2018 Cypress College High School Invitational
Cypress College - Dec 8-9 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
AJ Pena - Claremont
n/a
Aaron Nichols - Claremont
n/a
Adolfo Rumbos - Claremont
n/a
Alex Tseng - CAHS
Classical Academy '19
The Short Version:
Flow
Do line by line
Good policy debates > Bad K debates and vice versa
Read a plan
Long Version:
General:
I'll think through the ballot that is most persuasive to me. I don't like to resolve arguments for debaters so do your best to resolve them for me. I give dropped arguments alot of weight. I assign 100% risk but risk goes down as the debate happens or vice versa depending on the debate. I decide debates based upon single arguments and use it as a base for how it interacts with the overall debate. Drops are important because they can shift the debate but I want to be told which arguments should be the focal point of my ballot.
I read policy affs and go disads and counterplans that are legitimate most of the time. I have read every iteration of the politics disad. I rarely read the K but understand literature from getting dragged into these debates.
Kritiks:
I probably understand your theory but I am in no way a hack. I think the link is the most important and but I have a high threshold for links that are assertions about the world or something tangentially related to the aff. The alt is important unless I'm told the link gives unique reasons to reject the aff. I evaluate framework although not as technical as other judges, I'll probably let the aff weigh their aff but I default to which form of education in debate is better unless told otherwise. Roll of the ballot = Roll of the eyes.
T/Framework
Probably the best and worst debates I'll see. Limits is an impact in itself; my rationalization for this is that I think equitable research is a prequisite to effective debate. I default to competing interpretations unless you tell me not to.
I think that aff's should be topical. In these debates, I'll try to evaluate in the most technical ways possible so that I can avoid intervention. I can be convinced that the topic is problematic. Saying framework is genocidal/racism is straight up offensive.
Counterplans:
I try not to have dispositions about counterplans. Counterplans that compete off of certainty can be legitimate or legitimate. As a 2A, I read questionably legitimate counterplans on the neg and went for theory on the aff. Make permutations, read analytical solvency deficits, and exploit contradictions. I tend to think that defending your aff is a good thing and that process education is probably good. If you can debate a process counterplan, you probably have the knowledge to beat disads on the process of the aff.
Alt agent, international, and uniqueness counterplans are probably fine as well. 50 state Fiat and indefinite parole are probably legitimate. PIC's are probably good.
Disads:
I love them. I like advantage counterplans and topic disads. I evaluate the link as more important than the uniqueness. The poltics disad no matter what iteration of it are awesome with some exceptions. Rider DA's are probably illegitimate. Agenda politics, Elections, and anything that involves political capital is sweet. Recent uniqueness evidence is good.
Speaker Points:
I start a 28 and work up or down from there.
27 - Still learning
28 - Alright
28.5 to 29 - You probably can break
29.5 and above - Semis/Finals
Andrew Lopez - Claremont
n/a
Angie Wood - PCHS
n/a
Ashlie De la Rosa - Nova 42
Bradley Owen - Cambridge
n/a
Brianna Lara - Yucaipa
n/a
Bruno Mastrodicasa - Nova 42
Bruno Mastrodicasa - Nova 42
Carrie Guo - Claremont
n/a
Cassie Lee - Cambridge
n/a
Chirjeev Singh - PHS
n/a
Chris Tai - CAHS
Hello Friends
I'm Chris! I've been debating for 5 years and currently debate as a senior for Classical (CAHS). I've only ever done policy debate, so honestly speaking I'll carry over my biases from that debate forum to other debate forums.
Top Level things:
- email chain: greatorukami@gmail.com
- Tech > Truth
- arguments must have a claim and warrant (and evidence if applicable) to be evaluated.
- flow judge
- spreading is a-ok BUT do NOT sacrifice clarity please, I can't flow what I can't hear
- I'll do my best to be tabula rasa, but I'll default to cost-benefit analysis/util/consequentialism if no one tells me otherwise
- puns please
- blocks are fine but contextualized arguments are better
There are probabilities in the game of debate, so no argument really has a 0% risk of 100% risk. Rather, some arguments, through warranted analysis and well thought out evidence can build a more robust case for a more probable scenario. That said, if an argument is conceded it's not necessarily game over, but the risk that that argument is true increases to a significant extent.
Thus, when resolving a debate I tend to resolve any conceded arguments first, then examine the rest of the flow, considering each argument's risk.
Debate is a game, and it's a blessing to be able to play it. Treat your opponents with respect and HAVE FUN, debate's supposed to be fun! Please don't make racist, sexist, etc. arguments or personal attacks, they really skirt the educational value of debate and I'll tank your speaks.
PF Paradigm (for SDMSL)
I've never judged Public Forum before, so I'll evaluate it like I would a policy debate round (meaning all the tech > truth stuff above applies). Before the tournament I'll do my best to read up on how Public Forum works but you should still treat me as a flow judge who has no idea what the norms of Public Forum are.
Not sure if Counterplans are prohibited? I mean if you run a good one I'll probably vote for it
Same goes for Topicality and Kritiks
If crossfires go awry, so will the speaks.
Debate well and you'll be fine!
Speaker Points - I'll start at a 30 as a baseline for everyone for this tournament since I really have no idea how PF works; this number however can only decrease
Policy Paradigm
Topicality - I'll vote on it for sure. Usually my initial reaction to any Aff is to say that it isn't topical. While this probably isn't true for most Affs, definitely go for T against the Affs that are clearly not topical or justify a limitless topic. This necessitates that you have a some form of caselist.
Disadvantages - My favorite 2NR. Politics disads are great. Disadvantages need impact calc of some sort. Using words like "magnitude" and "time frame" are good but should be contextualized to the impact that the Aff has. Smart turns case arguments are EXCELLENT and should be used! Uniqueness should frame the direction of the link, but the specificity of the link is likely to be more important than the uniqueness itself. Aff teams should not forget about their case however, and case outweighs is unfortunately one of the least utilized, underrated arguments against a disad. Case outweighs coupled with smart defensive arguments on the disad and minimal case debate is enough to win.
Counterplans - My second favorite 2NR is the CP+DA. Counterplans that are contextualized to the Aff will definitely be better than counterplans that work through a process. However, process/cheaty cps are still totally fine (due to my unfortunate habit of running them so frequently) and I'll lean neg on the theory debate (I can be swayed to adopt the other viewpoint on this question). Advantage counterplans are fantastic, smart PICs are fantastic, topic counterplans are fantastic.
Kritiks - Lol I think I've never actually gone for a K in my entire career as a 2N. BUT it has been in the 1NC so... Despite my general incomprehension with these arguments you should totally feel free to run them. I'll have a higher threshold for link specificity to the Affirmative, but if you can show a clear story, by all means please explain how the Aff reintrenches metaphysical violence toward otherized immigrant bodies.
Non Traditional Affirmatives - I did end up running one of these in my sophomore year, but haven't since. 2NRs that are T USfg are pretty persuasive for me given that 100% of my 2NRs against these Affs have been T USfg. If you argue it well, fairness can certainly be an intrinsic impact, though it's probably better to have impacts that interact with the truth claims of the 1AC.
Case Debate - Is significantly underrated. Smart case defense is SMART and mitigates a risk of the Aff, should they midhandle it. Case turns are excellent and should be used.
Christine Anderson - Claremont
n/a
Cody Herman - CW
n/a
Danielle Rascon - VAHS
n/a
David Chamberlain - Claremont
n/a
David Sylva - CVHS
n/a
David Finnigan - Beverly
n/a
Dean Nishimura - Claremont
n/a
Debra Topilow - Beverly
n/a
Denise Rawlings-Shinn - VAHS
n/a
Devin Barnhart - Cambridge
n/a
Djavan Mack - Nova 42
Edward Nation - Claremont
n/a
Edward DeVera - Claremont
n/a
Eli Pielstick - Los Osos
n/a
Enas Ibrahim - Cambridge
n/a
Erik Pielstick - Los Osos
n/a
Erik Pielstick - Los Osos
n/a
Ethan Valencia - Yucaipa
n/a
Geoffrey Mayne - Cambridge
n/a
Giyoon Han - CW
n/a
Hector Alegria - Claremont
n/a
Heidi Lee - Beverly
n/a
James Zucker - LHS
n/a
James Stroud - Los Osos
n/a
Jen Dozier - CAHS
Jennifer Stephens - Cambridge
n/a
Jenny Han - Cambridge
n/a
Joel Ainsworth - Claremont
n/a
John Newell - LHS
n/a
John Scoggin - LHS
n/a
John Eichman - Yucaipa
n/a
Joseph Apresa - Claremont
n/a
Justin Hong - Kudos Leadership
Karen Kupetz - Claremont
n/a
Karime Gonzalez - Los Osos
n/a
Karime Gonzalez - Los Osos
n/a
Kevin Norris - YLHS
n/a
Leanne Feldman Murray - Nova 42
Lee Thach - CL
n/a
Leena Nath - Los Osos
n/a
Ling Moeljadi - CW
n/a
Lois O'Sous - Los Osos
n/a
Luis Sandoval - Los Osos
n/a
Melanie Cox-Alegria - Claremont
n/a
Michael Daugherty - Claremont
n/a
Michael Murray - Nova 42
Michael Murray - Nova 42
Morggan O'Neill - Cambridge
n/a
Noor Tabba - Los Osos
n/a
Noor Tabba - Los Osos
n/a
Oneil Lee - CW
n/a
Patrick Ikehara - CW
n/a
Rachel Wear - Claremont
n/a
Raghu Maddula - CW
n/a
Reuben Settergren - Cambridge
n/a
Rinku Sachdeva - CW
n/a
Sajeed Chowdhury - Los Osos
n/a
Sarah Nation - Claremont
n/a
Sarah Nation - Claremont
n/a
Sasha Alexander - Yucaipa
n/a
Srinivas Kothandaraman - CW
n/a
Stephanie Muravchik - Claremont
n/a
Steven Gill - CVHS
n/a
Sunil Alexander - Yucaipa
n/a
Suresh Narayana - CW
n/a
Susan Hodo - CAHS
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.
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.
Thomas Nguyen - Los Osos
n/a
Tokunbo Ogundele - Beverly
n/a
Travis Thomas - Cambridge
n/a
Tristan Parker - YLHS
n/a
Wolosmal Safi - CW
n/a
Xiangdong Lin - CW
n/a
Zach Sandoval - LHS
n/a
sda 1 - SDA
n/a
sda 2 - SDA
n/a
sda 3 - SDA
n/a
sda 4 - SDA
n/a
sda 5 - SDA
n/a
sda 6 - SDA
n/a
sda 6 - SDA
n/a
sda 7 - SDA
n/a
sda 8 - SDA
n/a