Martin Page Paradigm

Last changed 4/25 11:28P EDT

Martin Page

Assistant Director--Debate

Ridge High School

Updated for TOC 2016

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm (Scroll Down for PF)

General Update 4/2016: I much prefer rounds where specific interactions happen rather than rounds where the strategy is to extend dropped arguments and blow them up without really addressing the other debater's position(s).  This is particularly true on the negative side--I FIRMLY believe the 1NC should spend time SPECIFICALLY addressing the AC on the AC side of the flow.  This is not to say that I won't vote for you if you don't do this, but debaters who do this will get higher speaks.  Also, please stop assuming I understand dense, uncommon positions--you need to be clear in your explanation.

Overview: I've been judging circuit LD for a while now and actively coach it, so I am familiar with many different types of arguments.  Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round/how you are interacting with the other side.   I can't think of any arguments I won't evaluate (except the offensive "rape good, racism good, etc." arguments which I will drop you for running)--my goal is to not intervene. Please make sure it is clear to me how all arguments are functioning in the round.  Slow down on tags.  Overviews are much appreciated.

Some important notes:
1--I find myself incredibly uncomfortable with frameworks that explicitly use religion as a justification (evidently called the "God" case). I will attempt to evaluate them as I would any other argument, but if you're attempting to argue that God exists in front of me and that's a reason to vote one way or another, I'm not going to be very receptive to the argument. I respect every person's freedom of religion, but I struggle to understand the place of religion in the debate space.
2--I really struggle to evaluate rounds where there is no weighing, a lack of crystallization, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. Crystallize in the 2NR/2AR. Weigh or explain why your arguments are a prerequisite or pre-empt to those made by the other side. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped--implicate the drop and tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round, and the lower the chance that I accidentally intervene/have to play "argument roulette" and pluck something off the flow to vote off of because no one told me how to evaluate the round.
3--I am not very receptive to arguments saying that your opponent does not have the right to speak on a certain issue. This does not apply to theory arguments that say "debaters must not X" or "speaking for others" kritiks, which argue that NO debaters should do a certain thing (they don't leave one debater allowed to speak on an issue and another not allowed to speak on the issue). But I am not very receptive to "My opponent comes from X background, so she shouldn't speak on this issue, but I can because I come from Y background." If this argument has no carded evidence attached to it, I will not evaluate it. If it does have carded evidence attached to it, I will evaluate it, but I consider it an ad hominem attack and will have an extremely low threshold for responses to it. However, I am fine with (and even like) arguments that say authors of evidence are less qualified to speak on issues because of their background; this type of argument discusses how out-of-round discourse is shaped, so I'm fine with it. 
4--You really need to slow down on the tags and implications of evidence in less common, phil-heavy frameworks, especially if they come from the analytic tradition or are not very common in LD. I am not as familiar with these frameworks, so make sure you are especially clear in explaining how they function.

 

5--I'm really bad at keeping track of blippy cross applications when you're on your side of the flow; for example, if you're extending out of the AC on the AC side of the flow and also say "cross-apply this to X card on the NC flow" the chances are I miss that or something else right after it. So I prefer these cross-applications be made when you are making arguments on the side of the flow you are applying them to. 

Speed: I'm basically fine with speed--though the very, very fastest LD rounds might be slightly out of my comfort zone. I’ll say "slow" if you’re going too fast, "enunciate" if the words are garbled, and "louder" if you're too soft. If you're going fast on the evidence, please make sure the tags and analysis are slightly slower and are clear.  My issue is most often with enunciation and lack of vocal emphasis on important points in the case, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. 

Kritiks: I really like them, including narratives/performance arguments. I enjoy role of the ballot arguments and micropolitical positions, both pre- and post-fiat.  I do not care if you are topical as long as you JUSTIFY why you are not going to be topical.  This doesn't mean you are immune from losing a T debate; it simply means I will evaluate non-topical positions.  Please make the link story clear on the negative side.  I'm better at evaluating ks and other policy arguments than I am at dealing with heavy and uncommon philosophical positions, but I will vote off the flow. 

T/Theory: I would rather hear a substantive debate, but I don’t have a bias against evaluating theory, and I am growing more comfortable and familiar with it. Please be sure to give me a clear sense of how the shells and theory strategy function in the round and interact with the other side. I prefer theory be read at a slower pace than other positions, and PLEASE slow down on interps and implications.  I understand that theory has strategic value beyond just checking abuse, but PLEASE note the following:

--I prefer (and sometimes even like) T debate to theory debate because I find it more interesting and relevant.

--I default reasonability and drop the argument.

--When a shell is missing links or poorly explained, or if I find the theory more abusive than the abuse itself (more than 4 shells in the NR, for example) I'm going to have a lower threshold for responses.

--If the neg position is actually abusive, unlike many judges, I am receptive to theory initiated in the 1 AR, but only against an actual abuse.

--I find AFC and theory that is run against an out-of-round abuse (i.e. disclosure theory) or an abuse that is not related to content (apparently "wifi theory" is a thing?) annoying, abusive, and bad for education, so I have a lower threshold for responses on these as well, and speaks will be low.  Running these things won't get you more than a 26.9.

--If there is no voter extended in the 2AR/2NR I will not vote on it unless it is the only offense in the round.  I default to voting on substance if the theory debate is muddled and lacks a voter in the final rebuttal.

Tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments:

I am not a fan of "tricks" and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for extensions of blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses, and speaks will be low.  However, I am somewhat more receptive to skep (though I certainly don't love it) and tricky philosophical arguments that are extremely well-developed--if you are running these arguments, you need to slow down.  Running skep or well-developed analytically philosophical tricks that I understand when they are argued in the AC will not negatively affect you're speaks.

When I say "lower threshold for responses" it means I think these are weak arguments or abusive strategies, so while I will always vote off the flow, I don't like these arguments to begin with, so I'm very open to logical responses to them.

Extensions: I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend a full argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient.  Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way.  Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round.  

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all fine.  If you're running a DA, make sure the link is clear and you're weighing, but in general, I like policy arguments and am probably better at evaluating them than I am at evaluating heavy and uncommon philosophical positions.

Speaker Points: I start at a 28 and go up/down from there. Please note that in addition to what is listed below, I also give some consideration to clarity of spreading (enunciation especially) and word economy. If your words are incredibly garbled, I'm not going to be particularly happy--this usually makes a difference of .1-.2 speaker points. 

26-26.9--You have a lot of work to do OR you ran AFC or disclosure theory.

27-27.9--You did a decent job, but I do not think you have a chance of breaking.

28-28.9--You will probably break, but you aren't interacting arguments enough and are not making strategic enough decisions.

29-29.9--You are one of the better debaters I've judged at the tournament.  You're clearly signposting, weighing and/or explaining how arguments function in the round.  Your strategy might have a misstep or two, but on the whole, you've executed extremely well.

30--You executed your strategy in such a way that I wouldn't reasonably expect better from a high school student.

 Some Notes on Public Forum

I've judged more LD this year than anything else, and I struggle to find out what that means for those off you who have me as a PF judge.  I will say the following: I vote strictly off the flow, I aim not to intervene, and I will call cards in PF only if there is dispute over evidence in the round or if something seemed off to me when you read the card (i.e. if you cite the Washington Post saying 90% of Americans are Democrats or something).  Some specifics:

1--I do not care how fast you speak.

2--Turns are offense.  Implicate and use them as such.

3--The summary should respond to your opponent's rebuttal against your case and generally focus on your side of the flow (i.e. focus on your offense, not defense on their case--but remember, turns are offense).  Since it's usually impossible to respond to everything that was said in their rebuttal, be strategic about which arguments you go for and please weigh. 

4--Please crystallize the round in the final focus.  If you don't weigh arguments in the summary and final focus, it will be very hard for me not to intervene, which makes everyone sad.

5--Frameworks and observations are important and should provide me a way to weigh the round. 

6--In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense (things that were dropped and clearly extended) rather than doing weighing for you.

Feel free to email me at martin.d.k.page@gmail.com if you have questions.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
The Newark Invitational 1/3/2019 VPF R5 Hunter WO Regis FK Aff
The Newark Invitational 1/3/2019 VPF R2 Regis DoMc Beacon CL Aff
New Jersey District Tournament 2/24/2018 BQ Final 4008 4012 Neg Neg on a 3-0
Newark Invitational 1/4/2018 VPF R4 Independent - HSAS AS Regis HK Neg
Newark Invitational 1/4/2018 VPF R1 Stuyvesant GL Regis OV Aff
The 14th Scarsdale Invitational 11/10/2017 VLD Semi Byram Hills LP* Edgemont MLe Aff Aff on a 3-0
John Edie Holiday Debates hosted by Blake 12/16/2016 LD Octas La Canada AZ Collegiate DM Aff Aff on a 2-1
John Edie Holiday Debates hosted by Blake 12/16/2016 LD Double West DM Valley LG Scarsdale ZE Neg Neg on a 3-0
Ridge Debates 12/9/2016 NLD Finals Chaminade CB Freehold Township NL Neg Neg on a 2-1
Ridge Debates 12/9/2016 NPF Semi Stuyvesant KL Hunter RT Aff Aff on a 3-0
Ridge Debates 12/9/2016 NLD Semis Edgemont RG Chaminade CB Neg Neg on a 3-0
Ridge Debates 12/9/2016 NPF Octa Hackley RZ Regis KK Aff Aff on a 2-1
Ridge Debates 12/9/2016 NPF R4 Scarsdale FA Millburn CD Aff
Ridge Debates 12/9/2016 NPF R3 Millburn MA Hunter KA Aff
Ridge Debates 12/9/2016 NPF R3 Stuyvesant GG Scarsdale MG Aff
Ridge Debates 12/9/2016 NPF R2 Bronx HS Of Science RD Horace Mann KH Neg
Byram Hills Invitational 9/9/2016 VLD R5 Harrison EL Newark Science BA Neg
Byram Hills Invitational 9/9/2016 VLD R3 Bronx HS Of Science GM Lexington AA Aff
Tournament of Champions 4/30/2016 LD Octo Clements FT Lexington AS Aff Aff on a 3-0
Tournament of Champions 4/30/2016 LD R6 Law Magnet DD Byram Hills PE Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/30/2016 LD R6 Wilson MF Dulles AW Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/30/2016 LD R5 West Des Moines Valley TF St. Thomas JB Aff
Tournament of Champions 4/30/2016 LD R5 Lexington AS Harrison KK Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/30/2016 LD R4 Gig Harbor AB Benjamin Franklin SF Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/30/2016 LD R2 Millburn WH Clements FT Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/30/2016 LD R1 West Des Moines Valley EM Newark Science AK Neg
Harrison Round Robin 4/16/2016 LD Semis Kathryn Kenny Nina Potischman Neg Neg on a 3-0
Harrison Round Robin 4/16/2016 LD R6 Daniel Aguirre Amit Kukreja Neg Neg on a 2-0
Harrison Round Robin 4/16/2016 LD R5 Paul Erlanger Felix Tan Neg
Harrison Round Robin 4/16/2016 LD R4 Alex Wurm Nina Potischman Neg Neg on a 2-0
Harrison Round Robin 4/16/2016 LD R3 Raffi Piliero Paul Erlanger Neg Neg on a 2-0
Harrison Round Robin 4/16/2016 LD R2 Kathryn Kenny Alex Wurm Aff Aff on a 2-0
Harrison Round Robin 4/16/2016 LD R1 Nina Potischman Kathryn Kenny Neg Neg on a 2-0
42nd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/11/2016 VLD Triple Strake Jesuit CP RC
42nd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/11/2016 VLD Triple Ft. Lauderdale AO Hawken NK Neg Neg on a 3-0
42nd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/11/2016 VLD R6 Roeper EB Trinity Prep NR Neg
42nd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/11/2016 VLD R4 Bronx Science JJ Lexington NB Neg
42nd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/11/2016 VLD R4 Kingwood RG Reagan FK Neg
42nd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/11/2016 VLD R3 Cambridge Rindge and Latin PO Evanston DF Aff
42nd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/11/2016 VLD R3 West Des Moines Valley CR Bronx Science DR Neg
42nd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/11/2016 VLD R2 Pinecrest MS Roeper JK Aff
42nd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/11/2016 VLD R2 West Des Moines Valley BG Byram Hills JB Aff
42nd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/11/2016 VLD R1 Fenwick TS
42nd Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament 2/11/2016 VLD R1 Cambridge Rindge and Latin OS
2016 Newark Invitational 1/7/2016 VLD Semifi Bronx HS Of Science ZP Millburn WH Neg Neg on a 2-1
2016 Newark Invitational 1/7/2016 VLD Quarte Harrison KK Millburn WH Neg Neg on a 2-1
2016 Newark Invitational 1/7/2016 VLD Octafi Concord Carlisle DL Cambridge Rindge and Latin PO Neg Neg on a 3-0
2016 Newark Invitational 1/7/2016 VLD Double Success Academy SC Harrison CS Aff Aff on a 2-1
2016 Newark Invitational 1/7/2016 VLD R6 Cambridge Rindge and Latin SS Scarsdale LS Neg
2016 Newark Invitational 1/7/2016 VLD R5 Bronx HS Of Science RR Randolph EW Aff
2016 Newark Invitational 1/7/2016 VLD R4 Syosset JW Hunter TF Aff
2016 Newark Invitational 1/7/2016 VLD R3 Lexington AS Success Academy SC Neg
2016 Newark Invitational 1/7/2016 VLD R2 Harrison SO Byram Hills JBi Aff
2016 Newark Invitational 1/7/2016 VLD R1 Princeton EO Lexington VV Aff
The Princeton Classic 12/4/2015 VLD R1 Chaminade MI Lexington NK Neg
The Princeton Classic 12/4/2015 VLD R1 Lexington DW Montville AL Neg
The 12th Scarsdale Invitational 11/13/2015 VLD R2 Stuyvesant SL Byram Hills JBi Aff
The 12th Scarsdale Invitational 11/13/2015 VLD R1 Syosset AM Stuyvesant KF Aff
Yale Invitational 9/18/2015 JVLD Octa Collegiate MOs Chaminade JM Neg Neg on a 2-1
CBI PF Session 3 8/8/2015 PF R6 Garbage PK Ballers MH Aff
CBI PF Session 3 8/8/2015 PF R4 Carryz TH Garbage NK Neg
CBI PF Session 3 8/8/2015 PF R3 Carryz AA Ballers IF Neg
CBI PF Session 3 8/8/2015 PF R1 Garbage ZP Ballers NR Aff
CBI Camp Tournament 7/2/2015 PF Octas Huang/Katz LS Mella/Norton PM Aff Aff on a 3-0
Tournament of Champions 4/25/2015 PF Qtr Miami Beach Senior SM Stuyvesant UK Neg Neg on a 2-1
Tournament of Champions 4/25/2015 PF Oct University HC Stuyvesant UK Neg Neg on a 2-1
Tournament of Champions 4/25/2015 PF R6 New Orleans Jesuit CG Nova CM Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/25/2015 PF R5 Myers Park AT University LE Aff
Tournament of Champions 4/25/2015 PF R4 Blake BG Hawken NW Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/25/2015 PF R3 Christopher Columbus AL Mission San Jose WS Aff
Tournament of Champions 4/25/2015 PF R2 Mission San Jose KS Ft. Lauderdale HS Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/25/2015 PF R1 Fairmont Preparatory FI Cypress Bay PP Neg
2015 Harrison Round Robin 4/18/2015 LD Round Christian Quiroz Achal Srinivasan Aff Aff on a 2-0
2015 Harrison Round Robin 4/18/2015 LD R5 Paul Erlanger Christian Quiroz Neg Neg on a 2-0
2015 Harrison Round Robin 4/18/2015 LD R4 Christian Quiroz Sarah Ryan Neg
2015 Harrison Round Robin 4/18/2015 LD R3 Ben Laufer Raffi Piliero Aff Aff on a 2-0
2015 Harrison Round Robin 4/18/2015 LD R2 Achal Srinivasan Kathryn Kenny Neg
MSDL State Debate Final 3/28/2015 LD-N Semi Lexington RW Needham SR Aff Neg on a 2-1
MSDL State Debate Final 3/28/2015 LD-V Final Lexington LW Sacred Heart AT Neg Neg on a 3-0
MSDL State Debate Final 3/28/2015 LD-V Semi Sacred Heart AT Lexington JK Aff Aff on a 3-0
MSDL State Debate Final 3/28/2015 LD-V R4 Lexington LW Acton Boxborough JL Aff
MSDL State Debate Final 3/28/2015 LD-V R3 Lexington NG Needham EL Aff
MSDL State Debate Final 3/28/2015 LD-V R2 Sacred Heart AT Lexington KZ Aff
MSDL State Debate Final 3/28/2015 LD-V R1 Manchester Essex NA Lexington JK Neg
The 11th Scarsdale Invitational 2/6/2015 VLD Octa Bronx Science ID Newark Science CQ Neg Neg on a 3-0
The 11th Scarsdale Invitational 2/6/2015 VLD R6 Lexington NB Millburn WH Neg
The 11th Scarsdale Invitational 2/6/2015 VLD R5 Benjamin N Cardozo AB Bronx Science CL Neg
The 11th Scarsdale Invitational 2/6/2015 VLD R4 Newark Science AK Bronx Science DR Aff
The 11th Scarsdale Invitational 2/6/2015 VLD R3 Byram Hills RPa Hunter College SC Neg
The 11th Scarsdale Invitational 2/6/2015 VLD R2 Newtown SC Hunter College AKu Neg
The 11th Scarsdale Invitational 2/6/2015 VLD R1 Byram Hills SC Millburn CS Neg
Lexington Winter Invitational 1/17/2015 VLD Double West Des Moines Valley GS Harvard-Westlake CC Aff Neg on a 2-1
Lexington Winter Invitational 1/17/2015 VLD R6 Harrison EA Newark Science NS Aff
Lexington Winter Invitational 1/17/2015 VLD R4 Bronx Science GMi Stuyvesant TC Aff
Lexington Winter Invitational 1/17/2015 VLD R4 Byram Hills AS Westwood KR Aff
Lexington Winter Invitational 1/17/2015 VLD R3 Heights LM Stuyvesant AA Neg
Lexington Winter Invitational 1/17/2015 VLD R3 Byram Hills AJ Bronx Science ZP Aff
Lexington Winter Invitational 1/17/2015 VLD R2 McDowell JP Newark Science CQ Neg
Lexington Winter Invitational 1/17/2015 VLD R2 Harrison AE Collegiate HL Aff
Lexington Winter Invitational 1/17/2015 VLD R1 Poly Prep DW Byram Hills SC Neg
The Princeton Classic 12/5/2014 VLD Runoff Park LC Lexington MZ Aff Neg on a 2-1
The Princeton Classic 12/5/2014 VLD R6 Lexington KB Byram Hills JBr Neg
The Princeton Classic 12/5/2014 VLD R5 Regis FK Monticello DA Neg
The Princeton Classic 12/5/2014 VLD R4 Montville EH Syosset AM Neg
The Princeton Classic 12/5/2014 VLD R4 Harrison EE McDowell AL Aff
The Princeton Classic 12/5/2014 VLD R3 Pittsburgh Central Catholic MS Bronx Science ZP Neg
The Princeton Classic 12/5/2014 VLD R3 Scarsdale MM Phillipsburg AM Aff
The Princeton Classic 12/5/2014 VLD R2 Pingry EL Harrison MZ Neg
The Princeton Classic 12/5/2014 VLD R1 Newtown SC Benjamin N Cardozo AB Neg
The Princeton Classic 12/5/2014 VLD R1 Albany Academies LB Syosset JW Neg
Horace Mann Invitational 11/22/2014 NPF R6 HorMan MR Regis KP Aff Neg on a 5-2
Horace Mann Invitational 11/22/2014 NPF R4 BrxSci GZ Maspet KT Aff
Horace Mann Invitational 11/22/2014 NPF R2 Regis NP HorMan LS Aff
Horace Mann Invitational 11/22/2014 NPF R1 HorMan OY Spence KR Aff
Malcolm A Bump Memorial Tournament 11/14/2014 VLD R5 Newark Science AK Collegiate NE Aff
Malcolm A Bump Memorial Tournament 11/14/2014 VLD R5 Lexington KB Stuyvesant SL Aff
Malcolm A Bump Memorial Tournament 11/14/2014 VLD R4 Hunter College MF Regis DS Aff
Malcolm A Bump Memorial Tournament 11/14/2014 VLD R3 Newark Science NS Collegiate DM Aff
Malcolm A Bump Memorial Tournament 11/14/2014 VLD R3 NFA KG Lexington MZ Neg
Malcolm A Bump Memorial Tournament 11/14/2014 VLD R2 Bronx Science DR Newark Science AF Neg
Malcolm A Bump Memorial Tournament 11/14/2014 VLD R1 Jericho HP Harrison KK Neg
Malcolm A Bump Memorial Tournament 11/14/2014 VLD R1 Collegiate DK NFA RH Aff
New York City Invitational 10/16/2014 LD R7 Phoenix Country Day PW Jesuit BG Neg
New York City Invitational 10/16/2014 LD R7 Newtown JW Benjamin N Cardozo KJ Aff
New York City Invitational 10/16/2014 LD R5 Timothy Christian MM Albany Academies DSi Aff
New York City Invitational 10/16/2014 LD R4 Pittsburgh Central Catholic MS Scarsdale ZG Neg
New York City Invitational 10/16/2014 LD R4 Regis DS Pittsburgh Central Catholic TB Neg
New York City Invitational 10/16/2014 LD R3 Pittsburgh Central Catholic JD DuPont Manual ST Neg
New York City Invitational 10/16/2014 LD R2 Scarsdale ZE DuPont Manual HP Aff
New York City Invitational 10/16/2014 LD R1 Cambridge PO Holy Cross RS Neg
Bronx Round Robin 10/16/2014 PF R4 University CH Ransom Everglades GL Aff
Bronx Round Robin 10/16/2014 PF R3 Stuyvesant KU Capitol Debate BN Aff Aff on a 2-0
Bronx Round Robin 10/16/2014 PF R1 Walt Whitman AA Pinecrest IM Aff Aff on a 2-0
Yale Invitational 9/19/2014 VLD Trips Lexington JK Immaculate Heart LM Aff Neg on a 2-1
Yale Invitational 9/19/2014 VLD R2 Regis AA Lexington MH Neg
Yale Invitational 9/19/2014 VLD R1 Hawken MZ Stuyvesant SW Aff
Tournament of Champions 4/26/2014 PF R7 Miami Beach SW Harker LR Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/26/2014 PF R6 Fairmont Preparatory BC Harker LJ Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/26/2014 PF R5 Pinecrest HI Desert Vista CS Aff
Tournament of Champions 4/26/2014 PF R2 Geneva School of Boerne MR Newton South GH Neg
The 10th Scarsdale Invitational 2/7/2014 VLD R6 Regis JC Stuyvesant MR Aff
The 10th Scarsdale Invitational 2/7/2014 VLD R5 Bronx Science EF William Tennent MP Neg
The 10th Scarsdale Invitational 2/7/2014 VLD R4 NFA JG Collegiate DK Neg
The 10th Scarsdale Invitational 2/7/2014 VLD R3 Hunter College BL Harrison KK Aff
The 10th Scarsdale Invitational 2/7/2014 VLD R2 Byram Hills PE LaGuardia LM Neg
The 10th Scarsdale Invitational 2/7/2014 VLD R1 Hunter College SC Byram Hills CS Aff