I am a senior in college studying engineering. I debated PF on the regional and national circuits back in high school.

My process for voting is as follows:

1. What's the most important issue/value in the round
2. Who holds the strongest link into that

Feel free to ask any questions before the round begins.

UPDATE: 2/14/2020, re: Harvard tournament - This will be my second tournament judging Congress; I judged previously at last month's Barkley Forum at Emory. In other years, here at Harvard, I've judged both PF and LD.

I have judged both PF and LD, on local circuits and at the Harvard National tournament, for the past three seasons and judged BQ @ the 2018 NSDA Nationals. I'm a former high school (Science) teacher, and love being involved with high schoolers again through Debate.

A few things:

-Although I've been judging for quite awhile now, I began as a parent judge, with no background in debate. After 3 years of judging and parenting a varsity LD debater, my technical knowledge has expanded tremendously, but still has limits. Know that I will judge you technically to the best of my ability. But ultimately, as judges, we are to award the round to the most convincing debater(s). You might have a technically perfect case, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll ultimately actually CONVINCE me.

- I'm not a fan of progressive debate strategies. IMO, spreading is a gimmick, and devalues the essence of debate. If I can't follow what you're saying, you're not communicating with me. And if you aren't communicating, what's the point? So, while a little speed is fine, if you see me stop flowing, you know you've lost me. Similarly I'm not a big fan of counterplans/Ks etc. either. BUT I'm always open to hearing them; sometimes they're awesome! (Just don't pull that if you're a 1st year novice debater going against another newbie. It's no fun to see a 14-yo kid get obliterated in only their second round ever because your varsity teammates shared their cases with you for the purpose of doing just that to your opponent. I've seen it - more than once - and it's really painful to watch and demoralizing for your opponent.)

- I WILL be flowing throughout the debate, so please organize/structure to make that easier for me - i.e. a clearly defined framework and contentions (signposts!), off-time road maps, voters etc.

- I like when opponents challenge evidence during CX, so that we ALL know the info is being accurately and honestly presented. Have your 'cards' ready!

- Typically I won't disclose at the end of the round, but will enter RFDs and speaker notes in Tabroom where I can better organize my thoughts.

- Demonstrating respectful behavior is huge for me. Sighing/eye-rolling behaviors are rude and disrespectful to your opponent. Be very cognizant about coming across as verbally abusive or condescending. Simply having the courage to come into the room and participate in the challenge of debate makes you worthy of MY respect, and your opponent's. I WILL deduct 'speaks' if this is a problem, or if really egregious, I will drop you.

- I'm very relaxed as a judge. I want you to be comfortable in the room with me, and am really proud to have gotten a lot of positive feedback from debaters about that. Introduce yourself. Feel free to joke/laugh. Smiles are great. Remember to have fun and ENJOY the experience!

I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and Policy out west. Take that for whatever you think it means.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion (Framework, Standard, etc,) - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it. I am open to all arguments but present them well, know them, and, above all, Clash - this is a debate not a tea party.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
• Speed - Debate is a SPEAKING event. I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread - it better be clear, I will not yell clear or slow down or quit mumbling, I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth! NEW for ONLINE DEBATE - I need you to speak slower and clearer, pay attention to where your mike is. On speed in-person, I am a 7-8. Online, make it a 5-6.
• Email Chains Please include me on email chains if it is used in the round, but don't expect me to sit there reading your case to understand your arguments - pchildress@gocats.org **Do not email me outside of the round unless you include your coach in the email.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• Casing - Love traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans, theory - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis. It is really hard for you to win with an AFF K with me - it better be stellar. I am not a big fan of Theory shells that are not actually linked in to the topic - if you are going to run Afro-Pes or Feminism you better have STRONG links to the topic at hand, if the links aren't there... Also don't just throw debate terms out, use them for a purpose and if you don't need them, don't use them.
• I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, I don't either), who made the most successful arguments and used evidence and reasoning to back up those arguments.
• Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with a rare low point win each season. I am fairly generous on speaker points. I disclose winner but not speaker points. Even is you are losing a round or not feeling it during the round, don't quit on yourself or your opponent! You may not like the way your opponent set up their case or you may not like a certain style of debate but don't quit in a round.
• Don't browbeat less experienced debaters; you should aim to win off of argumentation skill against less experienced opponents, not smoke screens or jargon. 7 off against a first-year may get you the win, but it kills the educational and ethical debate space you should strive for. As an experienced debater, you should hope to EDUCATE them not run them out of the event.
• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
• Rule of Debate Life. Sometimes you will be told you are the winner when you believe you didn't win the round - accept it as a gift from the debate gods and move on. Sometimes you will be told you lost a round that you KNOW you won - accept that this is life and move on. Sometimes judges base a decision on something that you considered insignificant or irrelevant and sometimes judges get it wrong, it sucks but that is life. However, if the judge is inappropriate - get your advocate, your coach, to address the issue. Arguing with the judge in the round or badmouthing them in the hall or cafeteria won't solve the issue.
• Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind and respectful if you want to win.
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

I am a speech coach in Georgia. I competed in IEs but I can follow debate very well.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion - This is the unique feature of LD Debate.  Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF.  Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards. Compete in PF for the debate animal it is.  Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.  
• Speed -Since I did not debate in High School, I don't follow speed well. Speak at your own risk, but if I didn't hear it, I don't flow it.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side.  If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• I like clash.  Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen.  Keep your logical fallacies for your next round.  Rhetoric is an art.  
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.  
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules.  Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, it isn't on the flow), who made the most successful arguments and Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with some low point wins.  I am fairly generous on speaker points compared to some judges.  I disclose winner but not speaker points.
• Enjoy yourself.  Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over.  Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life.  Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.  
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

I'm a third-year parent judge with lots of experience judging LD, though I'm still a traditional judge who will not evaluate the extremely technical side of LD debate.

The framework debate is most important, and you should have a value and value criterion. These things should be clearly stated along with your contentions, and I would prefer if you avoided policy jargon (e.g., "fiat," "perm," "pic," etc.) and didn't spread, because I will not be able to follow it.

That all being said, I've become more open to progressive arguments like kritiks and counterplans. There is a caveat to this: your arguments should be clearly explained and presented in a format that is understandable - you should still have a framework even if running a counterplan or other similar argument. Err on the side of extreme caution when reading progressive arguments in front of me.

I always try my best to check my biases at the door, and I will try to evaluate the round using only arguments presented in round.

Ø Background: I have debated for four years. I won two district tournaments. I competed in “first and second” Year State and Varsity State debate. I have debated in all styles of debate (PF, Policy, and LD). I also did exempt and impromptu.

Ø Preferences: The value and value criterion are what make LD so unique. Choose it wisely and make sure they link to your arguments.

Ø Speed – I good with spreading, but if you sound like you’re choking, you’re doing it wrong. I’ll ask for you to slow down.

Ø How to win? – Attack the arguments, not the debater. Based on how the arguments ended up on the flow. Who had more clash? Who extended their arguments? Who gave the most convincing voters? Have strong arguments that tie into your value and value criterion. Show impacts. Really, extend arguments. Don’t drop them!

o When I choose who wins, don’t argue with my final decision and try to convince me someone else won.

Ø K’s/Theory: I am not super familiar with them. I’ve run a few, but if you run this, show me clearly why I should vote for this. You should be making the connections and giving the reasoning, not me.

Ø CP: Show link, brink, and impact. If you run a plan without explaining implementation but have clear impacts and explain it’s feasible, I’ll still take it (unless the opponent successfully argues against it). You don’t need an entire laid out plan of implementation. What you NEED to shows is how the plan is feasible and clear impacts of what you’re achieving. (Ex: Plan - to give everyone in Georgia public schools a computer. You prove we clearly have the money somehow, then you don’t need to prove how the distribution of every single computer will occur. As long as the funds are proven, the rest is theoretical and philosophical). This is what is unique about LD because you don’t have to show an exact implementation plan text like policy debate. This is LD. Show me a philosophy debate, not a policy debate. Obviously, you still have to show impacts and how the plan links.

Ø Case tips: Know your case! Read over it. Have thorough research. Pre-written blocks seriously help. Also, don’t pull cards from 1960 about America’s financial state and then try to argue that that’s America’s financial state today.

o Make contentions and sub-points clear with tag lines (Main claim)

Ø Technique: CLASH! Go down the flow. Being organized by going down the flow makes it easier on everyone to see where you are in your arguments.

o Look at me not your opponent. You’re trying to persuade me, not your opponent. I’m fine while you’re reading your case to not maintain eye contact. I get it. Cases are like 8+ pages long. Let’s be real, most people don’t memorize that. But, during CX and rebuttals try to make eye contact unless you’re reading cards.

Ø Technology: If you read from your phone, put it on airplane mode. You can’t be looking up new information during the debate. You need to have cards ready beforehand. Even if someone runs something that seems outlandish, this is part of developing the skill to make clever arguments and to find holes in your opponent’s case. BUT, if the argument is really a stretch and no one is getting anywhere because of the argument (Ex: like the extinction of the human race on an issue that wouldn’t logically cause that), I’ll consider dropping the plan/argument for maximizing education.) If your computer stops working for some reason and you didn’t also print paper copies, I’ll ask if the opponent wants to give you a case to run. If they object, which they have the right, you lose. I can’t make another case magically appear. It’s only fair to choose this way.

Ø And of course. . . HAVE FUN! You can learn so much from debate whether you lose or win. J Your opponent can also be a great new friend! Be kind and have fun!

I am very familiar with PF and LD. I debated 3 years of LD.

Traditional or No?: I am familiar with progressive LD. I am okay with plans and Ks. Be fair, but I can follow whatever.

Speed: Slow or Fast. I don’t have a preference as long as I can understand you.

Value/VC: This is the key to winning the round. You must win on a Value level. These are how you analyze and advocate for various points and impacts with in the round. If neither team wins, I as a judge tend to look to contention level debate.

Extra: Sign Post and Road maps are appreciated. I do not flow cross! So bring it up in your speeches. Keep your time and I will too. Average speaks are about 28ish, unless tournament provides a rubric. Ask questions before round about any other preferences.

Hi! I'm Peter, and I previously debated for The Lovett School, and now at Columbia University!

I'm really happy to get to be your judge in this round. Showing up is half the battle, and so much goes into the activity beyond just this one round I get to hear from you. In writing this paradigm, I first want to iterate my belief that, while this is a competitive activity, I hope to make this round have educational value beyond just a W or L. We are lucky to have many volunteer parent judges at any tournament, but I think there is value from getting feedback from someone who has been in your shoes, and can give you advice derived from their experience as a debater both on national and local circuit.

I will keep flow on my laptop and vote based off that. That means that I can only judge a round based what you say - as such, it is to your advantage to signpost and generate clash. You spend a good chunk of time at the beginning of a round reading from your prepared constructive speech, so you should extend arguments that you make against your opponent's. Tell me why I should prefer or weigh your arguments and evidence evidence more than that of your opponents. I think this is the hardest, but most impactful and strategic element of a debate.

In all cases, I will disclose my decision, and I think this should be a blanket norm. After all the speeches have concluded, I might need some time to deliberate, but I will always tell you before the round is over. However, before I do so, I want to take the time to walk you through my deliberation and explain how different arguments went, and give both sides advice on how to do better moving forward. I have found this to be a much more pleasant, educational, and helpful experience than just disclosing, or disclosing first, but if this is not the case please let me know! Above all, I want debate to feel accessible, and I want you both to feel heard.

Lastly - I am also a student with a lot of work, please don't assume I'm super familiar with the topic, and take time to explain your arguments thoroughly. The next part of my paradigm will consist of my personal leanings and preferences, but I think this covers the most important part.

Overview

I was heavily a framework debater when I did LD. Generally, Phil > K > Util/Policy. I don't mind an impacts round, I just think it's a wasted opportunity to choose to do so in LD.

--Lay--

Value/Value Criterion

Love it, but PLEASE make sure it actually makes sense. How do we go about your value? Tell me how your case achieves morality, or security, or whatever it is. In so many debates, people will say, for example, for this round, the value is morality, and the value criterion is, say, government legitimacy. It is to your benefit to explicitly tell me why you have chosen this framework for the round, as well as to connect it to your case. The value criterion is a FRAMING DEVICE for the round (not a voter). If you win framework, that's not in itself a reason you've won the round, but it's a huge advantage, and a hallmark of LD debate, because it shifts what arguments are relevant / what offense matters.

Contention

Please have actual evidence and do not just assert stuff/use one anecdotal example. It is also helpful to make it clear what is your words vs evidence. Having clear impacts is also very helpful.

EDIT: PLS PLS DO NOT BLATANTLY MAKE UP EVIDENCE IM SORRY SOMETIMES ITS SO CLEARLY FAKE ITS EMBARRASSING FOR YOU AND BAD FOR DEBATE. Similarly, please do not misrepresent the arguments of the authors you use. You don't have to endorse their entire stance, of course, but often debaters will clip evidence in such a way that the evidence is being used in a way that the author in no way actually endorses. If I suspect there is an issue with evidence, I will ask to see the card, and if there's an issue I will likely drop the evidence from the flow - even if your opponent doesn't pick up on it. I think this is a responsibility the judge has towards promoting good and fair debate.

Voters

Voters are always super helpful and I think good debate practice. I need to hear extensions of arguments. I will not give any weight to things that are not extended and then brought up in the later speech. I know debaters like to say that it's super unfair to bring up new arguments in the 2NR, but I have noticed a trend of debaters using the entire 1AR for new arguments - this is fine, but if you choose to do so, I will not agree that the subsequent negative rebuttal's use of new evidence to counter these points is abusive. On that same vein, I think any brand new argument made in the 2AR is wildly abusive, and I don't think it's fair for me to evaluate it.

--Circuit--

Put me on the email chain: peter.kourtis.kessler@gmail.com

Defaults

Presume aff (although hard to see a circumstance w/o at least some risk of offense), yes RVIs, reasonability, perms test of competition, and theory (with a voter of fairness) comes before K. All of these can be changed with a single sentence warrant, except for the last point. You will have convince me that K comes first since theory addresses whether or not a person is capable of responding to an argument/if you are debating fairly in the first place. Neutral on disclosure (depends on the circumstance).

Speed

I'm not a fan, but spreading is a thing. Be clear - I will say clear once, but don't rely on me reading the speech doc to understand you.

Phil

Love. Please justify and fully explain. If you read me a virtue ethics case I'll love you forever.

Policy / DA / CP

Sure. Please have actual empirical evidence though that supports your tag lines (especially for politics). Impact calc is helpful. Sketchy counter plans and things like PICs (especially words PICs) should be ready for theory. Lit determines legitimacy.

T/Theory

I understand genuine cases arise where it is needed, and we've all used theory strategically even if there isn't much cause. That said, as a JUDGE (do as I say, not as I do) I don't really enjoy evaluating it, and I will give your opponent a lot of slack on the line by line / paradigmatic issues if you are doing things like running 2+ shells, with no RVIs, competing interps, or having a bunch of blip-y spikes or running an obviously absurd shell where it is hard to generate explicit offense.

K

I am familiar with a lot of the common Ks (Afropessismism, Cap, etc), but I didn't really run them a lot. If you are going to run a K in front of me, do not expect me to know the jargon. You should have a top-level theory of power explanation. Asserting claims like “the state is always bad” is not compelling as I am not predisposed to thinking this is true and should come from some sort of evidence. Please contextualize your links to the affirmative, I’d prefer not to judge where the only links are to the state or civil society. The more relevant you are to the affirmative or topic, the better. I’d prefer line by line instead of a 5-minute overview, keep the flow clean. I’d prefer not to judge dense post-structural Ks because they're confusing and hard to wrap your head around in a debate time's turnaround. Also, don't be awful and run K's on novices, and denies them most educational benefit from the round. Learning to address a K (or even what a K is) is not accessible, usually taught at (expensive) camps and strong debate programs. If you win, you win, but I will tank your speaks.

Non-T Affs

I don't think this is negotiable - you must affirm a topical advocacy. I acknowledge the debate space's function as more than just competitive, but it seems that taking a political stance or protest while in round is bad faith praxis. Surely, your advocacy is better served outside of a closed classroom, and we cannot escape the fact that you are choosing to take a stance with the hope of securing a win. Additionally, in the goal education, I find in most cases that non topical advocacies deny the opposing side the opportunity to have a substantive debate, and thus most educational benefits are lost. I don't necessarily like all NSDA topics, but there is a reason for the resolution, and the point of debate is to debate a topic. If there is some reason why you do not feel comfortable affirming the topic, then I really do think that it is a larger issue that should be handled outside of the debate round, not for me to judge and give you a win for. If you are on the opposite side of this, point it out / run T, and it is as simple as that. Please do not interpret this as not being able to run sketchy plans. I think those can be really fun and enjoyable to judge and debate (if you are on the other side of this, that's also what T is for). I am ok with performance affs or other nontraditional forms of evidence but you should explain VERY clearly how it functions in the round.

If you've gotten this far :)) have fun in your round! I'm happy to elaborate on any part of my paradigm.

Hi, my name is John. I use any pronouns, and I debated for 4 years in LD and congress at Cherokee HS, 45 minutes north of Atlanta.

If there's anything in this paradigm that you don't understand or that wasn't covered, let me know before the round in person, by texting me (+1 470 232-4546), or by sending an email (johntpeterson355@gmail.com). good luck!

If you send a doc, cc me: johntpeterson355@gmail.com. I'm going to delete your doc at the end of the round.

I'm gonna keep it real with you, i've gotten a lot dumber since I stopped debating. i've regressed. you need to explain complicated stuff really slowly. treat me like a parent judge if you run advanced phil. i need to understand and hear your argument in order to flow it. my ability to understand speed is... a lot worse now than it was. that being said i'll flow most things as long as they're done well. being racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist/etc. is penalized with an L. **this includes the sources you use! i will notice if you cite a hate group or hate publication. also flex prep is cool

do lots of weighing and talk at a reasonable speed ????

I can flow all types of arguments and I am a big fan of any theory arguments you might have. When you spread, if I can't understand you I will say clear. I will say clear twice and if I still can't understand you I will stop flowing. I will check cards at the end of the round if I have any issues with them or if there is a lot riding on one card. I mostly just want a good debate with flushed out arguments and lots of clash.

Thank you.

This is my third year judging LD.

-I will listen intently but do not like spreading. If I cannot understand you due to speed or lack of enunciation, you will lose out. I cannot judge on what I do not hear.

-Your framework is important. You need to clearly identify your value, value criterion, and contentions.

-I reserve the right to view any cards you list as evidence.

-Be respectful. This is a professional debate.

-I prefer standard LD without any of the games, critiques, debating the topic, etc.

Thank you!

Original Paradigm:

I am a parent judge who has judged only traditional debate. While I can understand faster than a conversational pace, please do not spread. I will not vote for something I can't understand. Also, I much prefer if you debate topically, and will not vote on non topical affs. I do not like theory and am not likely to vote on it, and I will not vote on tricks or skepticism. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

UPDATE FOR NOVEMBER 2019:

(Written by Joey Tarnowski)

So as of now, there's probably a little more argument flexibility to be had. Skep, most theory args (the more friv, the worse) and basically all kritiks are probably a no. Also you should prob keep spreading to a minimum (read: DON'T DO IT) but kinda fast is prob alright. Most non-cheaty cp's are probably okay, but pics and advantage CPs will just need a little explanation. Disads are fine, but the strat here should prob be more of a "turns case" strat than an extinction scenario. The more links in the link chain, the less likely it is you'll win on it. T on plans is probably fine, but you should prob default to a reasonability standard cause the stuff about frivolous theory applies here too. TLDR; most util strats are prob your best bet, but probability>magnitude should be what frames whatever you're running.

I try to judge the debate the best I can given the information the debate teams provide me in the round.

In LD if you want me to vote on Value or criterion I need to know why this is and what effect this has on the round.

If I am to look at case please clearly identify your impacts and maybe compare them to your opponents. It doesn't have to be christmas for sweet gifts like that.

- I have debated consistently in LD for 3 years and am very familiar with the event in general

- I am a flow judge, so if your opponent says something ridiculous, bring it up in a rebuttal.

- Make sure that your framework flows well with the rest of your case. If your framework doesn't fit, it will be difficult for me to give you the win.

- On the topic of theory and Ks, I tend to really appreciate them as long as they are formatted correctly and deliver their intention in a precise manor.

- I'm a huge philosophy nerd, so I love rounds where philosophy plays a major role. If you are going to run a framework heavily based off of philosophy, you will have to tell me why your philosopher has a beneficial worldview.

- On the implementation of plans, all counterplans must have a legitimate method of implementation. Regular plans do not necessarily have to have an implementation plan, but it never hurts.

-Always solve any issue you bring up in your case. If you don't solve an issue and your opponent brings up a uniqueness argument, they will likely win the point.

-On the topic of speed, as long as I can hear you, go as fast as you would like. If you see me stop writing, you're probably going too fast.

-If you want any additional feedback from what I gave in round, please come and find me. I try to be very approachable and answer all questions.