Our activity should first and foremost be an educational experience for everyone involved. Because we are practicing an academic exercise in a competitive space, sportsmanship is imperative. I tell my students to model the type of debate they would like to compete against; if the way they engage in the activity makes their opponents want to quit our activity...they are doing it wrong. Debate should be for everyone - a healthy debate circuit, like a healthy democracy, thrives off high engagement/participation. I invite you to engage with this narrative; if you love this activity, you should want to share it with as many as possible.

Debaters are sometimes shocked when they come into a round asking me for my paradigm; I will often defer my paradigm to be determined first by the preferences of their opponents. I bring this up because I would rather all participants be comfortable setting norms with one another prior to engaging with what my preferences are as an adjudicator--it makes for a more balanced debate rather than one team having an advantage because they are better at adapting to a specific paradigm of any specific judge. A fast way to lose my ballot is to treat people (judges, opponents, and spectators) within the debate space with disregard because your goals of winning don't require their preferences to be met. I'm not a lay judge, but the debate should primarily be accessible by everyone in the space in order for it to be maximally educational. If I'm on a panel, I pay attention to the paradigms of my fellow judges (and the experience level of your opponents)...so it's always safe to assume I'll vote you down for debate for exploitive, patronizing, and exclusionary behaviors and language. *Extend this line of thought to the literature you're reading and the narratives you're sharing; the people in your impact scenarios matter, they are not a chess piece in your "game of words".

Rather than seeing the debate space as "competitive" (yes, I acknowledge a judge determines a winning side--or best reasoned/articulated/defended side), I choose to see the debate space as "collaborative". Debate asks us to engage in perspective taking; the purpose of switch-side debate is so students gain perspective based on research and critical thought. Ideally, we (judges, spectators, coaches, and participants) should enter into the debate space with good faith; with the goal of everyone ending the round having learned something new, considered a different point of view, and enjoyed the experience (and with the sentiment that it was worth it/we'd do it again if we could).

I reward teams who bring topical research into the space. Fewer substantive arguments with thorough analysis of the literature will always be preferred over trying to win because your opponent doesn't have time to respond to an argument (because you chose to run many under-developed arguments). I understand and enjoy theory, kritik, performance, and fw/value debate when they are done well. I don't think it is productive or required to advocate a position you don't believe in; you may not get to choose your side, but you do get to choose your arguments. 99% of the time I'm going to vote for legitimate advocacy over an overly technocratic strategy developed specifically for the round. Internal consistency is important to me - especially when there are in-round impacts being weighed.

I generally view the debate space as both a lab/playground for testing ideas and *also* as a space for engaging in deliberative democracy - because of this, I discourage deterministically framed arguments that disempower or remove agency from others sharing the space. There's a difference between framing an argument as non-unique and framing it as *inevitable*; if your opponents do this, you'll probably be able to win the impact by making space for an alternate narrative in the round (and I may likely be willing to vote on the in-round impact of preferring your alternate narrative). For example, the inability to eliminate corruption or suffering isn't a reason to reject a plan or framework that minimizes it (this is also true for narratives of peace as the absence of violence, narratives of environmental stewardship, and so on). You'll do well to not dismiss your opponent's impacts in a way that perpetuates a narrative that excludes an alternate narrative that might be better for us to engage with. I enjoy when debaters challenge narratives that often go unquestioned as a means to empower.

I'm going to flow, you should too--it's annoying when you argue against evidence your opponent doesn't read - don't think of reading/skimming through your opponent's files as a substitute for listening/flowing (conversely, don't give your opponents large quantities of evidence you don't plan on reading).

Aside from the rules of the activity, I ask that you're open to earnestly engaging with arguments as your opponents present them; not everyone is taught how to debate the same way, and part of what makes our activity beautiful is the potential it has to evolve and change to become *more* inclusive. I generally believe all constructive speeches are fair game for new lines of argumentation (though topicality probably needs to be run directly subsequent to the interp violation), and rebuttals require debaters to both consolidate and prioritize - I believe *how* we choose to consolidate and *what* we prioritize in rebuttals to be revelatory and this will be where you may get yourself into trouble with internal consistency.

Treat the activity and everyone in the round with respect--that'll get you far.

For email chains: proceededpower@gmail.com

Artistically I'm a modernist. So Escher, Greek appeals, etc. James Joyce's Ulysses is perhaps most idyllic of this kind of formalism. I include this as an affront to you, the debaters', intellect. Here's dessert: if you feel like attacking me personally cut cards from Tiqqun's Theory of Bloom which is, of course, a postmodern critique of the aforementioned worldview.

I debated for Missouri State for about 3 and a half years. Before that I debated at Central High School in Springfield, MO.

To be honest I've never liked the idea of paradigms, even though I've found them helpful in certain situations. It seems to me that once someone writes (or types) down an orientation towards a particular argument it becomes easier for them to justify blowing off other arguments that aren't perceptually compatible with that crystallization. With that being said I do recognize that everyone has predispositions about debate, especially if you've been in it for long enough, so, here are mine.

T- It's best to have examples of in round abuse. Also make sure to tell me what types of aff's they justify, and why that's unpredictable and/or undebatable. Theoretical RVI's probably won't get you that far. Critical RVI's are more persuasive.

DA- Link walls are great, and try to do comparative impact calculus. If UQ isn't contested I'll assume that the status squo is resolving the internal link. There can most definitely be 0 risk (which applies to the Aff as well).

CP- Not much to say here. Make sure it solves the aff. I'm inclined to think most are legit but I can be persuaded otherwise. As a side note I think abusive fiat (International, States, Utopian) theory is cool and underused. Advantage CP's with an impact turn as a NB is an interesting 2NR.

Conditionality- 2 is fine, 3 is pushing it, 4 is probably overboard.

K's- I'm familiar with a good amount of this literature but by no means an expert. Contextualize the link and connect alt solvency to the impacts. Links of ommission are fine but keep in mind it makes the perm for the aff much more viable. Also for high theory rounds be sure to articulate the internal link to your impact. A lot of the times the links are about debate practices but the impacts are macropolitical, there's obviously a difference there in terms of scale, so the interpretive task is to synthesize a connection between the two.

Non-traditional- Form is just as important as content because the two are mutually reinforcing (co-constituitive). Filter the impacts through the framework interp and tell me what my role as the judge is.

Line-by-line is best, but embedded clash is also a thing so arguments are rarely conceded. I try to judge based solely off the flow (unless that's contested), but if evidence specificity becomes an issue I'll read the stuff.

Theory- Non-disclosed new affs must use their 1AC as a weapon. This is a necessary subtley given pre-conditionality and evidence comparison.

In-round DA's/cheating- be aware that my mind has static.

Presumption is also very important in my mind. But that means different things for different rounds.

Finally I'm fascinated by the notion of not casting a ballot at all. Competition is not inevitable. They can't make me pick a winner if ya'll decide that there shouldn't be losers. "If your beliefs are different than mine, than we gonna fight. Who needs peace when you can profit from being right?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1fMvLbE85E

Please put me on the email chain-chasity.hance@mjays.us

Note- Some of the things written here are for our local circuit and may not apply.

These are just my thoughts on how a debate looks/is won. However, just because I don't think about debate the same way you do does not mean you won't win my ballot. Just tell me why I should be voting there.

I have a diversity of experience as a debater, judge and coach. If you have questions, just ask.

Affirmatives
I prefer for the affirmative to have a dependable topical plan of action. I understand the need to read a non-plan based affirmative (I read a project and have coached a team who read one), however I can be easily swayed by theory/topicality debates in such a situation. Be ready to explain why your project/movement/ etc is important or apriori.

Affirmatives shouldn't wait until the 2AC to explain the plan's actions.

Topicality
I am not a fan of unnecessary topicality debates, with that being said if the affirmative is not topical then it is smart to prove such.

However I will vote on topicality if the negative is winning the position, even if I think the affirmative is topical.

If you are going for topicality you need to actually go for it, not just throw it in the 2NR on hopes that I will vote on it. If you aren't focusing the 2NR on T, then it is really just a waste of your limited time.

Being Negative
I am pretty okay with just about any strategy. If a debater is going for a kritikal position, they need to be ready to explain the literature. You should be more well read on the literature than I am, and ready to discuss how they operate. If you can't explain the K to me or still debate on the line by line, there is a high chance you won't win my ballot.

I prefer a thought out strategy compared to a bunch of positions, when most of them are not viable 2NR choices. I don't see the value in reading positions that can't be winnable, why waste your time?

Pet Peeves
Don't be rude or hateful to one another. Whether this be in prep time, in speech, and especially during cross examination. Being rude is not the appropriate way to show that you win the round, in all reality it makes you look like you are losing. Being offensive is a good way to lose a ballot.

If you are paperless, you need to be providing evidence (whether through email, flashdrive, etc) in a timely and efficient manner. If you are taking forever to do such, you probably need to take more prep time. You should be providing organized speech docs. As the receiver of doc you should still be flowing not just reading ahead.

In a virtual world everyone needs to be efficient at sharing the evidence, remember that comes out of YOUR prep time. I suggest dropping speeches before you begin your speech if not you will have to use your prep if the other team asks for it. There is a difference between prep time and tech time, don't try to steal prep during tech time.

Respect the norms and customs of the circuit you are debating within. Lots of types of debate are good, but if you have the opportunity to debate in a community/circuit that you are not typically part of it is your responsibility to understand the way that circuit works. Creating the debate space as an opportunity for others to not participate is completely unacceptable. This could be within your own circuit or not. This all goes back to being kind and respectful.

Bottom Line

I will always evaluate the debate on offense and defense and impact comparisons that are drawn by YOU THE DEBATER. Don't make me do that work for you, it might not turn out in your favor.

Have impacts. Weigh those impacts.

Debate is good. Debate is educational. Debate is fun. Make sure everyone is able to achieve these things in the round.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q- Can I spread?

A- Go for it. Just be understandable. If you aren't clear, slow down a tad.

Q- Open Cross?

A- Go for it, but I don't like when one partner controls every cross x. Your speaks will probably suffer because of it

Q- How do I boost my speaks?

A- Being clear, making smart strategy positions, being kind, being actually funny/witty

**LD Paradigm**

I am fine without whatever approach you choose to take to Lincoln Douglas debate. I have taught traditional value style debate, and have been around college NFA LD.

As you can see from my above paradigm, I have more experience with policy debate. That may help guide your decisions in a progressive Lincoln Douglas Round.

I have judged both progressive and tradition LD.

I am a pretty open book and will judge however I am told to. I default to weighing impacts.

put me on the email chain: ahart2241@gmail.com

Experience: 3 years of high school policy debate, 5 years of NDT/CEDA debate at Miami University and Missouri State University. High School coach for 4 years at Parkview (Missouri) High School, Graduate Assistant at Missouri State University.

Most of my experience in debate was very much on the policy side of thing. That doesn't make me uncomfortable with kritiks, but I also wouldn't say I'm familiar with much of the critical literature base. Even more so than in policy rounds, solid evidence analysis and application is very important for me to vote on a critical issue on either the affirmative or the negative. For critical affirmatives, I do think it's important to answer any topicality or framework arguments presented by the negative. For kritiks against these types of affirmatives, I think it's important to contextualize the philosophies and arguments in each in relation to the other side. Maybe even more than in policy v policy debates clash here is very important to me.

On the policy side of things, I love to see a good case debate, and think that evidence analysis(of both your own and your opponent's evidence) is of the utmost importance in these debates. I love a good discussion and comparison of impacts.

In terms of CP theory, I will probably default to rejecting the argument rather than the team in most instances if the affirmative wins the theory debate. On conditionality specifically, the affirmative must have a pretty specific scenario on the negative's abuse in the round for me to vote on it. I much prefer the specificity of that distinction over the nebulous "bad for debate" generality. That ship has probably sailed. One other thing to note is that I will not kick the counterplan for you automatically. The negative will need to make a judge-kick argument (preferably starting in the block) to allow the affirmative opportunities to answer it. I think this is a debate to be had, and shouldn't just be something that is granted to the negative at the outset of the round. That being said, I am definitely willing to do it, if said conditions are met and you win the reason why it's good.

Speed is fine, but I think clarity is far more important that showing me that you can read a bunch of cards. I will say that I am a little rusty, having judged at college/higher level high school tournaments sparingly in the last few years. On evidence I will likely be fine, but would appreciate going slightly below full speed when reading a block of analytic arguments/overviews.

2019-2020 Debate Season

Debated CEDA/NDT at Johnson County Community College for 3 years. I debated on the democracy assistance, energy, and presidential war powers topics.

Nominated to the CEDA All-American Debate Team two years. Named to it in 2014.

Undergraduate Degree: KU; Bachelors in Political Science and Women's, Gender & Sexuality Studies

How I Debated:

I ran both policy and critical arguments, and I have a background in most critical arguments you are likely to hear in debate rounds. I LOVED going for case, and I think it's heavily under-utilized in debate today (mostly in LD). Make the aff defend their 1AC. I ran a lot of PICs and disads.

Argument Specific Thoughts:

Framework: I find that methodological/education debates, rather than “Ks (on the aff or neg) are cheating” arguments, can be persuasive. I view much of the debate through an offense/defense lens. I really really dislike hearing "But the rules say so" arguments with absolutely no context or analysis given. Tell me WHY it's important to have a topical affirmative.

Topicality: IMPACT.IT.OUT. This goes with what I said above. I get really bored, really quickly, if it turns into a "top half" debate. Also, I'll vote on potential abuse. I know that's a little controversial in LD but...whatever. Honestly.

EDITED TO ADD FOR LD SPECIFICALLY: I have shared this before rounds, and I will answer it again here: I find that debaters in LD debate the top portion of any given FW/T debate fairly well. However, the impact portion is lacking. If you just shadow-extend "fairness and education" you're likely going to have a hard time winning the "a priori" question. Tell me why it matters; get passionate about it. Don't just read your shell and blocks and expect me to care.

Disadvantages: Case specific links are neat. They’ll gain a lot more traction in front of me than generic links that can be run against every single aff.

Counterplans: I don't mind PICs; I think they make for some pretty interesting rounds. CP theory is hard to win in front of me unless it's conceded and/or impacted out dramatically well.

Kritiks: I have spent the majority of my academic career studying a vast amount of philosophy/theory. I'm probably most read in post-modern, feminist, capitalist, and political theories, but have read a lot of others as well. It is probably okay to assume that I have read whatever literature you're presenting in the round. It is not okay, however, to assume that I am an expert in all fields of critical literature. The alt needs to be explained, thoroughly. Generic links are a bummer, but they'll do if all else fails. I don't believe the alt needs to solve for the entirety of the aff. If you're aff, and considering a theory argument against a K, weigh the best option for the round.

Other Things:

1. Be kind to one another. Be passionate. Call people out if you need to. Don’t be a jerk.

2. Don’t forget that every argument you read must be defended. If there is any doubt that what you’re about to argue is racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, etc., cut it from your repertoire.

3. I would like to be on email chains; t.secor.ts@gmail.com.

4. When your opponent is done prepping, so are you.

5. Conditionality is good.

6. I'm okay with any rate of speed; I like fast debate because it's what I did, but that doesn't mean you should spread someone out if they ask you to slow down. Rate of speed should be discussed by the debaters before the round begins.

6. I am getting increasingly frustrated by the amount of time it takes debaters to get their docs out to their competitors/judges. Please be fast about it. If you're dragging time, I'll start your prep.

7. If you clip cards and I catch you, I'll stop the round. If your opponent challenges you, we'll have a discussion. If proven, you will lose the round and receive the lowest possible speaks I feel comfortable giving.

8. Always feel free to contact me, either at tournaments or outside of them, with questions. Education doesn't stop in the room.

ADDED 3/22/19: It seems as though I have gotten a reputation for being annoyed when debaters run FW or T in front of me. I'm not annoyed. I believe that these debates can get stale, and often don't evolve over the course of the year (some even read the exact same shells they have for years, and just switch up the specifics). I do find THAT annoying. With that said, I'm a highly technical judge, and believe judge intervention is a problem in LD. I will adhere to my flow as best I can without any personal biases coming into play.

Justin Stanley - Johnson County Community College

I debated at Missouri State and have been coaching for about 10 years.  I would like you to debate using the arguments that you feel will win you the debate without putting too much stock in my own personal preferences.  I try to eliminate those preferences when judging and evaluate each argument outside of any feelings I have towards particular arguments.  With that being said,

I am a better counterplan/disad/Case judge than kritik judge because I have more experience debating, coaching, and researching these positions.  I certainly understand kritik literature more than I used to, but I am still probably not as well read on these issues as other judges. 

I have a strong preference that the affirmative have a topical plan and defend its passage.  However, I can be persuaded otherwise.  This is an issue in which I try to eliminate my preferences and judge the debate based on what I see in the round. I often find that your defense of why you have chosen to be anti-topical is not as persuasive to me as it is to you.  I haven't ever thought that topicality was genocidal.  If there is a topical version of your affirmative that solves all of your "impact" turns then you are likely in a bad position.  If there is not a topical version of your affirmative then that is likely more of a reason to vote against you then to vote for you.

I don't think conditionality is always the best approach for debate.  This is especially true in rounds in which multiple conditional options are used to try and "Spread out" the IIAC and not necessarily to test the merits of the affirmative.  I have not voted on conditionality bad very often, but I often find that has more to do with the debates then my own personal preferences. 

I think PICs are often very good strategies, but I am not the best judge for obscure word PICs that claim a minute net-beneft.

A few other things...

1) Clarity - go as fast as you would like, but don't underestimate the importance of clarity in my decision.  If I can't understand your argument then I am highly unlikely to vote for it.

2) Strong cross-examination will earn you additional speaker points.  Being humorous and kind will also help you with speaker points.  If you are a team that ranks based on speaker points then I am probably average to slightly below average in the speaker points that I give.  I rarely give a 29+.  Most debaters will fall in the 27 - 28.7 range for me.

3) Paperless debate is a great thing and I am relatively patient with tech problems.  However, at some point my patience runs out and I get frustrated.  Please do your best to eliminate delays between speeches. 

4) One person should not ask and answer all of the cross-examination questions. 

5)  If you want me to call for a card then you should extend author, claim and warrant for the piece of evidence.  Listing 20 authors in a row with no real explanation will likely result in not calling for any cards.

6)  If I catch you clipping cards then you will automatically lose with zero peaker points.  This is true even if the other team did not make a complaint about it.

Yes I wanna be on the email: kelsdebate@gmail.com

Speed is fine. 

I am a grad student and graduate teach assistant/coach. I actively competed with the Missouri State in LD my senior year. Undergraduate years prior to that work with the team was done none competitvely. With my communication background competitve and persuasive rhetoric is recognized and can be rewarded -speaker points wise- in conjunction with winning the flow. Impact calculous and net benefit emphasis is important to win a round. Don't get so caught up in the other aspects that you forget stock issues etc. 

DA: Always willing to buy a well presented DA with full internal link.

CP: Must be won in all aspects, perms must be answered well. I don't think this is the strongest negative position to take in most cases due being poorly executed and the debate not reaching it's full potential. 

Theory: Interesting arguments to hear but make sure you can fully defend and answer questions about it entirely so the debate can reach it's full potential. 

K: Kritik that links to the case is best. Will vote on a well presented and defended K. 

T: Willing to vote on T if it is ran correctly, I do not believe this usually happens. Blatant time wasting strategy is annoying if it crosses a certain threshold.

Main point: Play to your strength strategy wise but do so well, if you don't understand and explain the argument well it doesn't matter how good the argument is because you don't actually know what you're saying. Don't forget about the basics and the flow. That's how you win. 

Missouri State Debater (NDT-CEDA) 2007-2011; Judged NDT - 2011-2014; 2023-present

Greenwood Lab School - Middle and high school coach - 2011- 2023

Crowder College Director of Forensics (NFA-LD and IPDA debate formats) - 2015-2023

Missouri State Tournament Update

I have spent the last decade being around basically every other kind of debate besides NDT. I have judged at primarily regional and end of year national policy tournaments (NSDA and NCFL) for middle/high school and a ton of NFA-LD at the college level.

I have been working with novices and the packet this past month so I have some exposure to the topic (I also debated nukes) but you should assume I need a bit more explanation than the average judge about your argument.

Things I know to be true about myself as a judge:

1) I have a higher threshold for explanation and explaining how arguments interact than others. That is likely supercharged by the fact I haven't been around NDT in a few years. There are arguments that are just understood to mean certain things and I might not know what that is. Defer to explaining WHY winning an argument matters and interacts with the rest of the debate, even if you think it is obvious.

2) I don't have a lot of tolerance for unnecessary hostility and yelling (I am not talking about you being a loud person. You do you. I am talking about this in the context of it being directed towards others) in debates. There are times you need to assert yourself or ask a targeted series of questions, but I would much prefer that not to escalate. There is very little that is made better or more persuasive to me by being overly aggressive, evasive, or hostile.

3) Debate is an educational activity first, competitive second. I will judge the debate that happens in front of me to the best of my ability. Full stop. However, I believe in the educational value of what we learn in debates and will likely defer to the education side of things when in conflict.

4) My debate knowledge base is primarily shaped by NDT norms circa 2007-2012. I know some of those norms have changed. I will do my best to adapt the way the community has.

5) Policy arguments are more comfortable to me and what I know best. I would not consider myself particularly well versed in the nuances of most "K" literature that is read these days. However, with proper explanation and connections, I think I can judge any debate that I am presented with.

There is a ton not covered here. Feel free to ask questions or clarify. As I judge more, I am sure I will have more specific thoughts about specific parts of these debates and will add more.

I am not a blank slate.  I don't think anyone is, no matter how hard we

try.  I have personal biases about how I'd like every round to go, and it's

ok if it doesn't go that way.  That being said, there are things you should

know to make this round as successful as possible for yourself.

Topicality/Procedurals: I like T, and I'm sympathetic to using it and

procedurals to check the affirmative/counterplan/kritik.  To answer a

procedural, it's a good idea to have a counter interpretation and to meet

your own counter interpretation.  I will listen to an RVI and, assuming it

goes unanswered, I will vote on it.  I don't particularly like the

argument, but I understand wanting to check back your opponent and making

sure they have to put some ink on the page.  I can also be sympathetic to

arguments about procedurals hampering the inclusivity of debate.

Conditionality/Dispositionality/Unconditionality: I don't care.  I will

entertain anything until one of you tell me otherwise, and give me voting

reasons for it. For dispositional arguments, make sure you list out the circumstances in which you'll kick the argument. 

Kritiks: I never ran kritiks or critical arguments in my 8 year debate

career, which probably means you don't want to use a critical strategy in

front of me.  If you do, please make sure your framework is clear in the

round, and that I understand how to weigh your implications against impacts

of case/counterplan or DAs.  I will also listen to permutations of the

alternative.  Some of the best debates involving kritiks from my

perspective have been ones where the debaters leverage the kritik's

implications against the affirmative as separate DAs.  Again, clarity will

be a key issue for me on kritiks.  If I don't understand you, I won't know

how to weigh your arguments.  If you're very confident in your

understanding of your arguments and your knowledge of the kritik in

question, by all means run it.

Stock issues: The only ones I really pay attention to are Solvency and

Topicality.  If your strategy has you going for Inherency and Significance,

then you'd better have some pretty solid voting reasons.  Don't put all

your eggs in that basket.  I particularly like double binds with solvency

and T or solvency turns.

DAs: I don't think DAs need an internal link.  If it strengthens your

cause, great.  If not, you can leave it out.  In a lot of DA shells, it

seems superfluous and easily combined with the link itself.  However, if

you need to explain that step between link and impact, read it.  You need

to have a coherent story for the DA to make sense.

Counter plans: Counter plans often make sense as a strategy for neg. The presumption will shift to the affirmative, unless the neg runs a dispositional or conditional cp and kicks it. Once the cp is off the table, I consider the burden back on the aff. The aff should always perm the cp. I consider it a test of competitiveness, until told otherwise. 

Analytical arguments: I will absolutely vote on a logical, well constructed

analytical argument.  For example, if you have a generic link for a DA to

the case, but you're able to provide a logical analytical link (that isn't

refuted by Aff), I will absolutely vote on that.

Attitude: I believe it does a disservice to you, your opponent and the activity to be less than civil in a round. Yes, you will disagree about loads of things. That's the point, and that's ok. Please don't make personal inflammatory comments about your opponent. I won't look kindly on it. It likely wouldn't cost you the ballot with me, but it would tank your speaker points. 

Ultimately, I will vote where you, the debater, tell me to vote. If you articulate voting reasons, those will be the tool to getting my ballot. 

I'm sure I've missed some specifics that you would like to know. Ask me before the round starts, and I'll let you know!

In my ideal debate world, the affirmative would read a topical plan and defend the implementation of that plan.  The negative would read disadvantages, counterplans, and case turns/defense.  Topical research is probably my most favorite part of debate, so I would assume that I would have a tendency to reward teams that I see as participating in the same way I view the game.

I get that my ideal debate world isn't everyone's ideal debate world.  I also vote for teams that prefer to run Topicality, Kritiks, or other arguments as their "go to" strategies.  Good critical debaters explain specific links to the affirmative case and spend some time discussing how their argument relates to the impacts that are being claimed by the affirmative team. I also think it helps a lot to have specific analogies or empirical examples to prove how your argument is true/has been true throughout history.

I expect that paperless teams will be professional and efficient about flashing evidence to the other team. It annoys me when teams flash large amounts of evidence they don't intend to read or couldn't possibly read in a speech to the other team and expect them to wade through it.  It should go without saying that I expect that you won't "steal" prep time in the process of flashing, or any other time really.  It also annoys me when teams don't flow just because they are "viewing" the evidence in real time.    

I expect that teams will post their cites to the wiki as soon as the debate is over, and ideally before I give my decision and otherwise participate in information sharing efforts.  

I like to have a copy of speeches flashed to me as well so I can follow along with what everyone else sees in the debate and because I think it makes the decision making process go faster.

The best way to get high speaker points from me is to be clear, be polite, participate fully in your cross-examinations and use them to your advantage to point out flaws in your opponents’ arguments, try hard, and use appropriate humor. 

Ask me questions if this doesnt cover what you need to know or you can't find the answer from someone else that I have judged/coached.  Obviously there will be tons of other things I think about debates that I haven't posted here.  Have fun.