2023 (NOF) Oak ***ASYNCHRONOUS*** Video Tournament

National Online Forensics - Oct 23-29 | Status: Completed | 8:24 PM Pacific

Profile Image
Tournament Time: 8:24 PM Pacific
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Squad Room   Postings   Break List   Ballot Review   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Adam Favuzzi - HASCS

n/a

Alex Sorgini - Princeton Academy

n/a

Alexandra Smith - Tourn Judges

n/a

Alice Gilman - Tourn Judges

n/a

Ana Simonelli - HASCS

n/a

Audrey Ko - ModernBrain

n/a

Beth Cole - Tourn Judges

n/a

Colter Heirigs - Tourn Judges

n/a

Danny Cantrell - Tourn Judges

n/a

Ellie Kim - ModernBrain

n/a

Erin Ritchie - SLVHS

n/a

Gary Yablon - HASCS

n/a

Jared Koch - Tourn Judges

n/a

John Cho - IVC

  • First, thank you for taking part in this activity! I'm excited to hear what you have to say!
  • Next, clash is incredibly important. Make sure you clear about what arguments you're addressing and please attempt to engage with the heart of your opponents arguments as best as you can
  • Impact analysis is also big with me. Explain to me why and in real terms why your arguments matter in the round.
  • In rebuttals, I'm looking for comparative analysis. Don't simply review your case. Explain to me why you think your points are better than the other sides'.
  • Clarity: I need to understand your arguments. Make sure that you're providing enough clear analysis of your points that I can pick up what you're putting down. If the other side is less clear, I might even pick you up just because you were clearer than the other side.
  • Kritiks: I generally am not a great person to run Kritiks in front of, but if both teams are down for it I can be down myself. I would encourage you to ask before the round what my stance on Kritiks are if you would like a more detailed answer
  • IPDA: I believe IPDA should be performed in a manner that would be engaging to a lay judge. I don't believe terms like topicality, kritik, or tricot belong in IPDA. That being said, if you can rhetorically unpack your arguments in a manner that you think would be persuasive to a lay judge, I could certainly still pick it up. While I don't want to hear the word "topicality" for example, if you explain in simple terms how the Affirmative team misdefined a term, describe why it's unfair to you, and give me some reasons why they should lose because of it, I could definitely buy that argument.
  • Feel free to ask me before the round if there's anything I haven't covered that you'd like clarification with!

Jordy Barry - Princeton Academy

n/a

Kaori Dadgostar-Shimazaki - Velasquez Academy

n/a

Max Sun - ModernBrain

n/a

Michael Stewart - Princeton Academy

n/a

Nina Chen - ModernBrain

n/a

Rachel Edwards - Princeton Academy

n/a

Sandie Kim - ModernBrain

n/a

Scott Hawklyn - SLVHS

n/a

Sofia Jackson - ModernBrain

n/a

Tanya Moss-Barry - Princeton Academy

n/a

Travis Cornett - Tourn Judges

n/a

Veronica Galvez - Velasquez Academy

n/a

Vivek Rajdev - ModernBrain

n/a

Xianzhi Jiang - ModernBrain

n/a

Yimeng Yuan - Velasquez Academy

n/a