Last changed on
Sat May 29, 2021 at 12:20 PM EDT
Updated for NCFL.
Send speech docs to sendmeyourspeechdocs@gmail.com.
I evaluate judging issues in a specific order. If you win on a high priority issue, you win outright (i.e. you can win every stock issue but lose on a relatively minor theory issue because pre-fiat impacts are higher priority than stock issues to me). This order is:
1. Rule/Evidence Violations.
If you think the other team is doing this reference which specific rule they're breaking and where I can find it (i.e. this section of the UM, this part of the tournament invite) in speech as a theory arg. If a team just doesn't know what they're doing and makes a mistake I'll just drop them, only if you intentionally violate tournament procedure/NSDA rules will I tell the tournament director. That said, this has only ever been an issue once, so I don't anticipate it being a serious problem.
As a note: anything not specified in the NSDA's or tournament's rules as not kosher is free game. I am not married to the resolution or typical procedure.
2. Being Offensive or Rude.
I will drop teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic or use ad hominem attacks. Being assertive, passive aggressive, or otherwise debating well is fine. I've never had an issue with this and I hope I never will. This comes after rule/evidence violations because it's specific to my paradigm (though it shouldn't be), whereas rule/evidence violations are not.
3. Pre-Fiat Impacts
Theory, some Ks, some topicality, and other arguments that actually affect you as competitors or me as a judge come before case arguments. Addressing real-world consequences is more important than the theoretical, post-fiat counterfactual, aff world, or status quo.
4. Stock Issues/Weighing Impacts
Per usual. Please directly weigh impacts in final speeches.
Misc. Things:
- 10 sec grace on speeches. No grace on cross, just stop when it finishes.
- What you say in cross examination doesn't affect the ballot so I will be on twitter. If something said in cross has bearing on the ballot, bring it up in speech.
- You don't need to run prep to find cards, but if you call for cards use your own prep when reading them.
- 27.5 is default speaker points, adjusted up or down based on performance (N/A for NCFL).
- Willing to discuss the round in person after the fact though I will probably not remember what happened. (N/A with online tournaments)
PF:
- Aff and neg both have burden of proof. Aff advocates for the resolution, neg for the squo or the counterfactual, depending on the resolution.
- Focus on quantifiable impacts but don't be ridiculous. I'm not a big fan of extinction-level impact link chains in PF. Not to say that you can't go this route, but I find that most who do don't offer convincing evidence. This is PF, not policy.
- Expecting the 2nd speaking team to defend in rebuttal puts an unbalanced burden on them. 1st speaker doesn't have to defend in rebuttal, so 2nd speaker doesn't either. Kudos and speaks if you do though.
- You don't need a framework unless your voters are weird. My default framework is pretty much just CBA/impact calc/util/whatever you want to call it. Don't waste time setting up something like that as a framework unless you're defending against a weird framework.
- If it's in FF, it better be in summary.
LD:
- In my opinion: value is why I care, criterion is how you access value, contentions are basically sub points under the contention of your value, and if they don't link to the value I am a lot less likely to vote for you. To win you need to prove why I prefer your value but also show that the resolution links to that value with a quantifiable impact. I didn't do much LD, so sorry if this is weird.
- B/c I did PF I favor quantifiable impacts, so be sure to explain why I care with moral arguments.
Policy:
- I cannot understand spreading, but I can follow a well-formatted speech doc. You can go as fast as you want as long as you're following the document you shared. Without a speech doc the fastest I can flow is briskly-paced PF.
- Topicality is just the worst. It should be a last resort, not a knee-jerk reaction. I'll pretty rarely vote on t.
- Tag team cross is fine.
- Unless the tournament specifies otherwise you have 8 minutes prep (N/A for NCFL, its 6).
- Neg can fiat CPs subject to the same limitations that aff has for plan fiat. You can run theory to change my mind here if you wanna.
Congress:
- I hate when speeches just rehash other people's arguments. Please bring up something original or specifically address opposing points. This should go without saying, apparently it doesn't.
- Less convinced by anecdotes and stories than the average judge, but an short anecdote paired with and supported by statistics is a sweet spot.
