idk. i used to say things like "i default to being a policy maker" but that is no longer true--it is true that i have a predilection for policy debate and given no framework by either team, i am likely to return to old habits, but it is true that i am critical friendly and if either team are to make a stab at that, and have some real understanding of it, i am likely to like it :-)

beyond that, i would describe myself, these days, as an old school "games player"-- iow, i will vote for the team that does the better job debating. particularly in a round where there are multiple technical flaws i can understand how that may appear to be a haphazard and subjective process, but i will do the best i can to evaluate the round fairly.

your number one responsibility as a debater is to tell me how to judge the round-- tell me what is the reason you win the round . . . .

debate is a comparison (at heart) -- so the better debaters are the ones who can make the best comparisons.

more than anything else, above all other considerations:

BE NICE.