I am a recently retired former debate coach of more than 35 years so I am familiar with debate theory and practice. In general I will listen to any arguments put forward by the debaters and evaluate them in the manner the debaters ask me to. That said, if the debaters do NOT give me a framework for evaluating arguments I will have to make one up which is likely to make at least one of the teams in the round unhappy. There are a couple of things that I am "old school" on. I will listen to T arguments and use the voters the teams put forward to evaluate it, but I believe that being inside the boundaries of the resolution is a minimum requirement for the Affirmative so I am not giving any bonus points to Aff. for doing so. In short, reverse voters on T are going to require a lot of work by the Aff to convince me. I also believe that CPs must be non-topical; otherwise they are advocating affirming the resolution. So if Neg want to run a topical counter plan they are going to have to do some work to convince me that is an acceptable position. Otherwise the round belongs to the teams and I will evaluate in the manner they ask me to. Finally, speed is fine so long as it is clear. That said, I am happier as a judge evaluating augments that are developed in depth rather than evaluating many arguments presented rapidly but with little depth or explanation. Good luck and speak well!

I was a high school debater and have judged debate at least once or twice a year for the last 20 years.

I prefer to judge rounds based on the validity of arguments and evidence that supports those arguments.

I don't like to base decisions on topicality (especially this year) unless it is abundantly clear that a team is pushing the limit of topicality and the negative can prove it. Even then, I like other arguments in addition to topicality.

Email: wcornett@trinityacademy.org

Lincoln-Douglas

I am a pretty traditional LD judge. I want a focus on the moral obligations and the value/criterion framing. Make sure that your framing connects to the contention level. Any questions, feel free to ask.

Policy

Warrants: Whichever arguments are being read, whether evidence-based or analytical, the ability to clearly explain your warrants instead of just asserting stuff is what gets you ahead on my ballot and in speaker points. This should be obvious, but it doesn't always play out that way.

Aff burden: Defend the resolution. My bias is towards a policy plan, but if you can provide a clear and compelling framework for another way to support the resolution, you can certainly do so. If you do want to get creative, however, you will have to do work explaining your framing and why/how I should evaluate the round.

DA's & CP's: Core negative positions. Case specific links are preferable, but I'll vote on generic links if the neg explains how it applies to the aff and the aff doesn't give a good reason why the link is either untrue across the board, or there is something unique about their position that disproves the link.

It's going to take some work to show me that conditionality is abusive, but I'm willing to listen to the argument. As is true across the board, abuse claims are strongest if they are specific to what happened within the round in question.

T: I'll vote on T, but it's not my preference to do so. I try to strike a balance between competing interpretations and reasonability (i.e. it is good to explore multiple definitions and why some may be better than others, but if in the absence of the debate clearly demonstrating that one definition is preferable and the aff meets their own interp, I'm going to lean aff on T).

K: Don't trust that I will automatically know your literature. In addition, just because a literature base exist to claim something, I will need clear analysis from the neg as to why I should buy that literature base. Framework is generally going to be important for me. Is the K presenting an alternative policy action to be evaluated like a CP? Is it proposing an individual action on my part? Something else? Let me know. Framework debates will vary depending on the answers to those questions, but affirmatives have options to contest the viability of the alt, either based on the specific action being suggested or on the way debate rounds function and whether I should buy that accepting or rejecting ideas on my ballot has any real world impact (e.g. does policymaking or the k have more educational value/skill development; if neither have out of round impact, is there benefit to game playing or not?). I am more likely to buy an alt if it actually gives me a different policy or mindset to adopt instead of just telling me to reject a mindset.

Impact Framing: I find arguments that say "any chance of the link means you vote" to be rather weak. First, I find that debaters tend to describe the probability of their scenarios in terms that are not only not realistic, but have no objective basis whatsoever. It often feels like arbitrarily pulling a statistical percentage out of a hat. This isn't just about debaters overstating the odds of big impacts like extinction happening. The same problem exists (in either the aff or the k) in claiming that you have 100% solvency for racism or sexual violence. This probably puts me more in a probability first camp, less because I won't look at big impacts than because I want clear warranted reasons that your impact will happen before I look at anything else.

Voters: Assume that I will take you seriously about what you go for at the end of the round. What you go for in the 2NC will be what I focus my decision on, even if I thought you were ahead elsewhere. Importantly, even if you extend a card in the 2NC, but don't give me any analysis of why that is something I should be voting on, it probably won't be part of my decisions. Don't expect me to do the work of framing your voters for you.

Argument Interaction: Give me clear direction as to the way that your arguments interact with one another. If you are running arguments that contradict one another, give me explanation of why doing so makes sense. If you are running T and saying that the aff gives you no DA ground, how does that interact with any DAs you are running? Are you going to just simultaneous ask me to believe that your links are trash when I am looking at the T flow and awesome when I'm looking at the DA flow? Running both of these arguments together can be strategic in a number of directions, but I'm going to need you to clarify that by the end of the round rather than just leaving it unresolved.

Speed: I'm not the fastest at flowing, so give me clear tag lines. If the tournament allows it, I appreciate being on the email chain/receiving the flash of the speech.

I have experience with debate. I have been a coach for 3 years.

I assess debate rounds by mostly stock issues. To get a NEG vote, the teams needs to addresses the faults and gaps in the plan's inherency, harms, and solvency.

Topicality is fine, but not that important to me. Don't get caught up on topicality and forget about the rest of the issues. It becomes a stalemate.

Generic disadvantages are fine.

I don't mind when debaters talk fast, but please keep it cordial between partners and teams at all times :)

Tabula rasa

I was a debate coach for ten years. I have judged many debates over the intervening years. This year I judged our league debate tournament.

My paradigm revolves around stock issues. I like arguments that are well organized and that are attached directly to the affirmative case. I do not like generic DA's unless there is a very good link to the specific case.

Speed is not a problem as long as the speaker can be understood.

I did four years of 4A debate, and three years of mixed styles of collegiate debate (NPDA, IPDA, NFALD). We did fast debate, we did not do speed. I understand the difference. However, flashing me speech docs/email chains and being clear about when you switch cards has made my adaptation to you easier. I also understand that I'm not the target DCI/speed/critical judge, so I'm fine with being sped away from rounds if it's a strategic decision; I do my best to keep up, and I haven't squirreled because I've missed something yet.

I'm fine with all argument styles, there isn't anything I reject at face value argument-wise. I'll always give more weight to specific link analysis, especially if this is continuously pulled through with analysis through the debate. I'm also a big fan of impact framing and actually comparing the impact framing of the aff/neg as an additional lens to impact calculus. Putting lots on the flow is good, working the flow to your advantage is much better. However, I'm also very likely to vote on how you treat your opponents in round. For example, if you read a 15 card block to why I shouldn't care about trigger warning args, but ask the team "So, how triggered are you really?" in CX, I'll vote you down if the opp team makes it a voter.

I work for Pfizer. I do have a bias to not buy medicine/science DA's that aren't really rooted in science. Also, if you make claims like "AlL BiG PhArMa BaD" without any nuance or warrant, I probably won't be very happy. Sorry, they pay my bills.

Great communication and good form are important to me.

I do not mind speed but do not spread if you are not adept at it; I need to understand more than be impressed by your words per minute. Speaking of understanding, please make it a focus to know the correct pronunciation of difficult terms and words that are pertinent to your arguments. Thanks.

Topicality is underrated. I find it to be the bedrock of your argument. I also think impacts are important. If you bring up tools to make your opponents’ position weak such as disads, CP, etc., please be prepared to support these in detail, and develop your them to expose the weakness of your opposition.

A great k is okay but people are in love with using ks without knowing how. Don't be that person. Also, provide a good roadmap before your speech, and above all, at the end of your portion of the round, please be clear on why the judge should decide FOR you or AGAINST your opponent.

I strive to be impartial and open because I am a high school debate and forensics coach, and that’s how I want my students to be judged. However, I do not appreciate debaters who are unkind to lay judges; tournaments would be very hard to hold without them, and they are some debater's mother, grandfather, family friend, etc. Disdaining them is inappropriate.

Try hard, be polite, use language that is academic, appropriate, and unbiased; don’t attack your opponents themselves, but rather their arguments on the basis of logic, evidence, organization, and knowledge…and say thanks after to all in the room.

This paradigm is not earth-shattering, but simply common sense points to follow, and good luck to all.

Common Questions About My Judging Criteria:

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

At its core, debate is a communications event. What I look for in a round is the ability of all speakers to 1) identify the key issues in the round, 2) develop them throughout the round rationally and understanding/ respecting the nuance and real-world implications, and 3) expressing those issues appropriately and effectively.

B. Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

There must be a balance here. Good public speaking skills are a must—good public speaking form is critical to success. At the end of the round, though, if the team that is least polished offers the most substantive arguments on the round’s issues, that team will win the round. This is true even when their opponents have a better understanding of theory, structure of arguments, and the like.

II. Which best describes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

B. Stock issues emphasis

Road maps will be on-time, please, unless there is a specific rule requiring they be off-time. Off-time road maps will be limited to sequence--I do not flow them and will not consider an argument offered here. Word economy, please--if you will follow the prior speaker's order, simply say "Same order."

III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

E. No preferences regarding speed

I can flow what you can enunciate. If you stop enunciating, I stop flowing. I do not yell "Clear" or give other signals that you are not enunciating.

IV. Counterplans are:

C. Acceptable if justified and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach

Counterplans, if run, should be plan exclusive. I’m looking for functional competitiveness in a cp. When neg offers a cp, they necessarily indict the status quo and therefore forfeit presumption, IMO. I don’t accept that cps can be conditional, as this presents a “moving target” to aff. (“Ban the plan” is not functionally competitive, and only weakly textually competitive, BTW.)

V. Topicality is:

B. Fairly important, roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

What can I say? I’m a stock issues judge. T is a priori, so if neg is going to run it they really ought to run it at the top of 1NC. The end-of-round test for T, to me, is reasonability: if the plan is a reasonable interpretation of the resolution, I’m going to allow it. I’m not all that interested in how neg structures a T arg, or how aff responds to it—has aff convinced me that their interpretation of the resolution is reasonable? If so, they’re topical and I consider the rest of the round.

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

B. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

The links make the DA relevant to the plan. If the plan doesn’t incur the DA there’s not much point, now, is there?

VII. I find kritiks:

B. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

Other things I like and you will do if you want my ballot:

· Direct Clash: I really like on-case args, BTW. I like DAs and Solvency attacks a lot, too, but clash is key to a good round.

· Signposting: When clashing with your opponents, tell me which arg you’re answering. (Road mapping is not a substitute for signposting, BTW.) I know where I would put your arg on my flow, but I need to know where YOU want me to put it.

· Extension in rebuttals: There’s more to a good rebuttal than repeating what was said in constructives. When you repeat constructives, you’re having a “is not/is so” argument. This is neither clash nor a debate. Extending args involves further developing your position and supporting it with extension evidence. Read new evidence that supports your position.

· Closed cross-examination: I strongly dislike open cross-ex. Also, please ask for cards from the speaker during cross-ex, not between speeches. On the topic of cards, please do not hover near the speaker and take cards as they read them.

I did debate all through high school and college, and have coached it as well. So I can keep up with most arguments and ideas.

Things I like in a debate are clash, good theory, stock issues, and impact calc. The more straightforward the better. The more squirrely your argument the less likely I am to vote for it.

PLEASE DO ROADMAPS

I like good Topicality arguments, and can't stand ones that are just there for time sucks or because you have nothing better to run. Please don't do this.

I really don't care for K's. If you run a good one, and it explain it very well, I'm good with it.

Some speed is fine, but if you can't say the whole word, you're going too fast.

Be polite. There is a line between being assertive and a jerk. Know that line, because I don't like voting for jerks, even if they were the better debater.

1 year of high school debate experience many years ago but I have since forgotten most of it. I have been actively judging debate since 2021 and do understand stock issues but am no overly technical. I have no preferences for the round or what argument types are used.

First and foremost I consider this a speech event, so clarity and good pacing is important.

I like debates about stock issues and on case arguments. I do not like K. at all. Counterplans are okay as long as you make sure to address the aff completely and know that I will expect a very logical reason I why I should vote for the CP. I like a clearly laid-out A1 with a road map that is easy for me to flow. CX is extremely important and I don’t like questions that are time fillers or simply ask to repeat plans unless the aff is unclear.

A good DA is great but be sure it goes beyond the generic. And PLEASE don't go apocalyptic!

Stay topical or prove the Aff isn’t beyond just saying that it isn’t. Make me believe.But aff needs to address T if it is brought up.

Be sure not to drop arguments in your rebuttals and don’t bring in new evidence.

If you can be logical, clear and concise, and respond to all arguments you stand a good chance of winning.

I appreciate respectful behavior and disapprove of rudeness or directly dressing down your opponent.

Tabula Rasa

I've been in the debate community for 16 years. Please tell me how I should vote and why. I am open to any judging paradigm.

Clear links, signposting, and substantial impacts are critical. I enjoy good impact calc when weighing the round as a policymaker. If you want me to vote from a stock issues paradigm, please provide an excellent line-by-line debate.

D/A's - I expect clear and direct links to the AFF case when using generic D/A's.

K's - Welcomed if severe and authentic. If it's a joke about us living in the matrix, I will probably not vote for it unless the other team can't answer. 

Topicality - I don't care. I understand the strategy of T to cause commitment to an affirmative stance to provide stronger links. If proper T shells exist on both sides, it becomes neutral in my mind unless a team offers an excellent analysis that sells me.

Speed - I support spreading evidence at any pace. I do care about cadence and accuracy during spreading. However, I do prefer your analysis or warrant to be clearly articulated.

Secret Permenter, B.A. in History and Political Science.

FORENSICS:

I have experience judging different events in Forensics. Do not have much experience with Lincoln-Douglas Debate, but ready to learn and grow! I have knowledge on the subject at hand and I know what is expected in an LD judge, so...

DEBATE:

3 years of debate experience. I am typically a Tabula Rasa or policymaker judge, but I am very fluid in my paradigm. If Neg is not presenting a counterplan, I will likely not judge as a policymaker. How you debate will determine how I judge. I am very open-minded in my judging.

Speaking Speed -- I do not mind fast talking/reading in a round, as long as the words are able to be understood. If you are talking so quickly that I cannot understand what you are saying/arguing, then the other team may not as well.

My biggest pet peeve is burden of proof. The AFF has burden of proof. It is up to the AFF team to Prove that their plan is worth winning and that their plan isn't as bad as the Neg team may say it is.

Another pet peeve I have is people who argue who is more credible than another. If your only argument against the other team's evidence is that you have a more credible source, it is not necessarily a strong argument.... Obviously you can argue that point, but it shouldn't be the basis of your entire argument.

Below is some information to help you understand how I feel about certain key components of debate. You are always welcome to ask questions!

Topicality/Theory - I am informed on what the current debate topic is, and I have experience in its relevance to the current world. Aff needs to have plans that are topical. Neg- if you argue topicality, don't just give me definitions because definitions can be argued to no end. Give me reasons as well. Why is your definition the best definition. How does the definition prove non-topicality.

Disads - Every plan, no matter how good, will have disadvantages. If you are upright about disadvantages, it shows me your case has actually looked at more than the positive sides. If you can't fit disads into 1Aff, then 1Aff should be prepared to offer them up in Cross if asked. If you claim to have no disadvantages, then your topic is not as researched as it should be.

Counterplans - I am not for or against counter plans. Counter plans can work well and win, but they need to be executed well. Do not enter the debate with a counterplan as your only course of action, and don't use it as a last resort. Good Neg teams will show that the Aff argument is bad and that there is a better route (i.e. counterplan).

Kritiks -- There is a time and place to do Kritiks and they can be a good argument, but explanations of Kritiks are going to be key. I may not know what K you are talking about, so it is important that you get me and the opposing team on the same page as you. If I as a judge am unable to understand the Kritik, how can I judge based on that?

Personal Stories/analytical arguments -- I do not mind the use of personal experiences in a debate, as long as you use evidence as well. Many personal stories can be supported by statistics and facts and therefore these things should be included. Personal experiences should not be the bulk of your speech or the bulk of an argument, but simply an anecdote to help your argument. Analytical Arguments are typically made when you know a specific set of facts/statistics, but might not necessarily know where you learned said information. These are okay if you have other points that back it up. I am not taking your personal word over the word of evidence found from credible sources.

Speaker points-

There are a few criteria I take into consideration when giving speaker points:

1. Whether or not you speak fluidly in a way that is both easy to hear and easy to understand. (Mumbling, speaking too quickly or too slow, and speaking too quietly can have negative impacts on speaker points)

2. How kind you are. I have been in debates where my partner and I received the highest speaker points because the other team was being rude, disrespectful, and yelling at us in Cross. I will not give high points to those who are disrespectful and rude in their cross, speeches, or otherwise. We are here to talk facts, not to belittle our opponents. I penalize rudeness toward other teams, toward eachother, etc.

3. Using your time. If you have 8 minutes to talk, I expect you use up as much of it as you can. Reiterate points I may not have caught the first time. Aff -- Sell your plan more. If you have finished counterarguing, make your plan look great. Neg -- explain your points, have more than one.

4 and final. Whether or not you have explanations. Both AFF and NEG need to read evidence AND explain how it applies to your argument/counterargument.

Austin Rea

WSU '24

Email: austin.rea34@gmail.com

Hey everyone, feel free to ask questions before the round if anything is not clear in my paradigm. Additionally, if you find some of this information vague or confusing reading Tim Ellis's paradigm or Sean Duff's will give you plenty of insight into how I view debate.

Experience: I debated for 3 years at Washburn Rural High School. I'm the prototypical WARU debater in that I only ran policy affs and typically only read straight forward Kritiks when competing. I am currently a senior at Wichita State University studying Economics and History.

Technology/Speed: I'm fine with any speed typically, if you aren't clear I'll clear you once.

Preferences: The strategies most likely to win my ballot are policy oriented. Ideally, my favorite types of debates are relatively straight forward fast debates with lots of warranted analysis. On the affirmative, I'm a big fan of well put together and defensible aff's. However, I enjoy straight turning DA's and kicking the aff, if you have the chance take it. I think the most compelling neg strategy in debate is usually DA and case or DA and CP. That being said obviously theory/kritiks are viable ways to win but they are typically less enjoyable unless they include intelligient in round debate and not just blocks.

Framework: I think fairness is extremely important in debate. Plan-less affirmatives are more compelling to me if they are in the direction of topic and allow for substantial neg ground. Aff should focus on their impacts and how they engage with education in the round and why that outweighs fairness or why fairness doesn't matter. Case debate even without specific evidence is helpful in these rounds when it comes to understanding the desirability of the aff. I would say plan-less aff vs kritik rounds are likely be a jumbled mess and confuse me unless it is contextualized well and is fairly straight forward.

Topicality/Theory: Typically, I believe T is a question of competing interpretations. When evaluating interpretations I tend to lean towards models of debate that provide fairly equitable neg and aff ground. Also, when going for a terminal impact on T, I think fairness tends to be the most persuasive IF there is further explanation about why fairness matters in regards to education. On most theory arguments I default to reject the arg not the team but it is possible to win my ballot on conditionality. Spec debates are exceptionally lame. Reasonability is not a real argument.

Kritiks: I am fairly familiar with most Kritik's, however I am not as familiar with what I'll call identity Kritik's. This does not mean you should never go for one of these arguments. Kritik literature often fascinates me but I don't think its very often both sides are able to have a meaningful debate on it. If you are able to intelligently discuss the merits of the Kritik beyond the tag lines I will be much more receptive. I think alts are under utilized in many kritik debates and I tend to enjoy the debate more if the neg goes for the alt instead of just framework and a link. However, if you do go for the alt its important I get an explanation how the alt resolves at least portions of the aff and also the mechanisms of how the alt functions. Contextualized specific links are extremely important to me in this style of debate. Link of omission=no link

DA/CP/Case: This is the style of debate I prefer, the rebuttals should clearly outline the impacts of the DA vs the impacts of the aff. If no impact analysis is done I will not be happy. Never underestimate the value of case arguments, going for solvency or focusing on internal links of the aff is more persuasive than generic impact defense. Counter plans are an essential aspect of debate that challenge the desirability of the aff. Conditions counter plans are kind of up in the air I can be persuaded either way. Consult counter plans I think are almost always cheating, you definitely need to focus on how the CP textually and/or functionally competes if you're going for this kind of CP. Delay CP's are cheating and if that fact is identified by the other team I will not vote on it. Please keep in mind there are multiple parts of a DA required to win a round. Without uniqueness, link, internal link, and an impact I cannot vote on your DA even if it is dropped most likely.

***My suggestion for you is to do what you are good at or what is fun. Too often in rebuttals negative teams will go for what the aff has done the worst on instead of what the neg has done the best on. This is a mistake. Keep in mind you are playing to win, not playing to watch the other team lose.***

Lastly, be nice and have fun. If you have more experience than the team across from you trust me I'll know, there is no need to be mean and make the round less enjoyable for everyone. I don't want to hear you talking during your opponents speeches. Probably the most annoying thing for me to see in debate are when debaters are overly emotional or condescending with body language during opponents speeches.

I have been judging for 4 seasons.

I have judged around the at debate tournament, league, regionals and at state.

Communication skills and resolution of substantial issues are of roughly equal importance.

The skills emphasis is what best describes my paradigm approach to judging debate.

The speed of presentation I prefer is fairly rapid, delivery acceptable so long as presentation Is clearly enunciated.

Counter plans are acceptable if justified, and if consistency with other elements of the negative approach.

Topicality is fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

I find generic disadvantages acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I find kritiks reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

1. Communicative skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

2. Skill emphasis (Who does the "better job of debating") best describes my paradigm or approach to judging debate.

3. A fairly rapid delivery presentation is acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged.

4. Counterplans are acceptable even if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

5. Topicality is fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

6. I find generic disadvantages acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

7. I find kritiks acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I debated 4 years in high school, and have judged/assistant coached at plenty of tournaments since I graduated in 2018. I am currently a high school English teacher and debate/forensics coach. I value communication skills a lot, but the arguments being made must also have substance. I'm typically a tab judge, and will value what you convince me is most important; but if no framework is given by the debaters, I will default policy maker. I have no preference in speed as long as you speak clearly. CPs are fine, and topicality is fine, Ks are okay if you break them down. Disadvantages should have clear links to the aff, and should all be impacted out.

Stock issues are important. However, I am very flexible and feel I can adjust to whatever is presented. Do what you did to get you here.

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.

- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.

I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.

• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.

• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.

• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.

• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R

• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.

• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.

• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.