Gig Harbor Invitational

2018 — Gig Harbor, WA/US

Summer Ash Paradigm

I did LD for 3 years at Gig Harbor HS. It's my first year doing parli at PLU and judging for Gig Harbor

- Run any case in any form or style of argumentation you are comfortable with and I will try my best to fairly adjudicate the round

- It is the debaters’ jobs to determine conditionality and order of offs if that is applicable to the round

Role of the adjudicator/burden structure - Debaters can provide new adjudication models or burden structures in the debate, but if this does not happen I will default to the model described below

I tend to view “ought”s and “should”s as operative terms in LD resolutions. In this sense it usually the aff’s burden to explain when something ought to be done and then show that the resolution is such an instance. The neg burden is to disprove this, not to provide competing offense.

Of course, this is not the way that every resolution is structured, but with any resolution I will default to a similar truth-testing model.

Framework - I place high value on the functionality of frameworks. Each contention level argument is only acceptable insofar as it works in cohesion with the framework, otherwise it has no place within the round and I have no way to evaluate it. It is therefore crucial that you recognize the purpose of your framework and make that as distinct as possible throughout your speeches.

Theory - I’ll evaluate/vote off of theory args.

Topicality - Similar to theory. I’ll evaluate/vote off of T args.

Speed - Speed is fine, i’ll say “clear” if clarity is a problem. Slowing down for tags or otherwise important or easy to miss arguments is advisable.

Email: ashsj@plu.edu

Jim Burwell Paradigm

PF: I welcome close inspection and evaluation of evidence to determine validity and weigh evidence on both sides of the debate. I will absolutely consider impacts but don't consider them the "be all and end all". Be original and clear, provide clash, and don't over complicate.

LD: I am an advocate for classic LD. I prefer clear delivery and at least a modicum of effort to have effective verbal and non-verbal communication. Please provide values clash and establish what you believe to be the best standard for weighing the round. Make clear connections between the resolution, value, value criterion, and your contentions. Feel free to delve into the philosophical. I do not believe the format of LD is well suited to spreading nor do I think the conventions of the framework lend themselves to solvency, kritiks, plans, and counterplans. If you would like to debate policy, find yourself a partner. Having said that, I will do my best to understand all arguments, get them on the flow, and judge the round on its merits.

Jay Busch Paradigm

Not Submitted

Danielle Canfield Paradigm

LD Paradigm:

I would say that I tend to prefer "traditional" LD debate, so I really enjoy rounds with good framework debate. However, I am also okay with running Kritiks or more "progressive" cases.

I cannot stress enough how important signposting is for me. This makes it SO much easier for the judge to flow your case well, so PLEASE do this. Additionally, off-time roadmaps are great, as it gives me some direction with my flow.

I look to framework debate, my flow, and contention-level debate when deciding the round.

I'm okay with some speed, but please do not spread. If you're going to spread anyway, please know that if I can't hear it or understand it, I won't be able to flow it. You must speak clearly and slowly over all of your contentions and cards so I can get them down.

Voters are great, I like for you to tell me why you think you've won the round.

Ask me any questions if you need to!

Joseph Dokupil Paradigm

I weight the round primarily on the framework debate. Don't be afraid to attack the philosophical presuppositions of your opponent or grapple with the moral fiber of your subject matter. I like to see a strong clash of values and clear, robust, analytical reasoning. I also like to see you asking precise and meaningful CX questions, rather than just using CX to banter, argue, or make statements.

Chris Emig Paradigm

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". I default to a "better debater" standard. Be sure to provide evidence for how the ballot will create change.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Riel LaPlant Paradigm

Not Submitted

Samantha Lilly Paradigm

8 rounds

Just debate well.

I debated for four years at Bingham High School in Salt Lake City, UT. I am no longer affiliated with any school. It's been awhile since I've judged rounds. The quality of my flow will not be the greatest, but that does not mean that I'm not following you.

I think I do a good job being indifferent to the framing/vantage point of whatever argument you run, so... do you.

I am currently in the process of getting a degree in Philosophy, if you're gonna run a common framework, you better know what you're talking about. I get the nuance of many policy arguments and have likely heard most theory/policymaker frameworks. I am also comfortable with quite a broad range of philosophical/anti-philosophical/theoretical authors.

I don't care about dropped evidence; I care about dropped arguments.

Counterplans: you should probably have a solvency advocate. Affs should make an issue of counter-plans that are net beneficial but have no solvency advocate—I think it's cheap.

Critiques: Just remember it's been awhile for me.

Case Debate: Why not?

I'm a huge fan of voters: make it clear to me why you've won the round. The best debates to me are one's where the final 2 minutes or final speech (if AFF) is just voters.

Please enunciate clearly your tags/analytics and please slow down when reading them.

Casey Lin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Akhil Mandala Paradigm

Not Submitted

Colin McKay Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Aidan Moran Paradigm

Don't talk fast

Ken Nichols Paradigm

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for 6 years and work in the tech industry.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)

Criteria: I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. (I'm not generally a fan of progressive arguments, but will consider them if the position can be debated without applying abusive burdens.) I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Gehrig Pfeffer Paradigm

I like framework clash the most

Kira Rosenlind Paradigm

Not Submitted

Steve Rowe Paradigm

Updated on 6/17/19 for Nationals

For Public Forum, go to the bottom.

e-mail if you are starting a chain: steve _at_ interlakedebate.org

CX / Policy Philosophy:

First and foremost, I judge based on the flow. I will do my best to determine the winner based on what has been said. This makes line-by-line refutation and dropped arguments important. I will do my best not to impose my opinions and values into the round. That being said, I am not strictly tabula rasa. See below for exceptions. By default, I will take a utilitarian approach.

Style

I want to see clash. This means that negatives should not ignore the 1AC. Affirmatives need to respond to the negative positions as they are presented not just read a generic block that only sort-of applies. If you are merely extending your own cards and not responding to the other side’s arguments, your speaker points will be lower.

I am fine with speed, but you need to be clear. Remember that, as a judge, I often do not have a copy of the evidence on my computer. If I can't hear the words as you read the cards, you are going too fast. If I am going to judge on the flow, you want to make sure my flow matches what you said. This is especially important when it comes to theory. Reading your theory block at full speed guarantees that I won’t be able to flow it all. Slow down on theory.

Be nice. I will react negatively if you are arrogant or rude to your opponents. This applies to your partner as well. I do not want to see the debate personalized. Feel free to attack and characterize your opponents’ arguments as you like, but refrain from attacking your opponents themselves. Their arguments may be *-ist. Your opponents are not.

Theory
I enjoy the occasional theory debate, but it must be developed well. Everything you say needs a warrant. Develop your arguments if you want me to consider them. I am unlikely to decide an entire round based on an issue explained or extended in less than five seconds.

I am unlikely to find *-spec persuasive unless there is in-round abuse.

Topicality

I will vote on topicality. I evaluate it as a technical argument, no more dominated by truth than any other type of argument. It is my belief that the resolution must play a critical role in scoping debate. To that end, while I will vote for a critical aff, I expect it to be germane to the resolution. Affs which are anti-topical will lose if the negative carries a reasonable version of that argument through to the end.

Case/Disads/CPs

This is my home turf. I want to see clash. Spotting the affirmative their advantages and trying to outweigh them with disads is not a good strategy. Contest the internal links and/or impacts. Run solvency takeouts. These make your off-case much more persuasive.

Kritiks

I am happy to vote on kritiks. You need to explain how I should be evaluating the k versus the case. Teams should feel free to challenge the a-priori status of the kritik. There needs to be some kind of benefit to the world of the alt. At the end of the day, I will be weighing it against the case. A K without an alt is just a non-unique linear disad.

I expect that critical arguments will be supported by the evidence. This should go without saying, but I have seen teams give entire 2NCs that are not based on anything but their own opinion. Analogies and extrapolations are fine, but the basis for the analogy or the extrapolation should be in found in evidence.

Running a kritik is not an excuse for sloppy debate. I see too many kritik debaters that rest on truth over technical and ignore the structure of the debate. Direct refutation and line-by-line are still important even in the kritik debate.

I was primarily a policy debater in my day. I have judged many critical rounds and read some of the authors. My knowledge of them is reasonable, but if you run something outside of the common ones, explain it clearly.

Rebuttals

I try not to impose my views on the debate, but that requires debaters do a good job in the last two rebuttals crystalizing the issues and telling the story of the round. "We win the entire flow" is not usually true and is not a good way to weigh the issues. Tell me why your winning of the disad overwhelms the advantage of case or why their rhetorical slight is more important than structural violence. I will do my best to protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments. Make sure there is a traceable lineage to your arguments.

Misc.

If you watch me, I tend to emote my opinions.

Many have asked: Tag-team CX is fine. I only request that the person who is “supposed” to be cross-examining be part of the conversation.

Background

I debated policy in high school and CEDA in college for a total of seven years, including four at Whitman College. I coached college policy for one year at the University of Puget Sound and have been coaching policy debate at Interlake High School since 2012. I have judged at around 12 tournaments this year.

----------------------------------------

Public Forum Judging Philosophy:

----------------------------------------

I don’t judge PF a lot so assume that I’m not deeply educated on the topic. That said, I read a lot of economics, politics, and philosophy so I am likely to be familiar with most arguments.

The best description of me is likely as a progressive, flow-oriented judge. I will be adjudicating the round based on who presents, and extends, the better arguments. I will try my best not to intervene. If you didn't say something, I won't make the argument for you. Sounding good making shallow arguments won’t earn you a win. In the end, I want to see clash. Don’t just tell me why you are right, you have to also tell me why they are wrong.

A few points that might matter to you:

1. Speed: Keep it easily comprehensible and you will be fine. In reality, I doubt you will exceed my threshold. If you do, I’ll yell clear.

2. Dropped arguments: There is no punishment for dropping your own arguments. Obviously, don’t drop something your opponent is turning.

3. I think definitions should be used strategically to define what interpretation of the resolution you will be defending.

4. I will reward clever debating. Show me how the arguments interact. Defend ground that avoids most of your opponent’s thrusts.

Ellison Roycroft Paradigm

8 rounds

Debate Experience:

-2 years Lincoln Douglas participant in high school

-1 year Lincoln Douglas coach

-1 year British Parliamentary debate participant in college

Debate Philosophy:

I value tech>truth in almost every instance, but I'm unlikely to vote for positions that only take advantage of a debater who doesn't know how to respond to them.

I value creativity and ingenuity and I won't just drop a stock case for a novel one, but I will like the more creative one more. If we're honest, nobody is truly objective and the way to get me to like your side is to run a case that I will remember.

I'm flexible on the roll of the judge and ballot.

I don't really like T, but if you run it very well, I will vote on it.

If something is said/argued in round that is blatantly problematic, you will lose and get bad speaks.

In-Round Logistics:

I'm okay with flex prep, off-time road maps, and I do not count flashing as prep time. If there's an email chain, I would prefer to be included in it.

I'm okay with spreading up to about 400 wpm, and will say "clear" or "speed" if I can't understand.

I will keep time, but I don't want to be responsible for keeping you in time. If you go over time too much, I will dock you speaker points.

If a round boils down to evidence and isn't settled by the end of the 2AR, I will read and evaluate it myself before determining the ballot.

Greg Stevens Paradigm

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 39 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I still work for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum and judge LD practice and tournament rounds.

I usually judge LD and PF, though for 2017-2018, I've judged more LD than PF. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing.

LD I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years, but had stopped a few years ago. This year I judged several circuit level debates at the UPS tournament. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run policy positions, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions, and I will work to find a way to not vote for them. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule. This year I judged a couple of policy rounds.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

Hong Ta Paradigm

Not Submitted

Matthew Tilden Paradigm

Not Submitted

Laila Tobias Paradigm

8 rounds

Show me:

- Framework clash/debate

- why I care

Wang Wang Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Lisa Weber Paradigm

TOC LD Paradigm

I have been judging LD for 8 yrs and coaching LD for 5 yrs. I am a truth over tech judge.

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to cut them off and then ask another question. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in CX".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I prefer Aff to be topical

Signpost your case and your responses to your opponent well and that will give you a huge advantage, especially if your opponent does not signpost as well. This helps me flow the round and miss fewer points.

AFF, email me your AC to lisanetpro@outlook.com as soon as you know that I am judging you. I prefer to flow the round but like to know what to expect if you choose to spread. Enunciation is key as is slowing down for tag lines. Your analysis is more important than reading long evidence cards or long theory shells

I like clash. Some engagement with your opponent's case required.

In general, there’s no argument I won’t vote on especially if it is topical. I also use my flow to make my decision; judge intervention stresses me out, you get what you get when I must do it. Be specific when you are letting me know why you win and your opponent looses. For example, do not assume you have won topicality if you have not specifically told me why you have won topicality in round.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

Responses to any K, plan, disadvantage or theory. If you think your opponent is putting too big of burden on you, i.e. unfair, to win, do not take 2 minutes reading me a theory shell on “abuse” “unfairness” "time skew' etc. Call it out and give me your personal analysis of why the burden is unfair, 30 sec or less, and continue on with refuting the substance of your opponent’s case/responses to you.

At the end of the 1AR/2NR - I should know reasoning as to why your opponent has lost.

At the end of the 2NR/2AR - I should know why you have won. Good rhetoric and argumentation are awesome. if your case has been easy to flow-voters not necessary. Voters are appreciated if either case was not signposted well, or the round did not have a lot of direct clash.

TOC Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer or "thank you" "Do you have a question?" Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude, for example. Unless you use a value and a criterion, there is no "framework" in either the pro or con case.

I really like signposting of all of your contentions. I really like short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I really appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be speedily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I flow PF. I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

LD Paradigm for Nationals

I have been judging LD for 7 yrs and coaching LD for 4 yrs..

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to cut them off and then ask another question. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in CX".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I prefer Aff to be topical.

Signpost your case and your responses to your opponent well and that will give you a huge advantage, especially if your opponent does not signpost as well. This helps me flow the round and miss fewer points.

I am a traditional judge. Supporting evidence from various sources, not just conservative, not just liberal, necessary if it's a contention in your case. I expect sources to follow the NSDA rules of evidence, source name, bonefides, date of publication for magazine or newspaper, year for a book. This is a tie breaking issue for me.

EVIDENCE - I prefer that you source your cards the first time you use a Card Set. For example, "Anderson 03", you must tell me who wrote these cards. Is Anderson a Prof of Economics for Univ of Chicago, a Prof of Philosophy from UC Berkeley, or a Prof of Law from Stanford? The year the cards were written is important. Older evidence does not matter if it is still germane. Once you have fully sourced your card source, just cite Anderson and the card number, if used again. This may become a voter, however, if you do not have time to read all of this info in round, have it in the case that you send your opponent and me if you are in a circuit tournament.

I like clash.

In general, there’s no argument I won’t vote on especially if it is topical. I also use my flow to make my decision; judge intervention stresses me out, you get what you get if I must do it. You must be specific when you are letting me know why you win and your opponent loses. For example, do not assume you have won topicality if you have not specifically told me why you have won topicality in round.

Debates I like to see from favorite to least favorite:

1. Framework Debate. I support non-traditional frameworks as long as you explain them and they are topical, i.e., don't just read me a card on what your framework means, give me an analysis on how it applies to the current topic and this round. Clash is awesome.

2. Kritik. Your K must be topical and apply to the debate in the room. You must give your opponent a way to win.

Disadvantages and Plans must have inherency, solvency and topicality.

3. Theory. I am not enamored of theory. To present theory well you need to signpost, so I can flow it; please refer back to the flow for your opponent's refutations. Use personal analysis to explain why your theory debate is topical. I tend to hold theory debate to a higher standard to win. If you spread and want me to understand this debate - signpost.

Responses to any K, plan, disadvantage or theory. If you think your opponent is putting too big of burden on you, i.e. unfair, to win, do not take 2 minutes reading me a theory shell on “abuse” or “unfairness”. Call it out and give me your personal analysis of why the burden is unfair, 30 sec or less, and continue on with refuting the substance of your opponent’s case/responses to you.

Things that matter in round:

SPEED - If you choose to speak fast:

1. You must speak clearly with great diction.

2. Slow down for your Value/Contention explanations if they are unique. Signpost everything. Even changing your vocal inflection is helpful.

3. Slow down for all of your tag lines for your contentions and signposting. If I can not flow them, I will not extend them I do not flow cards, I flow where they are signposted..

4. Slow down for all of your extentions, give me a claim/warrent/impact for all of your extentions. Explain things that you want to cross-apply and make sure to be specific about what your are cross-applying. For example, Cross-apply my Contention 1A to my opponents Contention 3B because...claim/warrent/impact.

SIGNPOSTING IS NOT OPPTIONAL - No matter if you are running traditional framework, K's, Disads, Plans or Theory, you must signpost for me. Otherwise there is no way for me to flow refutations from your opponent. You cannot say "cross-apply my Wagoner 03 and Shipley 83 cards to my opponents Johnson 92 card". I need you to say "cross-apply my 1A and 1C to my opponents 1,2 and 3, because...."

ANALYSIS OF YOUR CASE - analysis is more important than reading long evidence cards. I like a card that is paired down or paraphrased to it's true meaning when backing up your contention. If your evidence is longer than 4 sentences it should be "wow" amazing. Have the entire piece of evidence in your case in to share with your opponent if they argue that you left out the true meaning of the card by only reading half of what the author meant. I do not like evidence debates, but if you misconstrue a card and you opponent quickly points it out, that weighs heavily, in my opinion of the overall integrity of your case.

OUTROUNDS - If you want my ballot in a multi judged round, slow down for Taglines and Signpost well so that I can flow even when you are speaking fast. Slow down and summarize each point or contention in a sentence or two, and continue on with your spreading. If both opponents are spreading, the one that I understand the best will win my ballot.

At the end of the 1AR/2NR - I should know reasoning as to why your opponent has lost.

At the end of the 2NR/2AR - I should know why you have won. Good rhetoric and argumentation are awesome. if your case has been easy to flow-voters not necessary. Voters are appreciated if either case was not signposted well, or the round did not have a lot of direct clash.

Martin Wheeler Paradigm

Please signpost.

Identify drops.

Use your evidence. Show me your prepared.

Alex Williams Paradigm

Pronouns: They/Them/Theirs

Personal History:

I was a PF debater all four years of high school and do British Parliamentary debate in college. I won state for PF in my senior year and have had similar success in college. I've also coached PF, LD and middle school Parli since graduating.

Likes:

- With my indicated experience in debate, I don't mind speed or techy language.

-Voters- tell me what the most important things in the round where and why you won on them

- Clash. I shouldn't have to say this, however, two teams will often be debating entirely different things. Make sure you're clashing directly with your opponents.

- I am in a style of debate now where we don't have pre prepared evidence beyond limited amounts of briefs. In that way we have to develop our rhetorical abilities. Hiding behind cards won't win you trophies. Move beyond that to apply the information you have. Give me analysis and deconstruction.

- Run your weird anarcho communist "dissolve the USFG" stuff, I'll eat it up.

Dislikes:

- **Gendered language**

- When debaters feel the need to inform me of the rules (yes I know you can't plan, bring up new evidence in final focus, etc.) Don't waste your time on that.

- If I can't understand you, I'll say "clear".

- When people tell me something has been dropped. Believe me, I check my flow. Unless there is a REASON it is important such a point was dropped (i.e. it was something critical to the debate), don't tell me something was dropped. If it was, I'll find out and if it wasn't, I'll get irritated with you.

- Evidence battles/Incessant calling for cards. 9/10 times it doesn't help you, all it does is waste everyone's time. Unless the card is make-it-or-break-it important, focus on things like impacts and clash instead.

- Name dropping. If you give me cards, tell me why they matter and do the analysis for me, because you may not like the way I interpret them on my own. Let's avoid any problems.

- If you say problematic things I will almost 100% drop you, or at the least reflect it in speaks.