I'll try to be as tab as possible, but that means you need to be giving me a reason why I'm voting on any given argument or framework. If I'm not getting enough of a reason, I'll have to do some level of judge intervention, so all I ask is that you make it easy on me.
I debated in Oregon for 4 years doing policy, I've done parlimentary debate (competed at the ToC as well), and even a brief stint in Congress.
Speed is fine with me, but make sure you're very clear on your taglines because if I can't flow your argument, you might as well have not made it.
In the end, I believe the debate is your learning ground and I'm just there to decided who did a better job of playing the game and then providing feedback.
I read a good number of Ks or at least the lit for them, so I probably have some idea of what you're talking about, but please still explain it for me as if I don't know what your talking about. If I can't understand what your K is, I'm left to interpret it however I understand it, which may not be correct.
If you're going to read any politics disad(s), assume I know nothing about the current state of politics and break it down for me.
If you're going to read some sort of framework, please explain to me why the framework should be preferred (or if your opponents say nothing about it, I'll assume that's the framework we're debating).
In terms of theory arguments, I'm willing to vote any way on these, but I have a relatively low threshold for answers to straight condo bad, but I am much more inclined to hear a good logical-limited conditionality argument. If you're using theory as some sort of time skew or strat skew, I'm fine with that, but if you get called on it, I'm willing to hear an argument against it.
Finally, I've never seen an RVI read, but this is something I would probably be unlike to vote on, but given extreme levels of abuse, I suppose I could be persuaded.