Judge Philosophies
Aaron Gilbert - Chabot
n/a
Anthony Avila - Gladiator 4n6
n/a
Brian Singer - Chabot
n/a
Destiny Riley - Chabot
n/a
Evan Flores - Gladiator 4n6
n/a
Gabriel Rodriguez - Gladiator 4n6
n/a
Giselle Carvajal - Gladiator 4n6
n/a
Gunnar Cherry - Gladiator 4n6
n/a
Hamza Boujja - Gladiator 4n6
n/a
Lesly Rangel - Gladiator 4n6
n/a
Sylvia Ho - Chabot
I do parli!
add me to the chain smhpoppy@gmail.com, tech>truth, i'm down for anything, ask me in round if you have questions. so:
respect your opponents, pronouns, preferred labels/lack of them, all that jazz. That said, be as aggressive as you want! I lean towards letting ethics debates and stuff play out in round, but if you're getting uncomfortable or if there's just something you don't feel like having to justify, just let me know!
if you ask me to gut check nothing will happen. Dont rely on reasonability; spell out your competing interps and impacts. I'm tabula rasa the rest of this paradigm is just my defaults
Spreading: cool, but if you can't do it well, like. please don't. speed is good, spreading not so much. If you do spread, have a case drop ready for me to access.
K/Theory: Love! I default theory>kritik=case, but obviously subject to change if you say so. I will consider anything and everything and will likewise happily drop arguments if the other team points out frivolity/bigotry. go for the fun alts! solvency arguments against "reject res" will convince me pretty easily. i will not disclose what lit base i'm most familiar with because if you're not able to eli5 it, i assume your opponents won't be able to understand either. If and only if you check in with your opponents before round and confirm they're familiar with what you're running will I vote for not clearly explained Ks.
Signpost.
i dont care what your strat is, give me a clear path to the ballot. Ngl idc about case i'm probably voting on this. I do really mean this because I think debate is what competitors make of it, whether that means a substantive case debate, a tricks game, or a round of mariokart. i will judge however competitors tell me to and i will and have judged IErs who just ran their speeches during round instead of debating the res. it is genuinely up to you how you want the round to go.
I also take tabula rasa very literally! if someone says something like "vote aff because aff is the coolest team in round," i need some sort of response on the flow, even if it's just "neg cooler than aff" bc otherwise i will buy whatever i hear, though obv IPDA is mostly exempt from this.
more about ipda: i will kind of let deliberate misinformation (e.g. moon is made of cheese) slide but i will be a little more interventionist about things that seem to just be common misunderstandings in round (e.g. vaccines cause autism). it will not affect my decision directly unless it comes down to tiebreaker evidence v evidence clash, where, all other things equal, i will lean towards truth in IPDA and IPDA only (this is highly subjective so dont do it unless youre very, very sure ill agree with you!).
i wont accept new arguments if i notice, but its on you to call the other team out and to tell me what to kick etc.
speaks start 26, but go ahead with speaks theory! Swearing won't drop your speaks, jokes will raise em, if you make jokes at the expense of a minority i will in good faith assume you're part of it. if ur reading this far add a mention of tax fraud, cats (2019), or baguettes in your speech and i'll raise. I don't care about clothes, but if you wear a halloween costume or smth i'll add a couple points
IE: sorry i think yall can tell ur getting side shafted but! Be entertaining however you choose. I sort of value content over delivery and i kind of dislike slow speeds to be honest but it wont affect my judging!! This is to say ill be more lenient towards fast speeches than a typical speech judge probably. If you want the rubric ill be judging off of here you go!
tldr: do literally anything as long as you do it well, you don't have to be polite but be kind, and whatever i say in this paradigm doesnt matter as long as you can justify it.