LD: As I flow your round, I’ll be looking to see how your value and criterion work in tandem to prove the moral rationale that LD rests; furthermore, I don’t like when crossfires engage in obnoxious back-and-forths with questions that don’t add any substantive value to the round. Lastly, it's imperative that you underscore the credibility of your cards, especially when making claims including stats, data, points, and political and historical claims that attack your opponent’s arguments.

PF: I enjoy PF and like to flow the rounds I judge to provide you with the best feedback I can. I love to see link chains and impacts that are substantial to the case; rather than just reading the cards, I’d appreciate you explaining and further reinforcing your points, data, and stats, to let me know that you know your case all around. If you speak too fast, I’ll try to keep up as I flow but once you’ve lost me, I’ll stop flowing. I am not a fan of voters that are reliant on ethos; I prefer you use logic in voters that explain to me what you’ve argued in round. Don’t forget that I’m also flowing the round so if your claim is that they’ve dropped certain points, I’ll refer to my flow to assess that claim.

CX: I like to flow Policy rounds - please be mindful that I will flow the round and I appreciate signposts. If you’re speaking too fast (spreading) and I lose track of what you’re arguing, I may not be able to appropriately flow the round. I like policy and I’ll be looking for which side proves the resolution is true or false. I’m not a fan of off-cases (T, XT, FX, or Ks) unless they’re CPs. If you must absolutely run a K because you believe you have an edge over your competitors, please explain it to me if it’s an obscure or unpopular K.

I look for professionalism/poise, conscious involvement, and organization. Knowledge of the topic is a perk.

I dock for eye rolls and drama.