I am a former high school debater. I have judged scores of rounds over the years but, as of this writing (fall 2021), I have not judged extensively in the last ten years. Consequently, while I am a detailed flow, I am unlikely to be able to keep up with national circuit top-tier speed. If I can't flow you, I'll provide non-verbals to slow you down. Additionally, I'll view speed done poorly negatively. If you can't speak in complete sentences or enunciate clearly, you're headed for low speaker points or, if the opposing team successfully places me in a skills paradigm, a loss.
I am a MOSTLY tabula rasa judge, but I do have some commitments from which I will depart only if compelled to do so by cogent, persuasive and, importantly, unrefuted argument: cases should be topical; teams should engage in productive clash; and debaters must operate in good faith (if you are caught manufacturing evidence you will lose). If I'm not successfully placed in a paradigm, I will default to a hybrid policy-maker/rules framework. As a practicing litigator, I have a particular fondness for jurisdictional arguments. I'll vote on T, but neg must understand their argument and win the battle on definition and violation. And as a jurisdictional argument, T must be run in 1 NC. 2NC can extend the argument, but cannot address violation if it wasn't addressed in 1NC. Otherwise, I will assess the round as a test of policy. Does case identify a problem that needs to be solved? Does the plan solve for it? Does it do so without disadvantages that outweigh its advantages? In other words, the old-timey stock issues matter to me (unless you convince me they shouldn't).
Counterplans--modern debaters are likely to find my views on counterplans antiquated. When I debated, counterplans had to be non-topical and were always hampered by the absence of fiat. Aff gets the benefit of fiat (as a partial counterweight to neg presumption), neg does not. I am open to persuasion otherwise, but I am vulnerable to Aff attacking counterplans on these grounds. In other words, if you have killer case arguments and well-supported solvency arguments/disads, it may not be worth your time to run a counterplan. If you do, i'll listen to Aff's perm claims and expect you to clash on that point.
Kritik. Again, I am a product of my era. I prefer clash on policy issues over attacks at the level of worldview or axiom, but its your round, and I understand that Kritik has some value in training high school students to analyze at the meta-level. So I'll hear you out, but I'll also entertain counter-arguments with equal and perhaps more earnest ears.
Pet-peeves: don't go over time; finish your sentence and stop. Be courteous. Don't forget to tell me why to vote for you.