Former policy debater from the late 90s. Coach of policy teams since 2004. I coach in Indiana which is a very traditional circuit, but I am well versed with other forms of debate.

I default to a policy option judge - preferably on advantages vs disadvantage models. Impact calc matters, but understand that I do focus on links more than most judges. Generics are fine, but you need to win more than a 1% link for me to let the impact carry you. Strategic drops are perfectly fine and encouraged. Conditional positions are fine, but you shouldn't get carried away. I will listen to condo good/bad and other theory, but there needs to be clear actual abuse for me to vote on it - I always prefer my ballot to based on policy decision rather than theory/technicalities.

On T - I will vote on T, but like most of our judges I will factor in reasonability. You DO NOT need to only go for T in the 2NR for me to consider it, but obviously should invest enough time on it throughout the debate round in order to win it.

On K's - I am not a huge fan of the K. I am conscious that this is your time to debate and your world; so I attempt to evaluate it the best that I can. Typically this means that I will view it in a fiated world view - meaning that I will weigh your alternative vs the plan action. This means that you must have a legit alt to the K for you to have any chance with me. Unless there is egregious action in round I don't usually vote on "real world impacts come before fiated arguments." Instead i will view the K through the lens of a policy maker.

On speed - I prefer a moderate debate. I can handle speed and I won't penalize you for it.

Open cross-x is fine.

Any other questions, just ask at the beginning of the round