Judge Philosophies
Aleisha Readye - DV Bridge
n/a
Alex Kim - Cog Deb
n/a
Amanda Johnson - Sierra Vista IPSF
n/a
Ansh Singh - Brooks Debate
n/a
Anthony Shen - RMS
n/a
Anya Desai - Nova 42
n/a
Bharani Sivaswamy - Young Voices
n/a
Bharti Hathalia - GSA
n/a
Bob Chen - Emerson
n/a
Brenden Lucas - ModernBrain
n/a
Chase Bezonsky - ModernBrain
n/a
Christina Shi - GSA
n/a
Chunchong Huang - MIller MS
n/a
Cody Gustafson - ModernBrain
n/a
Connor Sears - ModernBrain
n/a
Corin Wallace - ModernBrain
n/a
Cristy Martinez - Cog Deb
n/a
Curtis Jefferson - ModernBrain
n/a
Deepa Meethale Parambath - Young Voices
n/a
Dexter Yeh - SJMS
n/a
Ebru Dogan - Nova 42
Faith Chang - JMS
n/a
Fidencio Jimenez - ModernBrain
n/a
Fiorella Pulido - ModernBrain
n/a
Giuseppe DiMassa - Nova 42
n/a
Hari Nidumolu - SJMS
n/a
Harinadh Nagulapalli - GSA
n/a
Howard Ying - SJMS
n/a
Indy Sharma - SJMS
n/a
Israel Beltran - Wilshire
n/a
Ivy Zhang - QDLearning
Jack Han - QDLearning
Janiel Victorino - QDLearning
My Competitive Career consists of 4 years in the collegiate Circuit; Saddleback College (2015-17), and CSUF (2017-19). I have been a speech and debate judge for the MS/HS circuit since 2017, and for the Collegiate Circuit since 2019. if you need clarification on a ballot, please send an email to [ jvictorino0.forensicsjudge@gmail.com ]
Ballot Style:
Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment. I have made it a personal philosophy to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.
if I am unable to comment on evidence organization or speech writing due to speed, I tend to focus on minute analysis of nonverbal decisions.
Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress, but it is not part of my competitive background. I don't have experience with policy debate as of this writing.
I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round. I value organization uniqueness and clash during rounds. Regardless of your evidence quantity, I love it when students are able to have versatile/creative arguments but clear and concise writing. Please signpost. I am looking for how competitors set up all provided evidence in round AND Questioning to counter rebuttals (which means my biggest thing is how evidence is arranged to construct unique arguments), although I also appreciate the occasional framework discussion. I appreciate having round evidence forwarded to me via email, but since I have been in the debate world less than my speech career, I am a flow judge and RFDs will be made purely from in-round proceedings. While I consider initiative and prominence as important (especially in congress) I also do my best to recognize reasons why certain students are not as prominent in round.
I can speed read a little, but I would exercise caution especially during online tournaments. I mentioned earlier that I timestamp comments where possible, but I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots. Professionalism is important to me, but not to the point where a student is quiet, if you have to say something offensive, please keep it within the confines of debate evidence. I like high-energy rounds, whether via morale building or aggressive pacing, but its not the end of the world if the round has calmer proceedings :)
Clarity > Speed.
Jewell Stewart - JTMS - IPSF
n/a
Jiangbin Luo - GSA
n/a
Jing Shen - SJMS
n/a
Jinho Lee - SJMS
n/a
John Cao - GSA
n/a
Jyothi J. - RMS
n/a
Jyothi Maram - DV Bridge
n/a
Kaavya Mehrotra - DV Bridge
n/a
Kaori Dadgostar-Shimazaki - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Karla Villarroel - JMS
n/a
Khang Dao - SJMS
n/a
Kirthi Mahender - GSA
n/a
Krish Mawalkar - ModernBrain
n/a
Kristina Rietveld - Cog Deb
EMAIL: kristinar@cogitodebate.com
Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)
ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.
What I like:
- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.
- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.
- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.
- I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).
- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, I prefer mandates that are in the news, have be done before or have at least been proposed; No random plans that you think are good. Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.
- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.
-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.
What I don't like:
- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic.
- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, No aff K's ever (kritikal advantages are fine, but not an all out K). Rule 2, make sure your K somehow links to the resolution for the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 3, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 4, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.
- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.
- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.
- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.
- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.
Speech
I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.
Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.
Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.
Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.
Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.
NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (for the rest of my paradigm that is not specific to CPFL but still relevant to all debate styles, reference the remainder of the paradigm):
Do:
-Include a value/criteria
-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)
-Communicate when you are using prep time
DO NOT:
-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)
-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other teams case substantively)
I will vote for the team that best upholds their sides burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.
Kyna Shen - RMS
n/a
Lakshmi Rajasekaran - MIller MS
n/a
Lena Tang - Brooks Debate
Hi, My name's Lena ! I have a background in medical and business. I've been judging debate for almost 3 years working with Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA.
Judging Preferences:
- I appreciate astrong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be givenclear standardsby which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.
- I prefer when an argument is backed up withfactual evidences through cited sources and quantitative data. If there's no real evidence, then it's just an opinion at this point.
- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for -PleaseDO NOT repeat the entire debate.
-Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Can't win if I can't hear your arguments properly.
Liang Guo - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Lisa Podos - GSA
n/a
Lisa E. Howard - BWS
Lorraine Greene - ACDS
n/a
Max Ma - Nova 42
Md. Shifatul Apurba - ModernBrain
n/a
Michael Murray - Nova 42
Ming Hao Duan - NAL
n/a
Miriam Davenport - Emerson
n/a
Naveen Avula - Brooks Debate
n/a
Noah Christiansen - ModernBrain
n/a
Ping Li - NAL
n/a
Pooja Gupta (Shivansh) - GSA
n/a
Rahul Agrawal - Young Voices
n/a
Richard Hu - NOF
n/a
Rikin Patel - DV Bridge
I'm a junior at DVHS. I currently debate for DV PF and have debated PF for 4 years and policy for 1.
I'm not too familiar with the nats topic.
Tech>Truth
For PF:
1) Effectively respond to turns in rebuttal or if they're extended, I'll consider them offense for the other side
2) Weigh all your turns and offense comparatively with your opponent's offense
- Start weighing in the second rebuttal and first summary
3) Clear link extensions in the first and second summary
4) Collapse on one or two points preferably
5) Do not bring up anything new in FF (cross applications, new evidence, etc). I won't consider it and may drop your speaks
Other important things:
Make sure to signpost even if you think it's obvious.
Don't say an argument is a turn or prereq if you're not entirely sure what it is.
I'll evaluate theory and kritiks but make sure you know how to run them properly and explain well.
I'd prefer you don't spread, but if you do, make sure it's flowable and send speech docs: rikinsmail@gmail.com
Please don't ask for insane amounts of evidence just for extra prep time (I'll know if you don't reference any of the evidence in your speech), especially for online tournaments, this is very important.
Also, please don't say you have evidence when you don't, and then give uncarded evidence or a URL when your opponents ask for it. You don't need evidence for every analytic if it's warranted well.
Speaks start at 27.5:
- If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, or offensive to anyone in the round, I'll drop your speaks to 20.
- I'll also reduce speaks if you go overtime by more than the grace period of 15 seconds.
Make sure to have fun and try your best!
If you have questions after your round, please email me at rikinsmail@gmail.com
For Policy:
If I end up judging policy, add me to the email chain. I'm not familiar with the new policy topic so it would be really helpful if you explain your arguments well and impact them out well. I'm also ok with you running Ks, K Affs, Theory, or CPs but please no frivolous theory.
Ruchi Kumra - DV Bridge
n/a
Ryan Yoo - NOF
n/a
SUDHIR PATHAK - ModernBrain
n/a
Saanika Gupta - DV Bridge
Hi Everyone!
My name is Saanika Gupta and I've been a competitor in Congressional Debate and Extemp for about five years now. I love funny intros and I will rank you well if you interact with the arguments in the round and keep up a presence. In context, that means that every speech after the first aff is expected to have refutations and that you should always be questioning even if it's late in the round. I rank by about 70% argumentation and 30% speaking, so I will be flowing your speeches but don't sacrifice presentation.
For Extemp/Speech, it's probably around 60% content and 40% speaking so there is definitely a higher emphasis on presentation but I will still be mostly looking at your content.
Any insults/derogatory comments/etc will rank you down so just overall be a respectful competitor, congratulations on making it to this round, and remember to have fun!
Sandy Nayar - DV Bridge
n/a
Shanmugapriya Jayaraman - Brooks Debate
n/a
Shawn Wang - SJMS
n/a
Shelly Shi - RMS
n/a
Sherry Shen - ModernBrain
n/a
Sireesha Akella - RMS
n/a
Srinivas Sripada - DV Bridge
n/a
Stephan Brooks - Brooks Debate
STEPHAN BROOKS
COACHING & COMPETITIVE BACKGROUND:
- Founder / Coach @ Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2016-Present)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Debate Coach @ Stanford National Forensics Institute in Stanford, CA (Summer 2013-15)
- Debate Coach @ Cal National Debate Institute in Berkeley, CA (Summer 2013)
- Debate & Extemp Coach @ Summit Preparatory High School in Redwood City, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Debate Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)
I am former debate competitor. I have experience in and have judged all forms of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several California Bay Area schools and programs, including my own private program. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days.
JUDGING PREFERENCES:
- First and foremost, I am a "policymaker" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging 90% of debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards
- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.
- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word, so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.
- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em.
- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.
- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.
- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that crap at home. I want real-world impacts not BS theory garbage.
- On that note, I HATE THEORY. I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! (unless your opponent is legit guilty of a fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc.)
- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.
- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.
- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Also, you will probably lose. And don't bother reading me your stupid block about how reading more stuff is more educational, nothing is educational if it sounds like gibberish, and if you read that block I'll vote you down AND give you negative 500 speaker points. And next to your negative 500 speaker points, I'll write my own education block note stating how receiving negative 500 speaker points is educational and will teach you not to spread in the future when your judge says that they hate spread. And then when ballots get scanned online, your friends will see your negative 500 speaker points, laugh at you, and reinforce that education.
- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible, even if a tournament director tells me not to. What are they going to do if I break their rule, ban me from judging and doing more work? Oh no! How horrible! I'll just have to sit in the judges room all day, eat free food, and catch up on my work.
MY DEBATE PET PEEVES YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF:
- You absolutely do not need to shake my hand. Kids spread germs, I don't know where your hand has been, I usually work seven days a week and can't afford to get sick. I'll just assume you're sincere about thanking me for judging regardless of whether or not we shook hands and/or the outcome of the debate.
- Am I cool with off-time road maps? No. I'm not cool. (PF Debate only) First, in the time it took you to ask me that, you probably couldn't just given your road map already. Second, it takes just 5 seconds of your time to road map anyways, how precious are those 5 seconds to you, are you going to tell me the meaning of life in those 5 seconds or something? Third and most importantly, are you paying me extra to stay at the tournament longer? If the answer to that last question is no, then forget about your off-time road map. It should really just be called your off-time make Stephan Brooks stay at the tournament longer plan. I am so not cool with that.
- I'm old school when it comes to presentation. Leave your computer at home. I also think cases/evidence on iPads is annoying too, especially when those materials are requested by opponents. If your opponent kindly asks to see a piece of evidence, and it takes you longer to produce that evidence on your laptop/device than it normally would have had you simply just printed the evidence, I will consider dropping you, as it is not cool to be unable to produce evidence during limited prep in an educational activity.
- If you're not getting up to speak, I'm running your prep time. Don't ask for set amounts of prep time- how the heck do you know that you only need 30 seconds to think through everything you need to say? Are you psychic? Also, don't disagree with me about how much prep time you have left- you'll lose.
- Don't be a @#$!& during the debate. You'll lose. It's nice to be nice.
- I have judged since 2005 and can count on my hands the number of times I have legitimately bought a nuclear war impact. If you want me to weigh mushroom clouds on your side, you better work hard for them. Also, you might be on mushrooms if you think I will vote for a silly illogical/unwarranted nuclear war impact.
- Do NOT spend half of the debate crying abuse (this is for you Parli people!) and claiming your opponent is violating the rules of _ debate. If they are, I will be smart enough to catch it and you'll win. If they aren't, you will come off as extremely annoying. I love to punish annoying complainers with losses and low speaker points- the low speaker points is to ensure you will not break to elimination rounds based on speaks so I don't have to hear you cry unnecessarily in elimination rounds.
- I cannot stress enough how much I hate theory. I watched an elimination round where a competitor won the coin flip for sides, selected AFF, and argued that he was disadvantaged having to debate on the AFF side. Back in my day, new topics came out, and us kids would be excited to debate a new topic- we would not look forward to arguing the same abuse arguments regardless of the resolution.
- As far as I'm concerned, Counter-Plans are legal in all debate formats, Public Forum included. We should always be able to argue that the reason we shouldn't do X is because Y is an option, and there is an opportunity cost at stake. I don't care what the stupid NSDA rules say in Public Forum. Also, 99% of you who do Public Forum and complain about counter-plans likely were never taught the 4-5+ necessary components of an actual CP, so shush.
Stephanie Odom - ModernBrain
n/a
Subrata Saharoy - MIller MS
n/a
Sudheer Chekka - RMS
n/a
Susan Infantino - ACDS
n/a
Ted Kim - Nova 42
Background
I have no speech and debate competition experience. My first foray into this world was in early 2014 as a judge; I have been involved ever since and have judged continuously at a rate of at least 30 tournaments per year. I am now involved in the debate program at my school as a public forum coach.
General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)
While I do consider myself to be more experienced than any lay judge, I do not consider myself as knowledgable as a former competitor turned judge or coach. Here is a list of things not to expect from me:
- Do not expect me to know the things you know. I don't. Simple as that. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
- Do not expect to change my mind after a debate is over in the hopes of changing a decision. That should be only done in the debate and if I didn't catch it, that's too bad.
- Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to.
- I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitors too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means that there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
- While I do attempt to keep my biases outside the round, there may be occasion where I will hear an argument and it will confuzzle my brain terribly. That doesn't mean I won't count it; it means that you will visibly see me look very confused. Take that as a sign that the argument needs to be thoroughly explained or re-explained. Failing to do so will more likely than not make me drop the argument regardless of whether your opponent dealt with it appropriately.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm
Regarding speaker points:
I judge on the standard tabroom scale. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."
Things I do not appreciate occurring in round and will be appropriately penalized:
- Do not lie in round. Or at the very least, do not get caught lying in round. This includes but is not limited to: cooked evidence; misrepresenting evidence; misrepresenting your opponents' position; putting words in their mouths that they never said nor meant; and so on. Please refrain from such uncouth behavior. My reaction will be to give you a 0 and the L. Please remember that I have the power as a judge to call for evidence at the end of the round before my decision to verify any perceived indiscretion.
- Do not yell at your opponents in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won't be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.
Structure:
Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.
Framework (FW):
In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. I don't require explanations of what your FWs are unless there are particularly unique.
In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.
Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
Regarding the decision (RFD):
I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don't know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W's to teams whom I know didn't deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their respective W or L.
A few exceptions to this rule:
- Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points dont get brought up, I dont write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
- Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack didn't happen. It will not go your way.
- Regarding links: I need things to just make sense. Do not use terrible links. If I'm listening to an argument and all I can think is "What?" then you have lost me. If using a link chain, link well with appropriate warrants. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.
I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team's next speech.
I'm not a big fan of theory/kritiks. If it comes up and it's warranted, make sure I know it. But most of the time, I won't be happy that it's happening. I advise against it.
Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, Im sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework. I don't vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.
Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.
SPEED:
I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I'm a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.
Irrational Paradigm
This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.
- No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
Tresa Johnson - SJMS
n/a
Tyler Zabolio - ModernBrain
n/a
Uma Vishwanath - Young Voices
n/a
Veronica Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Vishnu Vennelakanti - ModernBrain
n/a
Wesley Loofbourrow - ModernBrain
n/a
Yifeng Luo - SJMS
n/a
YuYu Yuan - RMS
n/a
Zachary Dittami - ModernBrain
n/a
Zaid Vellani - Brooks Debate
n/a
shashidhar srinivasa - GSA
n/a