My background is in traditional LD debate and includes 2 years as a high school debator and 1-2 years as a judge.

I have a bias neither towards progressive nor traditional styles.

I don't have the ear for spreading that a policy judge does, nor their flowing ability.

If you're running a progressive case (i.e. anything including solvency, topicality, plans, post or pre fiat, etc.), keep in mind that jargon and other terms may require a breif explanation.

I judge primarily the Value-Criterion debate and pay special attention to how a case is applied to the rebuttels of a round.

I don't like to see a case simply restated in order to refute an opponents arguments or affirm their own.

I like to see the connection and application of arguments.

I like to see debators who look like they're having fun and who are respectful to their opponent.