Judge Philosophies
Alex Paez - Delta
n/a
Angela Ohland - Butte
I'm a fairly new judge to the forensics community. I am primarily an IE judge/coach and have limited experience with debate. As a result, please consider me a lay judge and try to use clear roadmapping and speak clearly and persuasively. I appreciate an impactful opening and a clear preview.
Fairness and respect are paramount for me. My goal is to provide constructive (primarily delivery focused feedback) that helps competitors refine their skills. I look forward to witnessing your talents on display!
Augustus LaDue - Delta
n/a
Blake Longfellow - DVC
I am primarily an IE coach and very much approach forensics (including debate) as a communication/persuasive activity. I approach debate with the mindset that all stories are arguments and all arguments are stories. With that said, the story which is the most internally cohesive (narrative probability) and that lines up across the debate (narrative fidelity) is likely to win my ballot.
Here is a list of things Paul Villa thinks you should know about debating in front of me:
- Truth over tech: Blake isn't flowing the debate like this is the national circuit, he is going to take minimal notes, you aren't going to win by pointing out some drop on the flow or technical analysis of the round.
- Don't spread. Like, at all. However fast you are thinking will be fine I'd go slower than that.
- Reading theory is a non-starter, if the other team isn't topical just tell Blake they aren't topical and explain why that means they should lose the debate without getting all technical.
- Blake would probably vote on a K, especially a performance one, assuming it made sense to him in the round.
- Less is more, the more simple the path to the ballot for you the more likely Blake is to vote for you.
Burke Tompson - Delta
n/a
Cody Peterson - CSU Chico
Hal Sanford - Santa Rosa
Hal Sanford, Santa Rosa Junior College
What are your expectations for proper decorum from the
debaters? In round, be nice to each other, be
civil. Don't
belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or
dumb. Remember, there is always somebody smarter and meaner than
you. Do you want the karma and curse that comes with being a bully?
Seriously?! You are smarter than that,
better than that!
Short Version: I'm a stock issues judge, not fond of Ks,
although a summer debate camp and years of creative students have made me more receptive,
if run well. Thank you Joe Allen. I'll vote for the team displaying
the preponderance of persuasion, theoretical ties going to the negative.
Long Version: Some debaters may want more. Here's
more. Remember, being electronic, its length does not link to damaging
environmental impacts - no trees were killed in the creation of the
philosophy.
What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a
debate? I look to stock issues, as argued on my flow.
AFFIRMATIVE: Make sure you are topical. Reasonable
definitions are accepted; they do not have to be the "best." I
feel constraining the affirmative to the “best” definition removes their right
to define and preparation time. However,
negative ground must be provided within the affirmative definition. I once saw a debate where an affirmative
team’s definitions attempted to lock the negative into defending female
circumcision, on children, against their will, in unsanitary conditions, with
loss of sexual function. Uh, that is
not reasonable ground.
In policy rounds, show me a post-plan world is better than one
defended by the negative. Weigh impacts. If ten people die in
Cleveland, that may outweigh a ski-billionth of a percent chance of extinction
and/or nuclear war. Show your solution
is workable and links to a better outcome than the negative option(s).
In value rounds, show me how your value criteria are supported and
illustrated through your examples. Provide reasons to prefer your values or
criteria to those offered by the negative, if they dispute them.
NEGATIVE: In policy, raise topicality only if it is a
genuine issue. Too often negatives think they are being clever with
"time suck" topicality arguments that fizzle in rebuttals and the negative
loses because they did not devote 15 seconds more to weighing impacts or
developing a disadvantage. Also, give me reasons why disadvantages actually make the plan net-detrimental;
show me how your counter plan alone is better than plan or the plan plus
C/P. Explain how the affirmative plan does not solve the problem or is
not workable.
In value rounds, if you present counter values, explain how your
criteria are superior to the affirmative's in relation to the resolution.
Weigh societal impacts under each competing criteria, showing how your interpretation
leads to a better world. Finally, if the
affirmative must prove primacy of one object (e.g., security) over another (e.g.,
privacy), the negative should claim the win upon demonstrating object equality
or reversed primacy.
What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Stock Issues: In policy debate, these are key for me. Affirmative has to win all four to win; negative can win one to win. Remember, stock issues answer the questions needed overcome the uncertainty and the risk of change to justify adopting the resolution. Affirmative must win all four to win round. Stock issues are:
1. Motive/Harm, 2.Blame/Inherency, 3.Plan, and 4. Solvency/Advantage(s)
justify an affirmative ballot.
Topicality: Be sure terms are reasonably defined, metaphors
are accurately applied, and mere time-suck topicality arguments aren't argued
by negatives. You've got better things to do. Still, affirmatives, me
buying a reverse voting issue on topicality is very unlikely. Even with a
negative drop, I'll really resist.
Counter plans: It should be non-topical; otherwise, there
are two affirmatives in the round and I'll just sign the ballot for the one
actually listed as affirmative. I am probably in the minority here, but
that is my view. CPs should be
competitive, meaning there is a genuine, forced choice between the plan and
counter plan. Show competition with mutual exclusivity or a reason doing
both is bad. In both cases, however,
there should still be a unique reason why plan alone is bad, like your
disadvantage.
Critiques: Given equal teams, the critique most likely will
lose. I have voted for critiques, but that is usually when a weaker team does
not argue adequately. I dislike generic critiques that don't relate to
the resolution, the opponent's arguments, or reality. Good luck selling
me that K whose central premise is that ”we should all hurry up and die
because life's greatest gift is death." Really? I vote on the
flow, but I won't turn off my brain. Still, if your names are
Robert or Sterling, I might buy it. They were eloquentus-maximus.
Weighing: Explain why you win. Weigh impacts.
Apply your examples to concepts like magnitude, probability, timeframe and show
how the opponent loses, how opposing arguments are less compelling.
How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements? SPEED - NFA-LD: This is not supposed to be an audition for a
speed-freak auctioneer. Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the
event. That said, I heard debaters last year and none were “too fast” for
the event. If somebody goes “too fast”, I
would be receptive to an attack on that delivery. After
all, "speed is antithetical to the event", right? If I or
the opponent call "clear" or “slow”, heed that request.
SPEED - PARLI: Be sure you really have quality arguments
that necessitate speed to get them all in during the allotted time. Be clear,
organized, and persuasive. I'll stop you if you're going too fast and I'll
be receptive to an opposing team demanding you slow down also.
JARGON: Don't just sling jargon around and assume I'll do
all the analysis and explanation to fully impact the concept. For
example, if an affirmative thinks he or she can simply say "perm" and
destroy the counter plan as a reason to vote negative, he or she is
mistaken. Say something like: "Perm. Do both the plan
and the counter plan. If there is a permutation where both the plan and
the counter plan can co-exist without disadvantage, the counter plan is not a
reason to reject the affirmative plan. Vote affirmative unless the
counter plan alone is net beneficial when compared with both the affirmative
plan alone or the plan and counter plan together."
TECHNICAL ELEMENTS: Please be organized. I won't time roadmaps, but they are appreciated. I do permit some conversation between partners during the round, but issues must be vocalized by the recognized speaker to count. I will not consider arguments made after time elapses. If you really need to sit while speaking, I'm fine with that.
Jared Anderson - Sacramento
Logistics:
1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.
2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com
3) If there is no email chain, Im going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.
4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points.
5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I dont want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.
** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and dont argue about it. **
I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I started out coaching CEDA/NDT debate but I have now been coaching LD for a long time. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly and are within the rules. You can win my ballot with whatever. I dont have to agree with your argument, I dont have to be moved by your argument, I dont even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I do need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, Im familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments?other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. Its up to you. I will tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand - I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that is on you.
The rules are the rules and I will follow them. I will not intervene; you need to argue the violation. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it.Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I dont need abuse? proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this. On the current topic (2019-2020) I will probably have a pretty low threshold on Vagueness/Spec arguments. You need a clear plan. Neg arguments about why the aff needs to clearly outline how and what amount they propose investing will be met with a sympathetic ear.
Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you cant find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. Im pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so youll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVIs are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.
Jeff Toney - Delta
n/a
Kathleen Bruce - Delta
n/a
Kelsey Duff - SFSU
Kyle Johnson - Las Positas
n/a
Mark Nelson - Santa Rosa
n/a
Mark Faaita - CSU Chico
In all forms of debate I prefer arguments that are well reasoned and have supporting evidence. I am open to just about any kind of argument, but I think that more abstract/philosophical arguments typically run the risk of being easily leveraged against the team deploying them in the round. There are few to no arguments that I think will hear in a round and immediately disregard. i vote for arguments I don't like/disagree with all of the time. Please, please, please do not be rude to your opponents. It's just not a good look and creates a tension in the room that doesn't need to be there.
Pablo Ramirez - SFSU
Reed Ramsey - DVC
Robert Hawkins - DVC
I have been involved with forensics for 20 years. I competed in LD and regularly judge Parli & IPDA. I am not big on complicated language. I am more impressed if a student understands the argument and can make adjustments to different judging pools. I would classify myself as LAY judge for debate, but I can hang with most rounds if the students can also be organized, signpost, and make clear arguments. Education is my main value.
Sasan Kasravi - DVC
TL;DR: I won't punish you for not debating the way I like, but I can't "hang". Speed and Ks not recommended, but I won't vote you down unless your opponent gives me a decent reason to. Give me direct and clear reasons to vote for you. Have fun in the round.
I'm a community college Parliamentary Debate coach.
I protect the flow in rebuttals based on what I have on my flow. Feel free to call points of order if you'd really like to, though.
I do my best to vote the way the debaters tell me to and to be tabula rasa. With that having been said, I think everyone has biases and I want to tell you mine. I won't ignore any of your arguments out of not liking them, but my biases could lower the threshold for refutation on an argument I dislike.
What I like to see most in debates is good clash. To me, good clash means link refutations and impact comparisons.
I'm comfortable with theory and you can run whatever procedural you'd like. I prefer to vote on articulated abuse rather than potential abuse. While I'm happy to vote on procedurals if it's called for, I've never walked out of a round thinking, "Wow! What a great T!"
I don't like K's. I've voted on them before, I'll probably end up having to vote for a K again, but I'm not happy about it. Specifically, I have a hard time buying solvency on the alternatives of most K's I've heard.
I prefer that you don't spread, but I can keep up with decent speed. I'll tell you to slow if I need you to slow down.
Please be inclusive of your opponents and (if there are other judges in this round) the other judges on the panel.
It's important to me that this activity:
a) be a useful experience for competitors' lives outside of forensics
b) be enjoyable enough to be worth giving up weekends instead of sleeping in and watching cartoons.
Lastly, if I make jokes please pretend to think I'm funny. I don't have much else going for me.
Sean Cox-Marcellin - MJC
edit: I made this paradigm for policy, but the broad strokes apply. Feel free to ask me clarifying questions before round.
Okay, I agree with Jared Anderson:?�?� "Prep stops when you have a) hit send on the email, or b) pulled the flash drive out."
About me:?�?� I debate in college, with most of my experience in NPDA Parliamentary and NFA-LD. I'm familiar with jargon, theory, "kritikal" arguments, and can follow speed to a degree. Feel free to ask me clarification or specific questions before round. I want to be in the evidence chain, whether you're using email (scoxmarcellin@gmail.com) or speechdrop or whatever. (I'm a big fan of speechdrop). I'll flow what you say, though.
General / Quick Overview:?�?� I consider myself a flow judge, and when it comes to the end of the round that's where I'll be looking to see how the debate played out. Impact analysis in the rebuttal is essential. I think any judge who believes they're tabula rasa is deceiving themselves, but I do try to check my biases and will try not to bring in information external to the round. In round arguments and their analysis takes priority.
Theory:?�?� I like a good theory debate. I think it can be used to 1) collapse and win, 2) prevent shifting or other unfair actions, or 3) as a time trade-off (pure strategery). Whoever reads the theory needs to have offense (a route to win) on the interp level, a clear link (violation), and standards that flow through to the impacts (voters). I want you to explain to me why I should be doing what you're telling me on the theory (whether I'm rejecting the argument or the team) and why it's more important than the argument the other team made (or even the rest of the debate as a whole). In your rebuttal, if you collapse to the theory position, it's vital you close all doors. Don't give me any choice but to vote on your theory.
I have some reservations for accepting "Reverse Voting Issues" (RVIs) on theory. By default, if the Aff wins the T, or Neg wins the "Condo Bad" position, I don't automatically vote for them. If you can articulate and impact out good reasons why, and the other side undercovers it, I'll vote on it. But don't blip out a "timesuck" argument and expect to win on it. Kritiks of theory, or linking it through the framework debate can be effective, and is underutilized.
Theory need not be an island. Connect it to the rest of the debate: the weighing mechanism, the kritik, etc. I think it's effective to leverage framework arguments from the first constructives on theory, and vice versa.
Kritik:?�?� I have heard some kritikal arguments, and I've run some kritikal debate, so I have familiarity with the structure. That said,?�?� do not assume I am familiar with the lit?�?� of your author or the ideas being discussed. I believe that someone who presents a kritikal argument has a burden of presenting it clearly enough to connect it to something in the round and impacting it out. I am skeptical of links of omission.
Role of the Ballot / How I vote:?�?� I think the rebuttals are really important speeches. It's a opportunity to clean up and clarify a busy debate into a few key issues that overpower or control the others. I tend to flow rebuttals on a separate sheet of paper, while looking at the arguments you're referencing next to it.?�?� I want you to tell me where to vote, how to evaluate the round, how to weigh different impacts against each other. Don't make me do the work for you.?�?� Ideally, justification for this should have come up before the rebuttals, and I could literally be going through your previous speeches with a highlighter. I also realize this is almost never the case. I think black swan impacts and "reductio ad extinction" are more emotionally effective than probablilistic / systemic impacts, but that's a human fallibility that I'm susceptible to, absent impact framing. I don't think they're logically better.
A magnitudinal impact that is mitigated by link-level arguments might be reduced in probability. A systemic impact that is mitigated by link-level arguments might be reduced in magnitude. One of these impacts is still triggering 100% of the time. Use that. Timeframe analysis is sorely under-utilized.
I'm open to non-traditional roles of the ballot, just be sure to justify it and be prepared to defend it. I default to net benefits, but I'll vote on stock issues, presumption, or "whoever best deconstructs post-truth debate." RotB is as much a part of the debate as any other argument.
Speed:?�?� I'm used to fast debate, but even I can get spread out by the fastest teams when they're dumping analytics at top speed without explication. Evidence-based debate can get really fast, and that's fine, but I recommend you?�?� emphasize your taglines?�?� and slow a little for them if you want to ensure I flow them. I don't like speed (or anything else) being used as a tool to exclude, and am receptive to well-run arguments about that.
Evidence:?�?� Quality of evidence debates are cool. Reading the other team's small-text at them is also cool. I like to see interesting analysis of evidence, and comparisons between different cards in the debate. Quality can beat quantity, but yeah, quantity has its uses too.
Speaker Points:?�?� Arbitrary and problematic, but if I just gave everyone 29.7-30 then it's arbitrarily better for people who get me as a judge. I'm not sure what to do about that. My normal range is 26-30.
Remember that you're debating in front of and with people. To win, you never need to act in ways that intentionally hurt someone.
Sean Cox-Marcellin - MJC
edit: I made this paradigm for policy, but the broad strokes apply. Feel free to ask me clarifying questions before round.
Okay, I agree with Jared Anderson:?�?� "Prep stops when you have a) hit send on the email, or b) pulled the flash drive out."
About me:?�?� I debate in college, with most of my experience in NPDA Parliamentary and NFA-LD. I'm familiar with jargon, theory, "kritikal" arguments, and can follow speed to a degree. Feel free to ask me clarification or specific questions before round. I want to be in the evidence chain, whether you're using email (scoxmarcellin@gmail.com) or speechdrop or whatever. (I'm a big fan of speechdrop). I'll flow what you say, though.
General / Quick Overview:?�?� I consider myself a flow judge, and when it comes to the end of the round that's where I'll be looking to see how the debate played out. Impact analysis in the rebuttal is essential. I think any judge who believes they're tabula rasa is deceiving themselves, but I do try to check my biases and will try not to bring in information external to the round. In round arguments and their analysis takes priority.
Theory:?�?� I like a good theory debate. I think it can be used to 1) collapse and win, 2) prevent shifting or other unfair actions, or 3) as a time trade-off (pure strategery). Whoever reads the theory needs to have offense (a route to win) on the interp level, a clear link (violation), and standards that flow through to the impacts (voters). I want you to explain to me why I should be doing what you're telling me on the theory (whether I'm rejecting the argument or the team) and why it's more important than the argument the other team made (or even the rest of the debate as a whole). In your rebuttal, if you collapse to the theory position, it's vital you close all doors. Don't give me any choice but to vote on your theory.
I have some reservations for accepting "Reverse Voting Issues" (RVIs) on theory. By default, if the Aff wins the T, or Neg wins the "Condo Bad" position, I don't automatically vote for them. If you can articulate and impact out good reasons why, and the other side undercovers it, I'll vote on it. But don't blip out a "timesuck" argument and expect to win on it. Kritiks of theory, or linking it through the framework debate can be effective, and is underutilized.
Theory need not be an island. Connect it to the rest of the debate: the weighing mechanism, the kritik, etc. I think it's effective to leverage framework arguments from the first constructives on theory, and vice versa.
Kritik:?�?� I have heard some kritikal arguments, and I've run some kritikal debate, so I have familiarity with the structure. That said,?�?� do not assume I am familiar with the lit?�?� of your author or the ideas being discussed. I believe that someone who presents a kritikal argument has a burden of presenting it clearly enough to connect it to something in the round and impacting it out. I am skeptical of links of omission.
Role of the Ballot / How I vote:?�?� I think the rebuttals are really important speeches. It's a opportunity to clean up and clarify a busy debate into a few key issues that overpower or control the others. I tend to flow rebuttals on a separate sheet of paper, while looking at the arguments you're referencing next to it.?�?� I want you to tell me where to vote, how to evaluate the round, how to weigh different impacts against each other. Don't make me do the work for you.?�?� Ideally, justification for this should have come up before the rebuttals, and I could literally be going through your previous speeches with a highlighter. I also realize this is almost never the case. I think black swan impacts and "reductio ad extinction" are more emotionally effective than probablilistic / systemic impacts, but that's a human fallibility that I'm susceptible to, absent impact framing. I don't think they're logically better.
A magnitudinal impact that is mitigated by link-level arguments might be reduced in probability. A systemic impact that is mitigated by link-level arguments might be reduced in magnitude. One of these impacts is still triggering 100% of the time. Use that. Timeframe analysis is sorely under-utilized.
I'm open to non-traditional roles of the ballot, just be sure to justify it and be prepared to defend it. I default to net benefits, but I'll vote on stock issues, presumption, or "whoever best deconstructs post-truth debate." RotB is as much a part of the debate as any other argument.
Speed:?�?� I'm used to fast debate, but even I can get spread out by the fastest teams when they're dumping analytics at top speed without explication. Evidence-based debate can get really fast, and that's fine, but I recommend you?�?� emphasize your taglines?�?� and slow a little for them if you want to ensure I flow them. I don't like speed (or anything else) being used as a tool to exclude, and am receptive to well-run arguments about that.
Evidence:?�?� Quality of evidence debates are cool. Reading the other team's small-text at them is also cool. I like to see interesting analysis of evidence, and comparisons between different cards in the debate. Quality can beat quantity, but yeah, quantity has its uses too.
Speaker Points:?�?� Arbitrary and problematic, but if I just gave everyone 29.7-30 then it's arbitrarily better for people who get me as a judge. I'm not sure what to do about that. My normal range is 26-30.
Remember that you're debating in front of and with people. To win, you never need to act in ways that intentionally hurt someone.
Shannan Troxel-Andreas - Butte
I'm primarily an IE judge/coach but have been a DOF for the last several years.
I don't always like debate - help me to like it by:
-Using clear roadmapping
-Speaking clearly and persuasively (Especially in IPDA - it's an act of persuasion, an art)
- Be respectful of your opponent and judges
-I love to see Neg do more than essentially saying no to all of the Aff
- Show me on the flow how you've won - convince me
Spencer Coile - ILSTU
Susan Houlihan - Santa Rosa
n/a
Taure Shimp - MJC
ALL DEBATE EVENTS
Everyone in the room is here to learn, develop skills, and have a good time. Treating one another with a sense of humanity is really important to me as a coach, judge, and audience member. Debate is invigorating and educational, but I only enjoy it when a positive communication climate between participants is the foundation.
IPDA
I hope to see clear contentions that include cited evidence and well-developed warrants. Debaters should utilize ethos/pathos/logos appeals throughout to demonstrate well-rounded speaking abilities. I expect IPDA debates to be accessible to lay audiences. This means maintaining a conversational rate of speech, avoiding unnecessary jargon, and presenting arguments that engage in a clear way with the resolution.
PARLI
Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. Things I value in this event include courteous treatment of all participants, conversational rate of speech, and sign-posting on all arguments. Do your best to make the impact calculus really clear throughout but especially rebuttals. Of course I'll do my best to consider whatever arguments you choose to present in the round, but if you have any pity in your heart please don't run Kritiks. Feel free to communicate with your partner, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says during their allotted time.
LD
Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. It's important to me that rate of speech remain more conversational. I want to understand and consider the arguments you present to the full extent possible and this is hard for me when the rounds get fast. I usually appreciate being able to view debaters' evidence on something like Speech Drop, but please don't expect that I am reading along word for word with you. Otherwise, I appreciate courtesy between opponents; clear sign-posting; and impact analysis that makes my job as easy as possible.
Thanks and I'm looking forward to seeing you all in-round!
Tim Elizondo - ColumCol
n/a
Tina Lim - SJSU
n/a