

Rudeness or overly aggressive behavior will hurt your speaker points.

I expect debaters to have a basic knowledge of the underlying economic, political, and social forces affecting your case. For example, in the pharmaceuticals resolution this fall, I expected a basic understanding of pricing and economics. When I didn't see that, the believability of the case suffered.

If your opponent asks for evidence, you need to be able to produce it almost instantaneously.

I expect all arguments to be backed by both evidence and logic equally.

Be organized or you look less competent. And, don't expect your evidence to do all the work. Logically lead me to how your evidence makes your case.

Technical preferences:

No off-time roadmaps. I will start the timer with the first word you say after checking if everyone is ready.

All arguments in Final Focus must be in Summary if you want me to evaluate them.

Events Coached: PF, LD, Congress, Speech
Competed In: Policy, Speech - Decades Ago!

Years Judging LD: 12

Years Judging Overall: 12

Delivery Rate: 5

(1 = Slow … 7 = Fast)

Delivery Heavily Weighs: 5
In my decision, the VALUE is: 2

(1 = is very important … 7 = is rarely a factor)

In my decision, the CRITERION is: 2

(1 = is very important … 7 = is rarely a factor)
Final rebuttals should have: voting issues only ****
Jargon during rebuttals: 2

(1 = use frequently … 7 = use sparingly)
Evidence (analytical and empirical): 3

(1 = always necessary .... 7 = not necessary)

Decide Winner: Key Arguments

During round, my note taking is: Rigorous Flow

Comments:

On Speed/Spreading: If I cannot understand you, you cannot win.
V/VC is important to win but must have solid contentions to support your case.
****Final rebuttal - OK to make clarifying comments responding to an issue that you feel opponent misconstrued or misunderstood. Focus on KVI - Tell me why you won the round.