Background:

Judged 2016-2020

Lincoln-Douglass, Congressional Debate 2012-2016

he/him/his or they/them/theirs

(I'm not nonbinary. Normalize gender neutral language!)

‎

Universal expectations:

* Don't be disrespectful.

* Don't promote bigotry.

* Add me to the email chain: a.bissell.siders [at] gmail [dot] com

‎

Lincoln-Douglass paradigm:

I believe high-school debate should have three goals:

[1] Education to improve research skills (reading and understanding articles). Therefore:

* I generally prefer truth (evidence) over tech (theory).

* I generally prefer fewer but well-warranted claims over more but poorly-warranted claims.

* Quantitative evidence & impacts often beat qualitative evidence & impacts (unless you weigh them well!).

* [Research shows that empirical evidence does change people's minds (eg, Wood and Porter 2018). Bennyboi Shapiro ain't right about much, but he's right about "facts and logic".]

[2] Competition to improve communication skills (listening and speaking). Therefore:

* If you don't say it, I don't flow it. Guide me.

* I generally prefer fair-ish rounds with roughly equally accessible ground.

* I generally prefer clarity and concision over speed.

* [Non-debaters speak around 100-200wpm and comprehend 200-300 wpm. Aim below 300 wpm! Focus on compressing your sources rather than expanding your speaking rate!]

[3] Provide an accepting and enjoyable space. Bigotry has no room here. Don't attack your opponent, attack their arguments. Four-letter words are fine. Humor is wonderful. Be yourself. Relax, you'll do fine.

‎‎‎‎

Congress paradigm:

All speeches: Debate the bill!

* Stock bad: Debate about the bill! Don't give generic introductions. Don't give generic arguments.

* Link bill to impact: Don't just say "impact X is bad" or "X is good". Do provide evidence that "bill does Y and Y causes X".

* Weigh impacts: Do give impacts for each argument. Do weigh impacts against opposition's impacts.

Negative speeches: Demonstrate harm!

* Insufficiency is not a harm: Don't just say "bill is bad because it doesn't do X" unless you provide evidence that "bill is mutually exclusive with X".

* Complacency is usually not a harm: Don't say "bill is bad because it partially solves X, which makes people complacent about X" unless you provide evidence that "partially solving X makes people complacent about X".

First affirmative and first negative speech: Provide framework!

* Provide framework: Establish the framework to weigh impacts for the debate.

Later speeches: No rehash!

* No rehash: Don't make the same arguments unless you give new evidence.

* No rehash.

* No rehash.

Presiding Officer:

* I highly rank strong POs. Efficient, knows rules of order, commands chamber.

Myself:

Hi there, thanks for taking a moment to read my paradigm! The 2023-2024 school year is my fourth year judging in the NCFL, following my four years of experience as a Lincoln-Douglass debater. I only have personal experience in the fields of LD and Children's Literature, although I am well assessed in the Public Forum and Impromptu realms. In three years of actually competing, I spent all of my time at NCFL sponsored tournaments. I do not have any experience in circuit debating so anything you learned there may not be helpful in a round judged by me. I am more of a progressive judge as I am not solely reliant on the framework of the debate. I see the case holistically and want to hear just as good arguments on the contention level as on the framework level. Below, I provide detailed explanations on how I evaluate my rounds. Don't hesitate to reach out with any questions you may have.

Argumentation:

First and foremost, make sure that you are arguing theory, use the logic in your case to back up your reasoning. I do not vote solely based on who has the morally preferred world, but who has the most feasible world while staying in the realms of morale. When providing evidence, link them to the flow and carry them across in your rebuttals. Anything that is non-topical will most likely be voted down unless you have an incredible line of defense. I will not drop a debater for making new arguments, but I will drop the arguments. An argument in rebuttal is not new if it is made at the first opportunity a debater has had to address a previous argument. A new point in the Neg's last speech can be rebutted by a new point in the 2AR. I do accept counter-plans and over-turns. Please do not get into a definitional debate. Note: I do not do kritiks

Cross-Examination:

I capture notes during cross-ex when I feel the line of questioning is leading to a specific argument later on in the debate. Few times have I looked back at cross-ex notes to see if a debater had an admission that ended up hurting their case. In this instance, it will most likely be used in my final RFD. Additionally, I won't penalize you if there is a good reason for you to be extra firm in your cross-ex response (opponent not answering the question/tip-toeing around the answer.) However, that does not mean I allow for a combative yelling match. Any blatant disrespect will result in a deduction of speaker points.

Speaker Points:

I give 26 points for an average performance. There are some basic things that you will need to demonstrate in order to have a chance at receiving the full 30 speaker points. First, please do not over explain. Beating a dead horse in your final speech is tiring and off-putting. Though it probably won't be a decision-maker, you're wasting time that could be better spent on addressing pressing points. Second, provide a roadmap and stick to it before you speak. If you don't follow the road map you laid out, it will annoy me. Signpost as you go so I'm not scrambling around. Third, be civil and go at a comprehensible speed. I'm not critical of needing eye contact, standing during rebuttals, audibility level (as long as I can hear and you're not shouting), or potentially showing signs of nervousness. I will not deduct points for any signs of anxiety. Lastly, show courtesy. Ask if I and your opponent are ready before you begin speaking. For the more substantive expectations, I want you to effectively weigh your arguments, link back each contention level argument with your framework and explain why your opponent's world is undesirable and/or unpractical. While LD is heavy on theory, I expect logic to be consistent. And as a personal note, I love a good upstage ;)

Speed:

I'm okay with speed as long as you're clear and concise. Make sure to slow down as you approach your contention and sub-point level taglines. If I do not write it down, it will not be evaluated when making my final decision. I won't vote a debater down specifically if they speak too fast, only if their speed hinders my ability to capture their whole argument. I will try my best throughout the entire debate to record any and all mentions, even during cross-ex. Stay keen as to how I am acting over the monitor. If I'm not writing when you think you made an impact, then either it doesn't make sense or you're speaking too fast.

Timing:

I will always have a timer with me and I highly suggest that the debaters have one next to them as well. However, my timer is the official time. With that being said, please respect my time and your opponent's time by keeping your timer volume down. If you need time signals, don't hesitate to ask and I'll try my best to give them during the round. I do allow for debaters to finish their sentences if my timer runs out. If they continue well past their time (usually more than five seconds) I will stop flowing and eventually call out "times up." During cross-ex, I expect questions to be answered if they are asked before the three minutes is over. Even if the debater states it at the literal last second. As a courtesy note, please indicate when you're beginning your speech and ask if I, the judge, am ready to begin. Sometimes I am still recording notes from the previous speech and if you start before I'm ready, chances are I'll miss your refutes.

My Objections:

Regardless of the topic at hand, I will vote down any debater who personally degrades or puts-down their opponent or anyone else involved in the debate. I will vote down any debater who is rude, makes threats, or who intentionally falsifies evidence. I will vote down any debater who does not take the debate seriously by reading exceptionally far-fetched cases/cards that do not correlate with the topic at hand (i.e. advocating for nuclear proliferation when the debate is about college admissions.)

2 years of experience as a high school speech competitor, four years of experience debating on the American Parliamentary Debate Association circuit.

Ok with speed (flowing with pen and paper so please don't gosuperfast)

Looking for weighing, impacts, points of crytalization, and kindness

I have had experience with judging LD/PF debate for 3+ years. I also keep a continuous flow throughout the round, so don't extend arguments if you are going to drop them.

I prefer traditional debate and enjoy the flow of arguments in that format.

Medium speed with clear pronunciation is my preference when reading cases, rebuttals, etc.

Finish your arguments on time; I don't consider any arguments/points you make overtime. That being said, I'm all for hardcore factual evidence, and it makes arguments stand out to me.

Please respect your opponent, and have fun! Enjoy your rounds with me, and thinking out of the box is always appreciated.

Good luck!

LD

Overview

Basically, I prefer a more traditional style of LD. That being said, I don't have any huge objections to progressive debate. I am fine with philosophy and try not to intervene too much. I can enjoy debates that focus on framework or philosophical issues and those that focus on contentions and substantive argumentation. A good round is a good round, no matter the layer(s) that get the most attention. I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting a criterion and by identifying who weighs most heavily under this standard. Winning the value or criterion is not itself a reason for you to win, unless you can weigh under it. Tell me what arguments you're winning, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round. I strongly prefer that clash focus on points of significance in the round and that speeches be organized. Roadmaps and signposting are extremely helpful, so please stick to roadmaps once you've given them.

I judge mostly on the local level. I was a policy debater a millennia ago, have been coaching LD, PF and speech for 13 years and have had policy teams in the past. My students have reached the elimination rounds at the NCFL Grand Nationals in LD and Policy.

This is my LD paradigm. I will not answer questions about my preferences or judging style once the first speech has been given. I do not disclose or provide oral critiques unless required to do so by the tournament. As a coach I value a well written ballot so that I can discuss the rounds with my debaters. My position on disclosure and oral critique is non-negotiable.

Argumentation

- Topicality matters. If you want to run something non-topical, go ahead, but be prepared to strongly defend why I should be considering it in the round.

- Only make theory arguments when the violation is genuinely unfair and has a real impact on the round. I won't evaluate frivolous theory arguments.

- I will not drop debaters just for making new arguments, but I will drop the arguments. An argument in rebuttal is not new if it is made at the first opportunity a debater has had to address a previous argument. A new point in the Neg's last speech can be rebutted by a new point in the 2AR.

- I will default to the Aff's proffered definitions (assuming they're stated in the AC) unless Neg offers good reason for me prefer a counter-definition (or a modified version of the Aff's definition) proffered by the Neg. I cannot reject a definition unless I am given some alternative definition or understanding to use and that alternative is argued for.

- Please summarize your winning arguments in your last speech. While I may disagree with your list of voting issues, it helps me see what issues you have identified as important and how you weigh them.

Evidence

- I do not require debaters to proactively share their cases with one another or with me. If you want someone's case or evidence, request it--it's simple enough to do. I do, however, expect you to share evidence when requested. I dislike asking for cases pro forma, and in slower debates, I prefer that debaters not call for or examine cases just as an aid for flowing. Don't be lazy.

- I am reluctant to call for evidence. Unless there are accusations of dishonest practices, I will evaluate the credibility of sources based on the arguments made by the debaters in the round.

Speed

- I dislike speed more because I cannot read my handwriting on my flow if you are going too quickly. If the first time I hear an argument is in rebuttal, it will count as a new argument on my flow and will be evaluated as such. I will not vote you down or reduce your speaker points just because you're going faster than I'd ideally like, as long as I can still understand most of what you're saying. I can only vote on what I can flow.

- I will not shout "clear" during rounds. You are first and foremost a communicator. It is your obligation to make eye-contact with/watch the judge, so you should see if I have stopped flowing. If I have stopped flowing, take this as your cue to slow down. If you sustain a pace I find literally incomprehensible, I will stop writing entirely until your pace becomes comprehensible again. Again what is not on my flow is not evaluated in the round.

Timing

- I always time all speeches and prep. My timer keeps the official time. If you need time signals, please ask, but I am not always great at remembering them. Fair warning.

- Prep begins after all requested cards are shown or sent to the requesting team (unless the requesting team wants to or does begin prepping sooner). Prep ends when the debater tells me it ends or they run out of time. Debaters must clearly indicate to me when they are starting and ending prep so that I can keep time. Starting prep before alerting me is unacceptable.

- Feel free to time yourselves. You may time your opponents as well, but please don't cut them off verbally or with an alarm. If you think an opponent has exceeded their time, get my attention quietly.

- A sentence begun before time expires may be completed after time has expired. No compound, complex or run-on sentences.

Cross-Examination

- CX is non-binding unless its content is brought up in your immediately subsequent speech. For example, if you are Aff and raise something said in 2CX in the 2AR, I am going to treat it as a new argument/non-binding and I will discount it. If the Aff wants something in 2CX to be binding, Aff should raise it in the 1AR.

- I do not allow flex prep (using prep time as added cross-ex time) in my rounds unless required to do so by the tournament. If I am on a panel and the tournament rules are unclear, I will defer to the majority on whether to allow it. Similarly, I do not allow cross-ex time to be used as prep time. If you have questions on flex prep or using cross-ex time to prep, please ask before the round begins so that everyone is on the same page. It is always okay to ask!

- I am not a fan of CXs that descend into shouting matches. CX should be interactive and probing, but not combative.

My Redlines

- I will vote down any debater who clearly and intentionally sets out to (1) advocate violence against other human beings; (2) take a position which is Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, Sexist, Xenophobic, etc.; and/or (3) personally attack an opponent, school, or anyone involved in the activity.

- I will vote down any debater who (1) is exceptionally and insufferably rude, (2) makes threats, and/or (3) falsifies, misquotes, selectively edits, and/or otherwise dishonestly manipulates evidence. To clarify, "exceptional rudeness" includes, but is not limited to, extreme badgering, using an offensive epithet, or making an obscene gesture.

- I will vote down any debater who reads extremely graphic or disturbing evidence which carries a high likelihood of causing serious emotional distress to a participant or audience member in the round, unless a trigger warning is given before the debate and the consent of all present is obtained in advance.

• It is virtually never acceptable to read an obscene word as part of quoted evidence. The educational value must be extraordinarily significant. In such a case, I will expect a debater to justify to me in their speech why the evidence and the word in question are extremely important for me to hear. This is an incredibly high burden to meet, and the justification should be quite compelling. Reading an obscene word without sufficient justification will cause me to ignore the card entirely and reduce your speaker points. Also using obscene language is never acceptable to me in a round. All of you have a bigger vocabulary than that! Find a different word to use in your speech.

Finally,

I don't bite--feel free to ask questions before the round if you have any. If you need to refer to me, you should call me "judge" during a round. Outside of a round, "judge" or "Mrs. Mandile" are acceptable. I use she/her/hers pronouns. Remember: just have fun and do your best. Good Luck!

- Flow, please be clear so I know where you are and what you're responding to (we love to see signposting)

- Former LD debate participant, but it's been a minute! I try and remember what has been helpful to me in the past

- Your summary should show me what points the debate turns on and how you argued it best.

Pronouns: she/her

Former LD high school debater for 4 years. I keep a rigorous flow that helps me decide the round--drops and extensions matter, but it's your own responsibility to point them out to me.

I prefer traditional debate; I'll listen to progressive argumentation and take notes, but I really don't enjoy it.

I'm fine with speed; go as fast as you want (as long as you're still enunciating).

Please tell me why your value criterion matters--why should I use it to weigh the round. Don't get caught up too much in the value debate if yours is pretty consistent with your opponent's (ex. justice v morality).

FRAMEWORK IS NOT A VOTER. Please do not get up in your last speech and use "I win framework" as a voter. Use your framework to frame your final args. Tell me why your strongest arguments--your voting issues--matter in terms of your own framework and your opponent's framework. Why should I care about what you're arguing? I should care because of your framework; make me care.

I'm all for passion--I think it's what makes argumentation effective. That being said, keep the rounds respectful. No need to bite your opponent's head off.

Debate is fun, so have fun with it! Creativity is always appreciated.

If you have any other questions, feel free to email me raynernoelle@gwu.edu or ask me before the round.

Overview

I judge mostly on the local level. I did LD and a little PF for 4 years as a competitor, and have been judging and coaching LD and a little World Schools and PF ever since (about 10 years now). While I am experienced and willing to entertain almost any strategy, do not assume that I am familiar with circuit trends.

I strongly prefer that clash focus on points of significance (not on points that are unlikely to sway my ballot) and that speeches be organized. Roadmaps should be off-time and accurate. I would strongly prefer not to hear 15 blippy a prioris or spikes designed to be easy outs. I try not to intervene too much in the round.

I am generally well-read in the LD and PF topic literature. I have a very solid knowledge of ethics, but do not assume I understand whatever random philosophical argument you're running (esp. if it's postmodern or critical). Explanation early prevents confusion later.

This paradigm applies to LD and PF. If I am judging you in some other event, please ask for my preferences for that event. I will disclose and provide oral feedback only if doing so fits within the the rules and norms of the tournament. I promise I am more chill than my paradigm makes me sound. Include me on all email chains: resispeechanddebate@gmail.com.

Speaker Points

My baseline is 25 points for an average performance for your division. There are some pretty straightforward things (listed in no particular order) you can do in front of me to increase the points I award you:

• Don't overexplain or become repetitive
• Ask if I am ready before you start speaking
• Give roadmaps and stick to them (signpost as you go)
• Be civil with everyone in the room
• Avoid purposeless gesticulation and stand still
• Make eye-contact with the judge (look at me, not your opponent, during speeches and CX)
• Weigh the arguments (don't just give me competing sets of unweighed offense)
• Stand during speeches and cross-ex (if you are able) (this doesn't apply to virtual rounds)
• Project without shouting
• Don't troll or run joke/jibberish cases
• Don't quibble over highly similar frameworks
• Use all of your time (finishing with 0:30+ left is nonideal)
• Be strategic with what arguments you go for in later speeches

I very much appreciate when non-trad debaters adapt to accommodate trad debaters or when spreaders adapt to accommodate non-spreaders. I have never seen (and doubt I ever will) a good round where people don't adapt to each other in this way. I am quite happy to tank your speaks into oblivion for going 300+wpm against someone speaking at 160wpm even if I vote you up. If you don't know your opponent's style or speed, feel free to ask (and don't lie if you are asked--lying in this way is a breach of ethics and I will vote you down). I also appreciate funny and/or obscure Star Wars (be warned, I hate episodes VII-IX), Star Trek (DS9 is the best but I love them all), or LOTR references.

I also have some random pet peeves--while they won't hurt your speaks, but they will make me sad. For example, the verb is "rebut" not "rebuttal." "Rebuttal" is only ever a noun. Please do not say "I will now rebuttal this argument." Another example: "the resolution" is not "the resolved." "Resolution" is a noun; "resolved" is a conjugated verb functioning to communicate the idea "be it resolved that." And, lately, the difference between "exacerbate" and "exasperate" has been irking me. The former is to make worse or more serious, the latter is to make mildly annoyed or frustrated. You will exacerbate my exasperation if you conflate these terms.

Argumentation

I go into each round with a set of basic presumptions. I do not retreat *to* my presumptions absent argumentation; rather, I am willing to retreat *from* them if you argue with sufficient strength that I should abandon these presumptions. My presumptions aren't fallbacks; if you want me to ignore them you need to convince me that I should.

• I presume that arguments in LD should be topical (this is a non-negotiable redline in PF).
• I presume that it is the Affirmative's/Pro's burden to defend the whole resolution.
• I presume that theory is a reason to drop the argument, not the debater. I will ignore frivolous theory and RVIs.

Additionally:

• I will not evaluate new arguments unless (a) the round is otherwise irresolvable or (b) you failed to flag it as new when you had the chance (Neg literally can't flag new arguments made in the 2AR, so I will intervene to do that for them). An argument in rebuttal is not new if it is made at the first opportunity a debater has had to address a previous argument; e.g. in LD, a new point in the Neg's last speech can be rebutted by a new point in the 2AR.
• I don't mind counterplans in LD/PF (if they're not super niche). Please do not preach at me that counterplans are against the rules; that is a cop out designed to avoid substantitive debate.
• Dropped arguments are concessions (concessions still need to be impacted). You can drop your own arguments. An argument dropped by both sides is dead in the round; no amount of rhetorical necromancy will revive it and it will not figure into my decision.
• Win your round on the flow. Persuasive rhetoric is great, but I will vote up bad speakers who win on the flow over amazing speakers who lose key arguments. LD/PF is debate, not speech.
• I cannot reject a definition unless an alternative is proposed and argued for.

Here are some event-specific comments:

~~~~Lincoln-Douglas~~~~

• I prefer not to see Ks in LD and for cases to follow the traditional Value-Criterion set up, but this is a preference only, and not a hard-and-fast rule. I have voted for Ks in the past.
• I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting a standard (e.g. criterion, role of ballot) and by identifying who weighs most heavily under this standard. Winning the standard is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round. A standard is abusive if no plausible opposing strategy (or only an ultra-niche strategy no one but you has ever heard of) could link.

~~~~Public Forum~~~~

• As an event designed for lay judges, extreme and implausible link chains should be avoided (this is a preference, not a hard-and-fast rule). To use one example, conflict on social media platforms will not result in nuclear war. I am not opposed to extinction impacts where those impacts are actually plausible.
• Neither incredibly dense philosophy/high theory nor Ks belong in this event; you will lose my vote if you run these.
• The second Rebuttal needs to address *both* the Pro and the Con cases. The time skew is not an excuse for not having to do both. It is up to you to make the strategic decisions that will allow you to win the round given the time constraints.
• I presume a cost-benefit-analysis weighing mechanism in PF (unless that would be inconsistent with the plain text of the resolution). If you want me to use something else, you must provide solid reasoning as to why I should retreat from this presumption.

Evidence

• Paraphrasing--as long as it's an accurate representation of the evidence, and you're not paraphrasing a huge section of text--is not objectionable. It is ridiculous to me that one would suggest otherwise.
• I do not require or expect debaters to proactively share their cases with one another or with me, and will not penalize debaters for not automatically sharing cases when not specifically requested to do so. If you want someone's case or evidence, request it. I expect everyone to share evidence and cases when requested. I dislike asking for cases pro forma, and I prefer that debaters not call for or examine cases merely as an aid or replacement for flowing. Unless someone point blank refuses to share their cases or evidence with you and I witness that refusal, I won't take disclosure theory arguments seriously.
• I will only call for evidence if there is some serious question in my mind (or raised in the debate) as to a card's legitimacy. Unless there are accusations of dishonest practices, I will evaluate the credibility of sources based solely on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I will *not* read cards after the round just to see if they're "great on this question."
• If you only have softcopies of evidence, and your opponent does not have a laptop, you must make your laptop available to your opponent if they have requested your evidence in order to prep. All softcopy evidence should be in a standard file format such as .doc, .docx, .pdf, or google docs.
• You have the right to request that your opponent delete any downloaded evidence or return any soft- or hardcopies at the end of the round. I fully expect debaters to comply with requests to delete or return evidence.

Speed

• I can understand somewhere around 275 words per minute depending on how clearly you articulate, but I prefer a speed at or below 225wpm. I will not vote you down just because you're going faster than I'd ideally like *as long as* I can still understand you. I cannot vote on what I did not understand.
• I will not shout "clear" during rounds (unless it's virtual). Instead, if I literally cannot understand a word you're saying, I will stop flowing and set my pen down. That is your cue to slow down. I will not vote on what I did not flow.

Timing

• I always time all speeches and prep. My timer keeps the official time. Feel free to time yourselves.
• Prep begins after all requested cards are shown or sent to the requesting team (unless the requesting team wants to or does begin prepping sooner). Prep ends when the debater tells me it ends or they run out of time. Debaters *must* clearly indicate to me when they are starting and ending prep so that I can keep time.
• A sentence begun before time expires may be completed after time has expired. Don't abuse this privilege.

Cross-Examination

• CX is non-binding unless its content is brought up in your immediately subsequent speech. For example, in LD, if you are Aff and raise some admission made in 2CX in the 2AR, I will not consider that admission. If the Aff wanted something in 2CX to be binding, Aff should've raised it in the 1AR.
• I do not allow flex prep (using prep as added cross-ex) or the reverse (using cross-ex as added prep) in my rounds unless required to do so by the tournament. If I am on a panel and the tournament rules are unclear, I will respect the majority decision on whether to allow it.
• I am not a fan of CXs that descend into shouting matches or snark-offs. CX should be interactive and probing, but not combative. Some people are entertained by gladiatorial CXs...I am not one of those people.
• CX time belongs to the questioner. Therefore, if the questioner asks a question just before time expires, I will still expect the respondent to answer the question, even though time has expired. Saying "that's cross" doesn't magically free the respondent from their obligation to answer.
• In PF GCF, everyone needs to participate. Ideally, each debater on a team will participate equally.

My Redlines

• I will vote down anyone who clearly and intentionally sets out to (1) advocate wanton killing of other human beings (e.g. extermination as a solution to overpopulation); (2) take a position which is clearly Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, Sexist, Xenophobic, etc.; and/or (3) personally attack an opponent, school, or anyone involved in the activity.
• I will vote down anyone who (1) is exceptionally and insufferably rude, (2) makes threats, and/or (3) falsifies, misquotes, selectively edits, and/or otherwise dishonestly manipulates evidence in a manner which could have materially impacted the round.
• It is virtually never acceptable to read an obscene word as part of quoted evidence. The educational value must be quite significant; if I determine that the value isn't that high, I will ignore the entire card.

Finally

I don't bite--feel free to ask questions if you have any. If you need to refer to me, you should call me "judge" during a round. Outside of a round, "judge," "Mr. Shouse" ("sh"+"house") or "Brian" are acceptable. I use he/him/his pronouns (if you're comfortable with sharing, let me know which pronouns you prefer). Remember: just have fun and do your best. And if I happen to be judging your round, may the Force be with you!