Spreading is in the nature of the debate beasts in the modern era…please keep it to 50% of your max.

I am a newer judge and coach, but I can appreciate all intellectually sound arguments. My largest concern is your understanding of your material and capability to defend it. 

High school LD in the dark ages before the internet. I prefer traditional LD, and arguments to be flowable. 

Superior logic, evidence, and skill in defending/refutation will always dictate my vote. In a very close race speaks will turn the tide in your favor. Strong presentation skills are part of the persuasive package.

General Paradigms:

-My greatest emphasis in a debate round is impact (what are we debating, if not the topic's impact on people/society as a whole?)

-I place great weight on logical progression of ideas, and the closer your links line up, the better off you will be

-Be cautious when using jargon since I only have limited debate experience

-Speak slowly and clearly. It does not matter how good your argument is if I can't understand it. DO NOT SPREAD. Whatever speed you believe is not spreading, slow down an additional 50%.

-As someone with extensive speech experience through choir, theatre, and voice acting, I am always listening for speaking quality as well as arguments, and a good presentation can take you a long way.

Event Specific Paradigms:

-IE Events: always make sure that any modulation in your performance is motivated. Emphasis, speed, and volume are all well and good but they do nothing if their placement doesn't make any sense

• PF/LD: always be sure to keep track of your arguments. If you make a claim about your opponent's argument that is not true, it illustrates that you are simply reading off a pre-prepared script without actually properly engaging in the debate.

I prefer on-topic debate.

Not a fan of philosophical arguments, but will keep my opinions from influencing decisions. If said arguments are well structured and not just used as a last minute argument due to lack of preparation.

Not a fan of spreading, however, I am for letting participants to use their judgement to present their best case.

I'm ok with participants using speech jargon.

My decisions are made based on overall performance and content.

Debate Paradigm:

I am about as traditional as traditional can be. I typically won't disclose, please don't ask about it.

I am not a fan of:

-the k debate

-plans/counterplans in debates other than CX

-not standing when you are speaking or during CX

-disclosing before the debate starts

-talking fast unnecessarily

-being a part of email chains, I shouldn't have to read your evidence, I should be able to hear it and understand within the confines of your speech

I prefer:

-a slower more methodical debate

-actual discussion on the topic/resolution

-standing up when speaking

-understanding what the debater is saying

I value debate that is germane to the topic. Loosely connected theory shells or using "trick" debate strategies hold less value than those in which are directly relevant to the topic. I am looking for well researched and well delivered debate.

Spreading is frowned upon. In my opinion spreading ruins the spirit of debate. If I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth you are not debating, you are mumbling. Preference will be given to the debater that is speaking clearly, and making their points with fluidly.

Be respectful to me and your opponents at all times.

Out of respect for other competitors, the tournament schedule, and the tabroom, I will not disclose.

As an experienced judge in speech and debate, a former competitor in LD and speech events, and a current coach who values the history and tradition of the event, I want to emphasize that I do not believe that speed and volume are the sole indicators of a skilled debater. In fact, I appreciate the qualities of persuasion, clear communication, and depth of argumentation over speed. Here are some key points to consider if you want to convince me of your argument:

1. Speak clearly and enunciate your words. Ensure that your arguments are easy to follow, and don't rush through your points. Take your time to explain your ideas thoroughly.

2. Support your arguments with relevant evidence and examples. Cite credible sources and use data when appropriate. Avoid cherry-picking data or misrepresenting facts.

3. Show that you have a deep understanding of the topic. Go beyond surface-level arguments and provide nuanced analysis.

4. Engage with your opponent's arguments thoughtfully and respectfully. Refute their points with evidence and logic rather than resorting to aggressive tactics.

5. Use cross-examination as an opportunity to clarify your opponent's arguments and highlight any weaknesses in their position. Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor during cross-examination.

6. Maintain good eye contact with me and the audience. Use gestures and body language to enhance your communication, but avoid excessive or distracting movements.

7. Maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout the debate. Avoid personal attacks or disrespectful language towards your opponents.

8. Be mindful of your allotted time and manage it effectively. Don't rush through your speech to fit in more content. It's better to deliver a well-structured and persuasive argument within the time limit.

Remember that the art of debate is not just about winning arguments but also about fostering a respectful and constructive discourse. I value debaters who uphold these principles and contribute to the tradition of civil and persuasive discourse in speech and debate.

As far as speech events go, I am here to be informed and entertained.I do not tolerate cultural appropriation - be mindful of your accents, gestures, and intent.

junior vpf at bellaire

try and preflow before round

ask for oral paradigm

I'll start with this, since it seems to be the only question anyone cares about anymore: if you scale speed on a 1-10, with 10 being as fast as humanly possible, I prefer a 3-5 depending on the time of day (lower in the early morning or later evening).

Now, if you want more nuance: I'm the coach at Clear Lake High School in southeast Houston. I previously coached (and attended high school/competed at) Deer Park High School in Deer Park, TX. I've been a head coach for thirteen years and judging for the past eighteen.

As a CX judge, I find myself becoming more and more of a policymaker-style judge. I am a flow judge and am okay with moderate to faster levels of speed, however as an educator I feel that this is a communication event first. I'm not going to call for a bunch of cards if I didn't hear them, so please make sure I can actually understand you. Unless I'm judging virtually, I don't want to be on the email chain. On DisAds, I can't stand generic links and am incredibly unlikely to vote on them. Make sure your internal links also follow some kind of logical train of thought and tell a coherent story. I will vote on topicality, but I have a pretty high threshold for what I consider reasonably T. I don't love kritiks or deep theory debates but I'm also loathe to tell a debater that they can't run them at all just because of my personal feelings. With that said, please make sure that you explain your kritikal arguments, since philosophy has never been my forte.

As an LD judge, I do not have the experience as a competitor and judge that I do for CX. Because of that, understand I might need my hand proverbially held a bit if you dive deep into philosophy. I prefer a slower, traditional/old school style LD round with a strong emphasis on that quaint notion of a value framework. If you've somehow read the last couple of sentences and still think I'm the kind of judge that you should run tricks in front of... let me be clear that I'm very much not. If that's not the kind of judge you want - and I recognize that what I've written sets me far apart from the norm as far as what LD has become - then I encourage you to rank me as low as MJP will allow you. It'll make my life and yours much better.

I feel that PF shouldn't require paradigms (seriously, can we go back to the original intent of this event?), but since we're here... I really despise rudeness in crossfire, and I want to see a solid line-by-line throughout the debate with good impacting at the end. Don't overthink this.

I love Congress. I absolutely adore the event. If I'm in the back of a Congress round I'm a happy camper and I want to see polished, extemp-style speeches that show thought went into them. I also expect to see either clash or new argumentation in the speeches following the first couple of bill cycles, otherwise I feel the debate grows stale and boring. I want to see an attempt at collegiality and a little sprinkle of LARP'ing never hurt anyone.

I've never judged or even watched a WSD round in my life, but I'm coming around to the event and want to learn. If I'm in the back of your Worlds round... consider me a flay judge.

A quick run-down for speech/interp paradigms, since evidently that's a thing now?

Extemp: I love this event and for my money I think this is the best event we have as far as portable skills are concerned. I don't want or need you to be a citation machine, I'd prefer you take a handful of sources and build solid analysis around them.

OO/Info: These are my favorite events to watch and judge, and I love how much of an opportunity they give students to showcase their own unique voices. I like humor but don't want this to be stand up comedy (you're not Josh Gad, and that's perfectly okay). I want a clean performance with solid, memorable analysis. In Info, I love when the visual is something outside the norm; one of the most memorable Infos I've ever judged used a sealed plastic cup filled with water and an egg, and I still remember that (many) years later.

POI: I don't judge POI often but every time I do I'm blown away by how creative students can get within its parameters. I want to see a POI that's seamlessly blended and brings in as many disparate genres as possible. As with all interp, I want to see and hear the "story" you're telling me come alive. I also really like the idea of POI as a form of argumentation, so if I can see that clearly throughout your piece all the better for me. My thoughts on POI also cover (with obvious changes for the rules/norms) my thoughts on Prose and Poetry, for what that's worth.

HI/DI/Duet/Duo: I'm looking at the totality of the performance. Much like I mentioned on POI, I want to see and hear your script come to life through the interpretation. It's exceptionally rare that I get to judge these (I can't tell you the last time I have, to be honest), so I don't go into these rounds with any real expectations. I just want to be wowed overall.

For debate rounds, I vote for whoever has the better argument in the round.

I am a former CX competitor from the late 80s and early 90s from a small 3A district. To that end, my experience and preference falls within the traditional range and not progressive. While I can understand the nuances of it and appreciate its overall intent, it goes well outside of the traditional realm that I prefer. I want clear line by line, clash and impacts that are meaningful and arguments that are well fleshed out. I don't need theoretical situations and kritiks of the resolution. Debate what is given to you as the framers intended it to be debated. I would rather have one or two solid arguments that are carried through a round as opposed to superfluous argumentation that ends up being kicked out of anyway or that operates in a world that is far less meaningful than traditional argumentation.

When it comes to extemp, I am also a traditionalist and expect a speech that is well balanced and that answers the prompt a contestant has been given. (Attention Getter/Hook - Thesis - Points - Conclusion that wraps up). Source variety is as important to me as is the number of sources. Fluidity is the real key. Don't make the speech choppy and don't offer so much content that you are unable to go back and analyze what you've spoken about. This is particularly true when it comes to lots of stats and numbers; don't overload a speech with content on that level that there is no real understanding of how you have synthesized the information you've given. And if you are also a debater, please remember - this is a SPEAKING event, not a debate event.

For topics that err on the side of persuasive and controversial, I DO NOT have an issue with topics that you feel could be flash-points that you think bias will impact the outcome. As long as you can substantiate and articulate what you are talking about with credible information and good analysis, we'll be good and the ballot will be free of bias.

hi, i'm andy, i coach for lanier :)

he/him/his

background:

congress & some extemp | 6 years

general:

• you're the debater

• you do the debating and let me do the judging

• if you don't say it (clearly), i don't flow it

• speed - 5/10

• norms - if it ends in ism, it probably isn't appropriate

• if it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t exist

congress:

• i mained this event, so i know it very well - it's a badly structured event

• i promise to always read the packet/bills before judging the round

• main caveat: if it’s a “debate event”, then it should be judged as an actual debate (even tho it’s not)

warranting is #1 - anything that goes unwarranted is dropped

defense/offense role - anything your side says, you uphold because you operate as one faction

• if your side doesn’t respond to something, absent your defense, i assume it’s conceded

• this affects your argumentation negatively if you don’t respond, but read the same warrants that have already gone conceded

• vice versa for offense, i will assume that your side is dropping the offense if you do not tell me what offense has been read and why it still applies

• absolutelyno counterplans, it removes the point of debating the legislation

speaking - the easy part

• everyone can yap

• not everyone can make yapping not sound like yapping

• you should not look down at your pad for anything other than sources and names

• if there is a lack of eye contact, i will be very sad and drop you

• if you’re funny, then use it to your advantage

• if you’re not, then don’t try to be

• rhetoric is awesome

• stylistically, i don’t care what you go for, but play to your strengths

cx - please don’t be overly aggressive

• it is ok to assert yourself, but don’t be rude or aggressive

• you should not be using this time to make an argument

• if you use the words, “how does your argument still stand?”, i will stop listening

• if you use the words, "where's the expert that says that?", i will also stop listening

• if you shout, i’m tuning you out

weighing - this is my absolute favorite thing

• weigh comparatively - compare option x and y, but make the comparison using some kind of standard

• magnitude, scope, timeframe, pre-req, etc.

• but on top of these standards, compare within them

• i.e. 100 million dollars > 10 million dollars (magnitude)

• without weighing, i have to intervene and weigh myself

• but this is ultimately your job, so if you don’t weigh, i will drop your speech score

framing - this is my second favorite thing

• frame using stakeholder analysis/important questions in the debate

• part of framing is backtracking: “so far in this debate…”

• just remind me of what’s happened so far cuz the rounds are long

• establish a stakeholder - which group/entity is most important

• what is the goal of the legislation?

• which side accomplishes the goal of the legislation for the stakeholder best?

• always start from the status quo

• what is changing from the status quo?

• and if historical precedent applies, what is different from past policy?

• the AFF has a burden to prove the change is unique, the goal is met, and the stakeholder wins

• the NEG has a burden to prove either the change is non-unique, the goal is not met, or the stakeholder loses

• whoever proves this to me, wins the debate

individual - ultimately tho, this is an individual event (IE, haha not debate)

• i rank individuals by interaction with the round

• your speech should uniquely build upon your side’s foundation

• if it contributes nothing, you are definitely getting the 9

• the person that is most aware of everything above will earn the 1

• if it’s really close, i’ll use speaking to differentiate

pf:

emphasis on the lay part in flay

• i will evaluate prog to the best of my ability, but no promises

• err on the side of assuming i have no idea what you’re reading or how to evaluate it

if i am capable of understanding it, i will vote on it except:

• if a school is not allowed to disclose, even if non-verifiable, i will not vote for disclosure theory

general things:

• tech > truth - unless it's blatantly abusive (i.e. the Holocaust isn't real)

• i won’t flow cross unless you bring it up in speeches

• all new arguments before 2nd summary

• defense is not sticky

• love weighing, esp metaweighing, but only if warranted

• if you could signpost/give me a roadmap before speeches, it would help a lot :)

• i default to cost-benefit analysis

• absent offense, i presume for loser of the flip, unless warranted

• base 28 spks

if you debate well and write my ballot for me, then it’ll be an easy win

• if you don’t, then i have to intervene (ex: if there’s 0 offense in final focus)

don’t make me be that judge that has to intervene.

any other debate event:

treat me like a pf judge, read through my congress stuff if that helps

interp (except extemp):

no idea what i'm doing

good luck and have fun :D

I am a lay judge, but as a board-certified civil trial attorney, I am likely more advanced than most lay judges. I also have some background in philosophy. I was not a debater in high school--rather, I lettered in theater. I will judge from a tabula rasa perspective.

I will listen to any type of argument and framework. It is impossible to offend me. I am OK with spreading, but don't slur or mumble through important parts of your speeches. I read another judge’s paradigm that said, “If I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth you are not debating, you are mumbling. Preference will be given to the debater that is speaking clearly, and making their points for fluidly.” That position makes a lot of sense to me.

Superior logic, evidence, and skill in defending/refutation will always dictate my vote. I want to be persuaded. And strong presentation skills are part of the persuasive package.

If you feel you cannot win without being rude to your opponent, you’ve already lost.

And sorry, competitors: I do not disclose results at the end of rounds.

Name: Jay Stubbs

School Affiliation: Bellaire High School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: Since the event was introduced

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: PF did not exist when I competed

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 38 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: High School and College

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, Congress, Extemp

What is your current occupation? Debate Coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery Clarity for understanding is most important

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Line by line on most important issues along with big picture to guide the way the debaters want me to vote.

Role of the Final Focus Final resolution of key issues along with framing the decision for the judge.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches Essential for key arguments in the round.

Topicality Can be run if there are blatant violations…anything can be found to be non-topical via definition…that is a waste of time.

Plans This is a function of the wording of the resolution. Acceptable when the resolution suggests a specific action.

Kritiks Are not going to persuade me.

Flowing/note-taking Is a function of the clarity of debaters in the round. Clarity makes it much easier to keep all issues organized on the flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Clarity is most important to me. Just because a debater makes an argument doesn’t mean that I understand it or know how to weigh it in relation to other arguments without intervention. Clarity brings meaning to important arguments…clarity explains how to weigh arguments against other issues. Providing clarity early in the round is essential when it comes to evaluating arguments as the evolve throughout the round. Waiting until the end of the round to provide clarity can be too late.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No…new arguments should have been introduced earlier in the round. An extension of a key argument is a part of argument evolution.

Congress

I evaluate your arguments in a Congress session in relation to your effectiveness in delivering them. An effective Congressional Debater is one who is committed to making sure that the judge understands the arguments and information they are presenting. When a debater's commitment is limited to getting information into the debate they are assuming that I will gain the same understanding of the information that they have.

Introductions should be creative when possible. Generic intros are frowned upon greatly.

Good arguments should contain both evidence from qualified sources AND analysis.

Devoting time to the summary/conclusion is very important.

Ending speeches at 3:00 is very important. Speeches ending at 3:10 show a lack of discipline and preparation.

Questioning should be focused on exposing weaknesses in opponent's arguments. Questions that cause little to no damage are of marginal value. There should never be a time when the questioner and respondent are both talking at the same time for more than a brief moment.

Respondents should view questioning as an opportunity not an adversarial activity. Attitude and unnecessary aggression will be scored lower. "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable if there is no reasonable reason why you should know the answer. I would like to NEVER hear the answer "I am sure you could tell me." I can not tell you how much I really don't appreciate that response in a questioning period.

I currently do public forum for Bellaire High School. Feel free to ask me about anything that I don't cover in my paradigm, but I will be annoyed if you ask me about something that I already wrote about.

Add me to email chains: etang722@gmail.com

General:

tech > truth

argumentation/content > speaking

I prefer when people use email chains, otherwise it can be inefficient. I pref cut cards.

I'm familiar with debate jargon and I will vote off of the flow.

I am okay with speed, but keep in mind that I will be flowing on paper, so if you spread I might not catch everything you want me to (speech docs would be helpful).

I won't evaluate stuff in cross if you don't bring it up in speech. I'm fine with flex prep.

Clear signposting is really nice.

Please make clear extensions of warrants, not just card names.

I don't like when people doc bot. If you do, it won't factor into my decision for the round, but it might affect your speaks.

If you don't use all of your speech time, I will be very sad.

I don't recommend reading any super prog arguments in front of me.

I would not recommend reading disclosure theory in front of me.

If you run a structural violence case/fw, stick to it.

Don't be homophobic, sexist, racist, ableist, etc., that will also cost you the round. Just be respectful.

PF:

Weighing is very helpful, I love it when you start to weigh in rebuttal (especially prereqs), but I will be sad if you only use buzzwords ("we outweigh on scope" without an actual explanation for HOW or WHY that's true).

Please frontline in second rebuttal.

I don't believe in sticky defense.

No new arguments starting from second summary.

If you want me to take an argument into account, you must extend it with warrants in summary and final.

I usually start at around 28.5 for speaks.

LD:

I'm not super familiar with LD, so I will probably evaluate it similarly to a PF round (read above). Weigh. Please.

Use your value/criterion.

i'm eliza (uh-lee-za) teo

golden rule:

be respectful, confident, and have fun!

i mainly do PF, starting info this year

theories... go for it ig, make it clear and easy to understand

that also goes for all of your speeches and cross, be clear. don't expect me to flow/evaluate things that you don't explain

⇒ warrant, link, impact!

⇒ extend!!

⇒ weigh!!!

i'll take time, but make sure to keep ur opponent in check (prep time too)

i don't flow cross

I believe that speech & debate offers an invaluable experience for students in that it provides a platform and an audience. Your voice matters, and I am honored to be but a small part in the process where you speak your truth.

I competed in LD, Extemp, Poetry & Impromptu throughout most of high school. I had a very brief relationship with Policy that left a bad taste in my mouth, and I think I tried every speech/interp event that existed at the time. I judged debate tournaments in college, began coaching a debate club about 9 years ago, and started teaching a speech & debate class two years ago. I truly believe it is THE class that most prepared me for my career in business because it improved my analysis, helped me create ideas, and gave me confidence in communication - both written and verbal.

Now for the paradigms you seek...

DEBATERS: debate is first and foremost a speaking event. I expect you to stand when you speak, make eye contact with your judge and not speak so quickly that you spit on your laptop. I also expect for you to provide evidence AND analysis for your arguments. Please do not expect me to provide the link in your justification. I am a relatively traditional flow judge- if it's not on my flow at the end of the round, then you didn't carry it over, and I don't intend to vote for dropped arguments. I also do not flow CX- if you bring up a really great question during that time, I expect that you will then mention it in your next rebuttal speech.

Specifically, I'm comfortable with LD, PF, WSD and slower/well-posted Policy rounds. If you're reading this paradigm right before you walk into a Congress round with me, let's hope I'm on a panel. :) I don't mind Kritiks or theories, but I do not like abusive arguments. If there is really NO WAY for your opponent to outsmart that idea, then it is abusive and has no place in a high school debate round. I don't have to believe your argument to buy it in the round, but you do have to sell it. If you want to put me in a box, I'm probably a Stock Issues judge with a dash of Policymaker and on some topics a bit of Tabula Rasa thrown in. But feel free to not put me in a box.

I really appreciate signposting so I know where you are in rebuttals, but I absolutely DO NOT need an off-the-clock roadmap where you just say aff/neg or neg/aff/voters. There are no times during a debate round where I am listening to you when your time is not running. Oh, and to be clear, your time starts when I press the button, which is likely to be on your first word. I do not need for you to tell me when your time starts. If you trust me to judge the outcome of the round, please trust me to press the button on my phone clock appropriately.

SPEAKERS: in speech events, I expect you to come across as the expert on the topic at hand, whether it's an Info or OO you've researched for 6 months or an Extemp topic you drew 30 minutes ago. I expect all of these to have strong research, well cited sources and solid analysis on your topics. Remember that you are conveying a message to the audience that you care about and we want to listen to. Enjoy your time in the speech!

INTERPERS: I know how difficult it is to continue performing the exact same piece over and over again for months- it's hard to keep it fresh. Think of it as a juicy piece of gossip (the good kind- don't spread bad vibes!) that you just can't wait to share. Then it stays fresher each time you say it because now you're excited to share it with THIS audience.

Who knew I had so much to say about judging in the speech and debate world? If you're still reading my paradigm, my sincere prayer is that you are enjoying this journey and wherever you are in it right now. Oh, and hurry up and get to your round! :)

I debated (mainly policy, after a very brief foray into LD) throughout high school, back in the debate dark ages. After a decades-long time away from the activity, I have more recently begun attending tournaments again, assisting my wife with coaching responsibilities and judging for her Houston-area school team. I've had many years to appreciate the skills that speech and debate helped me begin developing in high school, and the importance of seeing those skills develop drives my judging paradigm more than anything.

In short, I'm a traditional judge that considers debate to be a communication event above all else, with logical argumentation and researched evidence being a close second and third. I value clash, and I will always go back to my flow of the round to determine a winner in a close round. I don't mind hearing obscure contentions if they are well prepared and presented, but I don't appreciate outright tricks, excessive speed, or anything else that comes across as abusive or generic.

In LD debate, I expect a value debate and not a discussion of plans and counterplans or other concepts borrowed from other formats. In PF, I want to see that you've done the research and that you understand the tradeoffs between pro and con, so weighing is important to me. I grew up with stock issues as voters in policy, so those arguments are most comfortable to me. In any of these formats, if you’re taking a different approach than what I’m describing, know that you’re taking a risk, and be sure to take me with you.

Speaker points are based on professionalism, persuasion, and polish. Rudeness and disrespect don't belong here or anywhere. If you came to my paradigm primarily to see if I can handle spreading, I suggest you don't test that in round. Even if I can keep up with you, I don't want to, and it's tough to persuade me to vote for you if I can't follow your logic or if I'm annoyed that you've ignored my paradigm. I appreciate the need to hurry things along, particularly in the compressed rebuttal time, but quality of argumentation will beat out quantity every single time.

she/her

current pfer (bellaire LW)

add me to your email chain: audreyw8ng@gmail.com <-- also use this for questions before round if u have any

- title the email Round # and your school code (ex: R3 Bellaire LW or Semis Bellaire LW)

if ur not a pfer im lay

i have experience judging extemp but idk how great of an extemp judge i am tbh

for pf (u can also probably cross apply most of these things to ld too):

my paradigm is pretty similar to most bellaire pfers

tech > truth unless it's super dumb (the sky is most definitely not purple.)

i don't flow cross so if you want it to end up on my flow, bring it up in the next speech

historically, me not timing has been pretty problematic so i'll probably time you unless i'm super super tired and get lazy lolllll

there's no such thing as sticky defense. if it's dropped at any point i dont care anymore

extend and extend well

if it's not mentioned before or during first summary i will not evaluate it. anything new after second summary will NOT be evaluated (pf)

do not try to run 10 contentions and extend the ONE that ur opponent drops ... i will be very very sad

no tricks. by far the stupidest way to try and win.

probably don't read theory, especially disclo, or k's i'll probably not evaluate it the way you'd like me to

im pretty good with speed but please send speech doc if ur gonna spread

signpost (+ roadmap b4 speech)

warrant everything

be nice

weigh (+ warrant) + metaweighing is cool too

28 speaks is usually the default. 29 is common, but 30 is pretty rare. make me laugh or make a blackpink reference for a bump

no isms (racism, sexism, etc). no homophobia. no offensive things period. i will drop ur speaks and potentially down u for anything offensive.

don't run counterplans in pf........ i cannot evaluate it

flex prep is alright, but if ur opponent stalls up all your prep time by answering ur question slowly.. that's on you

love love love collapsing - i think it's super strategic and makes judging so so so much easier

try to preflow before round if flip is settled already (but i get it if u don't)

ask any questions before round if u have any

make the round fun for me to judge. i want to be interested

write my ballot for me, don't make me think too hard, i'm not too good at that

i understand tech problems, but i'm not gonna wait for 5 minutes for you to pull up a card, 2-3 minutes max (this is already generous honestly), everything after is a drop in speaks (.5 speaks every 10 extra seconds)

on the topic of cards... please have good evidence ethics. if ur opponent has bad evidence ethics call em out so i can check the card. i'll drop a card if u can tell me why the article/author is unreliable properly

don't post-round. my decision is final i dont need you to give me 10 reasons why you think you should've won when i already finished my ballot. i probably won't disclose end of round just to avoid this, but if you have any questions after round feel free to email me, i can't guarantee an immediate response, but i'll respond eventually, also lmk that i judged you so i dont think ur some rando who got my email from nowhere. again, do not try to use this as a way to change my pov; it won't. this is only for asking any questions regarding my comments.

no offense in round = i presume neg

if you made it to the bottom of my paradigm, tell me in the last few seconds of ur 2nd to last or last speech. i'll bump speaks :)

gl hf