Background: Hi, I'm Alexa (she/her)! I debated with Mount Vernon High School for 4 years, and did 2 years of policy before switching to congress for my last two years. I took 1st at state in congress this year and now I'm competing NPDA at Whitman College. I'll probably double major in english and gender studies... but the jury is still out on that one. I haven't kept close tabs on the HS debate world this year, so for LD and Policy assume that I don't have a ton of background knowledge on the topic.

Please include me on the email chain if you have one (grechisa@whitman.edu), and feel free to contact me with any questions you have before or after round.

Decorum: I reserve the right to vote teams down for behavior that is discriminatory in round. Being blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc creates tangible harm in the debate space for marginalized groups and as a judge I won't tolerate it.

I don't mind a round that feels more cutthroat and passionate, but please don't be condescending towards your opponents.

Speed: Right now I feel like I am somewhere in the murky waters between lay judge and experienced policy judge. I am ok with moderate speed, but speech structure is really important for my ability to flow. Please number your arguments and slow down on taglines. I've had fast rounds in parli but I am still adjusting to being able to comprehend spreading again, so I might need to slow you. This won't impact your speaks unless I have to slow/clear you multiple times and you don't adjust.

Ks: I love K debate, go for it on aff or neg. Main thing to remember when running a K aff is to toss in a couple of topic specific links, it makes it feel much more convincing to me. I'm well pretty versed in most of the commonly run Ks (biopolitics, capitalism, settler colonialism, queer identity, antiblackness, afropess, etc). However, if you are running more obscure literature you will have to do a little extra work on telling the story for me to be able to vote on it (an overview is always appreciated). I like to have a clear explanation of alt solvency and proof of that perms fail for the K to win.

I don't like hyperspecific ROBs because I buy that they'll always be exclusionary, I'd prefer that you convert any ROB stuff you have in your shell into regular points on framing.

Condo: I'm fine with the neg being conditional, but ESPECIALLY with Ks that are based on in round solvency I will buy that off case positions that conflict with the K hurt the in round representation you need for your alt. This won't be a voting issue unless it is brought up by the aff, but as the neg be especially careful to kick out of residual offense when collapsing.

Theory: I tend to have a high threshold for voting on T. T being a voting issue is debatable, but I do still think the aff still has to engage with the shell on the line by line level to beat it. If T is a clear winning strategy for the neg due to lack of aff engagement, I will vote on it but if there is another off case position you could collapse to it will probably be easier to win my ballot that way. Please tell explain the link between your standards and your voters, don't just say "fairness and education". For other theory arguments, I will always find them more convincing if there is proven in round abuse (I am most likely to vote on PICs being abusive and some of the more wonky perm texts being unfair). However, similarly to T if the neg is very clearly winning on the flow I could potentially find myself voting on it, just don't love doing it.

CP/DA: The usual, CPs should be competitive and DAs need a clear internal link story for me to be able to vote on them.

Speaks: I won't tank your speaks unless you are disrespectful in round, I honestly think they are based on judge prejudice a lot of the time so everyone will be getting somewhere between 28 and 30.