Speeding and spreading aren't a problem as long as I can follow your arguments, and you can present them engagingly. Slow down on taglines and key arguments. Clearly state the sources and the impact.

Pacing is okay but don't keep pacing all the time that it distracts me from following your chain of thoughts.

Consider me as Tabula Rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want you to be as engaging as possible. Ask clarifying questions as you debate each other on the topics presented in the round.

I encourage healthy questioning tactics during rebuttal or cross-examination but please don't be rude to others. Body language is equally important as spoken words. Not allowing someone to answer the question and constantly interrupting will not be tolerated on my ballot.

I am comfortable ranking the PO high in the list if they are doing a great job in effectively managing the session.

I prefer not to read any files unless it is necessary to understand the presented arguments.

Experience: I am a parent judge

Debate/Speech: I primarily focus on how much research you've done and your delivery. You need to have two key communication principles to rank high for me - good verbal and non-verbal communication. If you don't get to the point, your speech lacks anything relevant, or you're just repeating information to fill the time, you won't rank high. I am not a fan of speakers lacking research and knowledge about the topic they're debating. You have to know what you are talking about. I'm looking for more than just surface knowledge about a topic.

I am a new judge and a college student.

Civility and respect are important in all cases.

Preferably no spreading as it would be easier for me to understand.

Same goes for any technical language or jargon, try to explain the meaning in short.

Extemp: Someone with no knowledge or background of the topic should at the end of your speech have a solid understanding of its background and significance, along with your argument.

Informative speeches: Should be clear and concise while also being engaging and creative.

Oration: Be genuine and authentic with your experience. If you believe something, emphasize it.

Hi, Di, Duo, Duet, Poi: Enjoyable, story is easy to understand.

Looking forward to hearing ya'll!

Overall Notes- I don't really like speed or spreading. If you choose to spread then you will need to make your taglines clear. If I cannot understand your tags then I cannot flow the argument. Also do not expect me to be able to understand all the analysis from your arguments if you do not slow down for it.

LD- I tend to consider myself to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to LD. I enjoy a solid framework debate. I tend to vote for the debater that impacts out their arguments the best. I tend to judge based off the quality of arguments not the quantity of arguments. I think that one good argument can win the round for either side. I am not as comfortable with policy arguments in LD, but I was a CXer, so if you are in a panel situation I won't automatically vote you down for running them.

CX- I am a policymaker judge. I tend to judge based from a util mindset unless you give me another framework to work through. I really like to hear debate that focuses on the balance between terminal and real-world impacts. I tend to like cohesive negative strategies that work together. Personally I am okay with conditionality, but if you want to get into the theory debate and impact it out in the round go for it. I am fine with any sort of theory debate. On T I default to reasonability. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.