--Speech--

As far as extemp/oratory/informative, I look for a least some evidence to support their point or topic. However, these are speaking events so "speaking skills" are important to me (rate, diction and delivery).

When it comes to Interp, I am all about the story and the journey, regardless of humorous or dramatic. Introductions can be at the beginning or done as a teaser (whatever works). I have no specific issues with lots of technical blocking or no blocking at all...it all depends on the piece and how well it is executed. Some pieces require lots of tech and some are very simple and need almost nothing.

I am a Theatre Arts coach and a Interp Coach, so acting is the most important to me. And, I am a big fan of keeping with the author's intent. I am pretty liberal about mature material, however it has to be appropriate for the piece and needed, not just mature to get attention. I do not like it when an actor makes up things and adds to the script for no reason.

I look for and emphasize conviction within a speech. I think purpose and thought behind words and actions is a necessity to draw me into your speech. I love when competitors tactfully think outside of the box to distinguish themselves within the round. Best of luck to all competitors

Speech Paradigm:

I admire an articulate, poised speaking delivery. I respect content knowledge, but not the spontaneous manufacturing of facts just to bolster a case while not understanding the topic. Note cards are acceptable to use as reminders. It's okay to be nervous, and that energy will need direction, but unnecessary pacing should be limited.

LD Paradigm:

Judged LD for 5yrs, taught LD for 2. I prefer a normal conversational speed (not a fan of spreading) but will not dock points for speed. The evidence and connections, rebuttal answers should be clear and will be a factor in my judging who wins the rounds. Name calling and rude comments will not be tolerated at any time--if you don't like your opponent, beat them.

Congress: I’m normally an extemp judge, but I’m not completely unfamiliar with Congress. I am definitely a more lay judge, but I’ll still try my best to flow, and strong argumentation will be reflected on my ballot. I’m fine with humor, just keep it under control. Speaking needs to be strong, but it won’t make up for a lack of content. I’m normally generous with POs, just don’t make excessive mistakes. Good Luck!

I tend to include performance, diction, voice, energy, etc. in my evaluation for events like oratory, info, and extemp, along with the obvious analysis of content, ideas, and supporting material.

I think creativity in blocking and staging should be rewarded in a digital atmosphere as much as they are in a live one.

I am pretty liberal on content - language, sexuality, etc. do not bother or offend me, as long as the performer has a real grasp on the subjects they are talking about and understands them fully. However, I view 'profanity' much differently than slurs, derogatory language, etc. In general I would prefer that they not be used. There are scripts that use them in order to bring home a point about the vileness of such ideas and beliefs, but in my opinion, that must be very earned, and in most cases, it is not.

I love enthusiasm - energy - flow - confidence. Perfection not mandatory...but it helps.