Judging Paradigm

Below is the most updated version of my judging paradigm. 

My judging stats:

Conflicts: Fort Bend Stephen F Austin KT (PF) and MM (CX), BASIS Chandler WI (LD)

TLDR: I most enjoy technical debate executed well. I judge a lot, but most of that is at locals and is pretty stock, so give me time to warm up at circuit tournaments. I'm comfortable listening to most arguments at most speeds, but give me pen time or it will not get to the flow; I can't type as fast as you speak and I try not to flow off the doc. Flash dense, prewritten analytics (especially at online tournaments) or slow them down. Tell me what to do and I'll do it, leave the decision in my hands and you'll be disappointed. Lastly, just be chill, some snark is fine, being a jerk is not. Have fun and take each round as a learning opportunity.

General Paradigm

I'm a blank slate with policymaker tendencies. If asked to do something I will do it, but my fundamental conception of debate is tied to aff/neg worlds and the way I think about debate (when making decisions) always asks first "what do these worlds/implementations of the aff look like?" and that is much easier to identify when "what the aff stands for" is clearly explained.

- Speed: Around 80% of your top speed is best.
- Tech > Truth unless there's a safety issue or evidence ethics
- I automatically frame all theory/T through an in-round abuse framework first.
- I welcome unique attitudes towards debate. Try out your new strats!

Pref shortcuts (I'll evaluate anything but I'm better at some things over others)

Ks: are good. Not a hack though, I will vote on T-FW/extinction outweighs. (1)
K Affs: are good, explain things pls (1)
Larp: A consequence of judging a lot of policy is that I love fun spec affs. (1)
Phil: Not the best, especially when it's really just hidden spikes. (3)
Theory: Love it, but I'm not the best at flowing dense procedurals so be really clear, send the doc or something for me to fall back on, otherwise I'll probably mess something up. (3)
Topicality: Better for it than you might expect. (2)
Trad: You do you, but I expect you to correctly engage with (and beat) technical arguments. If you can't do that, strike me. (4-Strike)
Trix: are for kids. I guess I'll still evaluate it as long as it has a warrant, but I'd rather not. (4-Strike)

Rapid fire misc thoughts:
I will vote on disclosure, but I need to be on any pre-round email chains or they get an I-meet and a Counter-interp. Genuine mis-disclosure is a very easy ballot, reading disclosure to stomp novices is gross.
If you're doing something that is out of the norm, justify it in an underview.
Condo is debatable, the more worlds you're reading the lower the threshold for response to each gets.
I'll vote for the RVI but I need a real abuse story, your prewritten blips are rarely enough.
Patrick Fox: "i am unsure why debate getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop"
Collapse. Don't go for everything, just because you win it doesn't mean you should go for it.
I won't judge kick, it's intervention.

Speaker points

My average speaks from all rounds I've judged is 28.7.

Speaks start at 28 and go up/down based on strategy, delivery, norm setting, and round conduct.

Speaks scale:

29.7-30.0 - Perfect debate, very difficult round
29.4-29.6 - Very good debate, difficult round
29.0-29.3 - Very good debate, average round
28.5-28.9 - Good debate, average round
28.0-28.4 - Average debate, average round
27.5-27.9 - Made several mistakes, average round
27.0-27.4 - Made several mistakes, below average round
25.0-26.9 - Very very messy round, made several mistakes, or said/did something objectionable

Things that will boost your speaks:

Sending analytics in the doc
Collapsing correctly
Innovating and reading something unique and interesting that I haven't seen before
Being nice to novices

Things that will tank your speaks:

Being a jerk
Powertagging
Paraphrasing
Stealing prep

If I detect AI, you lose and I report it to tab, independent of whatever additional tournament/circuit rules I'll also enforce. This is an activity about thinking. Think. It's good for you. Debate is hard, you can't get out of the thinking and research component.

LD:

Traditional framework debate: Framework is not a voter, it's just the lens I use to evaluate the round. Contextualize how your case best achieves the winning framework of the round. Ideally, you should do some weighing under both frameworks if the debate is at all uncertain. Anything less is gambling with my ballot.

Value debate is meaningless except in very narrow, very uncommon situations and I would rather you concede a value of morality/justice and then do the framework debate on the criterions.

CX:

Policy debaters especially need to slow down their analytics, theory, and tags. If you're making arguments you care about getting onto the flow, you have to give me time to get them onto the flow, I'm not a stenographer.

PF:

I'm so tired of wasting time waiting for cards. Only way to get a 30 in pf is if you send a speechdoc with non-paraphrased evidence (policy style cards) like how every other event does it. If you choose not to send evidence initially and we end up wasting time for you to find it and send it, I will be docking speaks heavily. When someone asks for a card, you have an obligation to send them the full, cut card, not a 50 page pdf which is the same as telling your opponent to get lost.