Brad Bolman Paradigm
Coach: Harvard University
Coached: Head Royce, Bronx Science, Interlake, Traverse City
Debated: The Pembroke Hill School '10, Harvard University '15
Do what you are best at. I try to leave predispositions out of decision-making as much as possible (it's not) and will work hard to adjudicate your round well.
— *Pre-NDT Update 1 (Exhaustion): I think the way I judge debates rewards moments of clear judge direction and disincentivizes the lack thereof, which may explain why I sit with more regularity than some. At multiple tournaments in the last two years, I have judged all or nearly all elimination rounds. This is exhausting, particularly because I also have non-debate work demands. I do my best to stay focused and awake, but I'm fallible like the rest of the folks around.
— *Pre-NDT Update 2 (Ending Careers): If your career ends at the NDT while I am judging and you would prefer to not hear an extended explanation, feel free to tell me. I am happy to talk about the debate later or not at all.
— Barring a close elim round, I rarely read evidence unless it is subject to dispute or a debater tells me to. I do my best to listen to cards as they're read. I believe this approach rewards clarity and forces me to pay attention.
— I type all debates. I decide based on this text. I frequently vote on technical concessions. Truths are contingently settled. Getting upset that I didn't vote for an argument will not assist you in future debates.
— I avoid as much as possible drawing on my knowledge of your arguments to fill gaps in explanation. This may partially explain an inconsistent voting record on certain positions. I think this approach is important: there are academic trends that I professionally disagree with, but this shouldn't bias me against a well-debated articulation.
— Rough point scale: 29.9-30 (perfect), 29.4-29.8 (best performances of the year), 28.9-29.3 (great speeches), 28.4-28.8 (good speeches), 27.9-28.3 (meh speeches), below-27.8 (requiring of great improvement)