I'm a career coach who has coached/judged WSD at nationals for several years now. I try to judge the debate on what was said. I am looking for a theme or team line. I appreciate it when debaters simplify the debate in rebuttal speeches. I expect emotional appeals designed to make me feel something in and amongst all the arguments presented. I also find the team line useful because it helps anchor the story that unfolds in the debate. World schools is a conversation. It's about turn-taking, respect, composure, and a limited amount of arguments...In other words, the best 'conversationalists' should accrue enough points for their team to win. I enjoy the format of WSD and I appreciate how it is different than other styles of debate. Most debates are close at nationals; just don't let the line-by-line overwhelm the pressing need for you to make me feel something. I'm a former policy debater...so i'll get the arguments on the flow. I just think that the 'face' we create in addition to our standard offense/defense is super important in WSD because it really humanizes the debate for me and helps me see and feel things that I might not see or feel in other forms of debate.

hi, I’m a sophomore at Greenhill

email: ahnm26@greenhill.org

Notes:

-I should be okay for most things

-tech > truth

-default competing interps but can be persuaded otherwise

-presumption flips when an advocacy is read

-process cps are probably abusive

-kritiks should hv links to affs and not just the squo
-please no tricks or frivolous theory

-nothing harmful or discriminatory should happen in round

-have fun!

I love mahehar, Vivek, and Ali

+0.1 speaks if you reference Liverpool's 1-3 exit by Atalanta in the Europa League

I am a junior who debates VLD for the Greenhill Debate Team. Try to share docs: don't mind if it's an email chain or speech drop - try not to spend too much time doing this so we can keep the debates going! My email is cyberdragon.pobo@gmail.com - feel free to reach out if you have any questions. He/him pronouns

!!FOR JUNIOR NATIONALS: Ignore the rest of me yapping - just have fun! I will focus on the debate being as educational as possible and as long as you know what you're doing I'll evaluate based on that. Just make sure to explain to me in your last speech why you win the round over your opponent! Have fun and feel free to email me if you have any questions!

General Stuff:

Overall, I've gone for all kinds of args: K, Trad, T, etc. Have debated/gone against phil and tricks but would still say I'm not the most knowledgeable on these - and would prefer you don't read the latter (honestly feels bad for debate).

Preferences:

1 - LARP, Trad, T, CPs, DA, etc.

1.5 - Ks/K Affs (Love these both casually and in debate but just make sure to explain it and that you know what you're talking about)

2- Theory (within reason, stuff like Condo, CP Theory, etc. are all good)

2 - Identity Stuff (Love this stuff on a general level, not so much in a debate sense. If you can do it well enough I will vote for it. Also be very thorough and warranted if you go for an IVI debate. I often find debaters throwing this around in very dumb manners to get ballots - please actually explain the point if you want the ballot.)

3- Friv Theory/Phil (Be a bit more hand-holdy and take ur time to explain this stuff to me)

4- Tricks (please dont)

Speed: I can go up to about a 6-7/10, but clarity should be still present when you speak. Going into "card mode" is fine but during analytics, tags, and big points try to slow down and articulate. I will indicate when clarity is an issue in round and I hope that you adapt accordingly. Slow down on analytics especially if not on the doc - and maybe give me some pen time if I'm flowing on paper (switch between laptop and paper depending on my mood lol)

Speaks: Start at 28.5 and go up or down depending on the speeches. If ur racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. its an instant L 25.

Other:

• I usually flow CX or make note of what happens, but to bring something into my decision bring it up in your speeches
• Clash = good debate, don't try to play around answering your opponent.
• I'm not the best with RVIs on Theory/T so go slow with these. Err aff on friv theory RVIs and err neg on T RVIs.
• Big on weighing, crystallization, all that stuff - make sure to explain your arguments and explain to me why you win!

Arg Specifics:

Framing: Nothing super preferential here but did want to make a note. I see too many debates devolve into FW v. FW versus actually explaining the plan, DA, etc. Understand your FW and depend on it sure, but always tie it back to your case and the debate!

Policy, DA, CPs, etc.: Do your thing. Just be careful with cheaty CPs/PICs and you really should have a warrant for them. Other than that, explain links/uniqueness/solvency well and ur good!

Ks: Love this if the link and alt make sense. Good for most generics (Cap, Set-Col, etc.) but err on the slow side just so I can wrap my head around your argument and fully understand it. Make sure you know what you're talking about and make sure to explain to me the solvency/weighing of the alt/perm when doing so an you can fs win my ballot! Identity is cool as long as you can beat out T and explain to me why getting the ballot is important for the K - this stuff is painful to sit through if you botch it.

Th/Topicality: Default to reasonability > competing interps. A good 5-6 minutes of T can get you the ballot. Extend interps, violations, and explain to me why they don't meet and you should win - just don't be stupid with it. Theory isn't my strong point but I can pretty comfortably eval things like Condo, CP Competition, Vague Alts, etc. as offense and voters. Just don't get too crazy with it.

Phil: Just be slow with it and explain to me your argument. Not the most experienced here - but have some experience against stuff like Kant, Levinas, etc. Love the K v. Phil debate especially if both sides can go for it well.

Tricks: no

2NR/2AR: This speech can honestly make or break a debate for me. Do it well and it can get you a ballot, do it bad and you could throw away a lead. Collapse is always welcome and preferred. Emphasize why you win and weigh plz!

ABOVE ALL ELSE HAVE FUN AND BE RESPECTFUL!

+.1 Speaks for getting the reference in my email (Yay you read my paradigm) - let me know before the round

Feel free to reach out for any additional questions!

Jasper SG 24-25 Plano West SG 26-27

skandag8@gmail.com

judge anything but do LD but did pf for some time and did policy like once

For PF: run whatever you want in PF but given time constraints i don't understand how you're going to read a K

I will evaluate anything and want to evaluate diverse debates full of differing positions. This includes lay debate and nontopical identity-related 6 minutes of poetry cardless K affs.

Tech over truth. I do not share the sensibilities of judges who proclaim to be technical and then carve out an exception for death good, wipeout, or planless affirmatives. The only situation in which I will not vote on an argument is when forced to by the Tabroom.

This applies to everything. You do not get a blank check because your opponents’ arguments are “trolls” or “science fiction.” Whether something could be “read identically on a previous topic” has no bearing on whether it rejoins the affirmative. It is my experience and firm belief that the vast majority of judges who describe arguments in such a fashion are dangerously incapable of answering them.

i stole this from rafael pierry look at his paradigm

With that in mind, I will decide the debate based on the flow and nothing else.

Specifics:

Kritiks:

Run them well if you do run them. i'm fine with any sort of K

For the aff - converse theory, condo, all good

Have strong link arguments, aff specific links > generic state links, understand if it's cap on a K aff but otherwise more specific is better

K Framing takes out theory is a great argument that more teams should go for.

Make sure the alt can solve the k's harms

Counterplans:

Same alt stuff as K's

Multiplank is cool but be ready for abuse shells

You must prove net benefit to the counterplan and mutual exclusivity to the aff

Topic spec CP's are really ingenious and I love a good wacky counterplan

Disads:

Have strong internal links - politics, whatever is fine

Make sure your disad links before reading it - i've seen people read disads on nontopical affs that don't link and I hope i don't again

Have a fleshed out impact and do impact calc if your impacts are different than the affs - i.e the slow death of climate change outweighs our faces burning off for 5 seconds

K Affs:

Have solvency and be ready to fully flesh out your solvency in the 2AC/1AR/2AR - quick overviews into line by line debates are amazing for this

Read disads to fw and line by line standards - if you don't respond to standards and just read disads, you don't break the clash and i'm lost

Theory/T:

Please don't be the team that reads a 4 second we-meet and then loses to a shell they meet because the we meet was incomprehensible. I love a good T debate with carded responses and thought-out clash, but seeing a team that has done flawless on every other page lose because they don't respond to a shell they meet kills me.

If you do violate, I evaluate theory like any other argument but need much more instruction on reasonability, RVIs, and Counterinterps. I will not use any other knowledge other than what I am given in round on the T debate, which means you have to be good in the 2 about holding my hand through layers of clash.

I will evaluate friv theory

NC's:

Yes read them. Phil positions are interesting, but assume that I don't know anything about them. Contracts is my favorite

Tricks:

Sure - just collapse on a few good tricks instead of going for your whole 15 point underview in the 2

Misc:

2ar gaslighting is a lost art that must be found again. please put unique spins on your 2ars because they can win you the round

If you are weird in cross i will have a very high threshold to vote on an argument. If you say there are no rvis and go for an rvi in the 2nr even I will be confused. cross is binding...

Turn cameras on for online debate and speak into your mic

Play good music in cx or prep = up speaks;Funny jokes = up speaks; TASTEFUL jokes about Angel Ribo Ley or Ryan Chang in your speeches = up speaks; starting cross with "riddle me this..." = up speaks

I will evaluate the 30/29.9 speaks spike

Eval anything after x speech must have warrants in theSPEECH IT IS READ IN if you want me to vote for it - no 1nc/1ac blip and new contextualization

Have fun debating! Ask me anything before round

Debated for Greenhill for 4 years -- please put me on the email chain kesselmana24@greenhill.org

Don't do anything that ends with an ism. Speed is chill but be clear. I am good for anything that you feel you can explain to me simply. Always err on the side of over-explanation. I am new to judging so do impact calc and judge instruction -- you are not in a good place if I am left with a lot of floating pieces at the end of the debate and left to my own thoughts. I will evaluate the debate based on the flow and technical arguments made. The less truthful a claim is the lower the burden of responding to it is. Zero risk is a thing. The aff should defend a meaningful departure from the status quo.

No tricks. No frivolous theory please.

sophomore @Greenhill

koshys26@greenhill.org

tech>truth

I will attempt to evaluate any debate as objectively as possible so you should read whatever you're comfortable with. Speed is fine.

Don't be mean or say something offensive.

About Me: I am Pranav Krishnan. My email is pranavk.sky@gmail.com. Some additional information about me is that I am an LD debater, I go to CHS and am a sophomore.

Debate Prefferences: I value deep analysis, clear articulation, and evidence-backed arguments. I appreciate debaters who can effectively navigate impact and framework debates while providing clear explanations of their refutations. I look forward to your debates having clash and being educational.

email chain plz - aaron.kuang1228@gmail.com

Email: lees24@greenhill.org - Used to debate for Greenhill

Hi. The AFF should defend a meaningful departure from the status quo. Bring your best and have fun! I'm not a robot, so I always appreciate it when you make the debate interesting and engaging.

My Thoughts:

1. Argument quality > Argument quantity

2. Collapsing, weighing arguments, and giving clear judge instruction is very important.

3. Speed is fine, just be clear. I'll tell you to be clearer if I can't understand you.

4. Tech > Truth but every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact.

5. Good for most strategies (Policy, Ks, T/Theory), but please don't read tricks in front of me. I understand theory as a strategic tool, but I'm not a fan of frivolous theory and am receptive to reasonability in these debates.

6. I'm going to need more explanation in Phil vs Phil debates.

7. Don't over-adapt to me. Bringing your best effort and having fun will result in higher speaker points.

8. If you're clearly better than your opponent, please make the debate simple so we can make the round more educational.

Hi, I’m Sankalp Mudaliar, I’m a Junior at NTH@C and am an LD debater.

paradigm:

add me to the email chain.

debate.sankalpm@gmail.com

Email format: ( “aff name” vs “neg name” - “tournament name” - rd #) - or something that has all of that

TLDR:

• I'm okay with speed
• I flow
• off time roadmaps please
• I like impact calc and judge instruction
• don't be disrespectful
• have fun :)

Speaks

im generous

27 and below: you did something bad (check things cause that below)

28-28.9: good job

29-30: good job x2

Things that lower speaks:

* Any isms (racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc) will be a L w low speaks

* Being disrespectful to your opponent (be nice)

* Misgendering, respect peoples pronouns, if not listed, default to "my opponent" and they/them

speed: idc, just slow on tags, send me the docs, "spread" analytics at your own risk because i might not catch them

wont effect speaks, unless I like absolutely cannot understand you

LD

my event woo

Evaluation stuff:

FW: most important, tell me clearly why I should evaluate the round w your framing, and induct your opponents

Policy args: yes please! I understand this, go for it!, make sure to weigh

Trad: same thing as policy :), just weigh fw for sure

DAs: I understand this, go for it!

CPs: I understand this go for it! make sure to explain net benefits, and net benefits of perm if you're aff

Theory: within reason pls

Default to competing interps, drop the debater, fairness is an i/l to education, etc.

No friv theory pls: if its frivolous ill be highly persuaded by reasonability

theory for in round abuse and high chance ill vote on it

please make sure the shell is understandable, if i dont get it, i cant evaluate it properly

Ks: at your own risk

Just tell and explain to me what your scholarship says: I wont do the work for u but dont expect alot either, just make it so its understandable and please tell a story!

If youre a novice only run if you actually understand the literature and all, butchered ks are painful

I'm not well versed with every literature but doesnt mean I wont evaluate it

Phil:not preferred

chances are high that im not familiar with the lit, so you would have to do alot of work "dumbing it down" for me

if its basic value criterion sure but dense phil fws i am probably not the best for it, i have trouble understanding it but if u go for it, pls crystalize it in the 1ar and 2nr

I'm not a phil debater, so wont be the best for like specific feedback

tricks: no bruh, i won’t vote of extrapolations of a non warranted 1 line blip in the 1ac

other things:

*Please do impact calc! if i'm judging you you're probably a novice so all that means is tell me why ur impact matters more (under ur fw) or using things like magnitude, probability, timeframe, scope

*argumentation is great but weighing makes my job so much easier and i'm way more likely to vote for you

*please signpost! as novices yall can get really messy so it would mean alot to tell me what you're answering and what flow you're on!!

*wont flow new arguments in 2nr/2ar

*keep your own time, incase i forget

*send me a email or tell me if you ever feel unsafe during/after round, and lmk if theres anything i can do :)

*will disclose (if both teams want it) unless tournament rules say otherwise

PF and CX, WSD

Treat me like a lay parent judge that knows how to flow basically

see LD for what i like

* go at a reasonable speed, signpost, write the ballot for me

- for worlds just treat me like you would a parent

have fun and good luck!

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Hi, I'm Ayne. I'm a senior who debates for Greenhill.

Email chain: parka24@greenhill.org or speech drop.

TELL ME WHAT TO VOTE FOR, give me one argument to vote for and tell me WHY, please be clear!

Slow down for analytics especially if you don't send them!!!

I'm not the most comfortable evaluating theory or Ks but I will if I have to - read at your own discretion. Don't be mean.

Bye :) see u in round

I am a traditional judge (don’t spread). I encourage you to use Value clash and weighing frequently. Stats and evidence is needed to support your arguments (my coach taught stats)- don’t just state them in your constructive. Your arguments that are extreme (war, extinction,racist, etc) need to be legitimatized. I don’t just buy the extreme arguments unless you prove they’re probable. Philosophical arguments aren’t as compelling without data. Use pathos too, it helps. Furthermore, my decision is made based on the Rebuttal. That’s what the focus of the debate should be. If you want me to focus on a point, say it in the rebuttal for it to factor into my decision. The Neg constructive is also the first neg rebuttal. Also, extend evidence. I admire weighing. Don’t just say your argument is better. Place your argument and your opponent’s on a scale, show me how your are comparatively better. Watch hot words in resolution like “on balance” or “just”. Advance the debate, evolve arguments to respond to what’s being said. Speaker points and speaking ability is a big help and your speaker points will be given accurately. Also, be polite! Use your cx to clarify, poke holes, and expose. Finally, keep your time and remember your prep. JUST BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION SAYS OUGHT DOESN’T, IN THE SLIGHTEST, MEAN YOUR VALUE NEEDS TO BE MORALITY!! Your value needs to match the content of your case.

I debate as a Junior for Greenhill. I'm fine with an email chain or speechdrop, please just get the files sent as quickly as possible so we can move on to the actual round. Please include both on the email chain: ghspsdebate@gmail.com, greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

I have been coached/taught primarily by Mr. Rodrigo Paramo, Dr. Allie Chase, and Mr. Aaron Timmons.

For Junior Nationals: Read anything; please disclose.

TL;DR:

1 - LARP (CPs, DAs, T), Traditional, Generic Ks

2 - Theory, Identity Ks, Pess

3 - Phil, Confusing Ks (Baudrillard, Nietszche, etc.)

4/Strike - Friv Theory, Tricks

Speed is good if you are clear. Despite my extensive yapping, debate how you want and have fun :)

General Stuff:

I flow on paper; please give me pen time especially when switching flows. Roadmaps are good, overly detailed ones hurt you more than they help. Tech > Truth.

I think CX is a core part of debates and is always binding. Flex prep is good if both debaters agree.

Speaks start at 29, past ~29.7 you'll need to be near perfect in your clarity, signposting, and overall argumentation but I am a speaks fairy until there. (NOTE FOR NOVICES) If you give me an easy decision by the end of the debate then the lowest you can go is a 29.3.

DAs and CPs - Love these, typically will be more aff leaning for cheaty CP competition debates. Except for condo, 1AR theory defaults DTA. 0% risk is possible.

Ks - Pess is chill, overexplain the alt please. Confusing theories are confusing. Winning 1 link cleanly and extending it slowly is a lot more convincing than 5 independent turns that the alt probably doesn't solve.

Theory - Not the best judge for these kinds of debates. Meta-theory weighing is good, direct impact comparison is better. UVs are understandable but boring. 1AR restarts are really boring (write a better 1AC) but I'll evaluate them. Default Reasonability > Competing Interps. I hack for Reasonability v Friv Shells.

T-Framework - Threshold for voting on framework gets lower the further away an aff is from the topic. Win your model, not just your definitions. If I can't tell what the aff is supposed to do after the 2AR good luck.

Tricks - Things I don't vote on: hidden spikes, skep triggers, eval after X speech. Your speaks drop 0.2 for every spike you read. I hack for theory v tricks. If you win on a trick you get at max 28.5, if you lose you get a 26. I don't evaluate the 30 speaks spike.

Phil - Do it if you want but I will likely be lost. One liner calc indicts are boring and unpersuasive. I feel comfortable voting against something because I didn't get it. Please directly answer a ROB/ROJ.

Anything racist/sexist/homophobic is an instant L 25. I will tank speaks if you are blatantly or overtly rude to your opponent.

If you play good music during your prep time you get +0.2 speaks.

Hi!!

I am a parent judge so please do not just spew information and talk so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying. Also, do not say anything rude or disrespectful to the other speakers. Speech and debate should be a fun and educational event.

If there is one, please add me to the email chain: joytan8888@yahoo.com

To me, the best speeches are the ones that are (in order of importance) :

1. Well-Organized
2. Clear and Logical
3. Interesting and Persuasive

Remember that it is easiest for me to vote for you if you directly frame the ballot and explain why your side wins.

Good luck and have fun!

Hi folks,

This is Smitha Thomas. I am a parent judge and would love to be part of this journey with you.

I will be looking for 1) persuasion 2) structure to conversation 3) clarity and 4) respect.

I also prefer that you do not talk super fast with information overloaded. If I cannot follow, I will call out 'Speed'.

Please add me to the email chain :smitha_thomas82@yahoo.com

Good Luck !

Regards,

Smitha