Judge Philosophies
Amie Collins - Alaska
n/a
Bill Newell - Willamette
n/a
Dana Ovsak - Alaska
n/a
Derek Hanson - Willamette
n/a
Donald Kimball - NU
n/a
Gary Gillespie - NU
n/a
Holly Hendrix - Cypress
n/a
Jacob Witt - NU
n/a
Josh House - Cypress
<p>I have tendencies but I'm not entirely robotic and my views are not perfectly static across time and space. If I change in a major way I’ll let you know.</p> <p>I tend to prioritize substance over style. That's not to say that I discount style entirely, and your delivery can certainly influence my understanding of what you have to say, but I'm not ever voting based on what you're wearing or just based on who sounded more polished.</p> <p>I tend to prefer structure in your delivery, and I prefer it if you watch my nonverbal reactions and adjust accordingly when appropriate. That is to say, if I’m confused or lost I try not to keep that to myself, and I’d appreciate it if you make some attempt to un-confuse me sooner rather than later.</p> <p>I tend to want to vote in debates based on how the debaters tell me I should vote and to try to keep my personal feelings about a topic out of my decision. That is, I try to stick to the flow and I try not to intervene.</p> <p>I tend to view voting on Topicality (and procedural issues more generally) in Parli as something that is in opposition with that last tendency. The Gov team gets about 20 minutes to figure out what a topic means and what they’re going to say. As long as their interpretation of what the topic means makes sense I tend to think that the Opposition team should debate them on that interpretation. To be clear(er), I will vote on Topicality but I am very sympathetic to “we meet” arguments and I absolutely require articulated in round abuse (not potential abuse and not prep-time abuse). In LD or other activities where the topic stays the same over time I’m much more likely to vote on Topicality and to listen to reasons why I should choose the “best” interpretation of the topic. I would love to talk to you more about this if you’re interested.</p> <p>Oh yeah, I tend to want you to run a policy because I think it usually makes for better, more educational debate.</p> <p>I tend to think that if the alternative on your K has to include the words “Vote Opp to…” it’s a good sign that I don’t really need to vote Opp to accomplish what you’re after. If your Alt solvency rests on changing the minds/actions of people in the real world (not via fiat) then I expect an explanation of how it works starting with the people in the room and extending as far as our influence reaches. Otherwise don’t tell me that my voting Opp will end capitalism or the patriarchy and expect me to fill in the gaps on how that happens.</p> <p>I tend to forget to give time signals because I’m busy writing things down. I will usually at least have a timer, it’s just that I forget to look at it as you go, so if you time yourselves or have somebody in the audience help out that’s usually to your advantage.</p> <p>I tend to want people to enjoy this activity, to seem like they’re enjoying this activity, and to help others to enjoy this activity. I tend to react pretty negatively to behavior that is exclusionary, rude, or mean.</p> <p>I would be happy to add clarification on items of interest on request.</p>
Kelly Welch - Portland State
n/a
Lauren Dohler - UNBC
n/a
Matthew Scott - UBC
n/a
Rett Mutchler - Portland State
n/a
Robert Margesson - Regis
n/a
Ruby Nunez - Regis
n/a
Samantha Briggs - Willamette
n/a
Steve Johnson - Alaska
n/a
Thomas Eli - Portland State
n/a
Tim Browning - Willamette
n/a
Vitor Cid - UBC
n/a