Clint "C.J." Clevenger
School: None
Years Judging: 10+
Rounds on Topic: 0
Last Updated 2023

ImportantUpdate: For those who don't know, I have stopped officially coaching and judging at this point, which means that I have stopped cutting cards and keeping a detailed account of the topic, I might not even know the topic at this point. For those of you filling out prefs who might recognize my name from years ago (you are probably a coach now) who have had me previously as a judge and were accustomed to me being deeply on top of the topic, consider this fair warning.

General:I enjoy watching very technical debates with good strategies. This guide is to get you to a point to win the debate with the best speaker points possible. Arguments need to pass the common sense test (i.e. the use of logic)…There are 3 parts of an argument Claim, Warrant, and Data, your arguments need to use all 3, otherwise they cease to be arguments. It helps to point out missing items of these if you are the opposing team. FLOW!FLOW! FLOW! FLOW! My flow is a written account of the debate and how I make my decision. You should be flowing the debate and use the line by line to answer arguments that the other team is making.

Clarity: SLOW DOWN!!! You are not as clear as you think you are! I don’t call for many cards (read almost zero) unless I need them to clarify and argument or compare the warrants that were discussed by teams. I don’t think it is my job to read your evidence to determine what it says. I do think it is YOUR job as a debater to communicate both with me and the other team what that evidence says and means. Speech docs are not an alternative to your spoken word. I expect to be able to understand every word that you say. The text of the evidence that you read is the most important thing you read in debate because it is what gives you the warrants to win debates in front of me. I think debaters would be well advised to slow down to 85% of their top speed, because you are not as clear as you think you are. Important notes: I will call clear if I can’t understand you twice. After that I will give non-verbal signals like putting my pen down and staring at you. You should take this as a clue that I have quit flowing your arguments and they at that point cease to be arguments in my mind in the round. Your speaker points will suffer if I am yelling clear. Debaters should feel free to make arguments during their speech about the clarity of an argument that the other team made, I will give non-verbals if I agree or not. This is a good way to show me two things: 1. that you are listening to the speech and not just reading the speech doc and 2. that you are probably flowing. Both of which are likely to help your speaker points.

Voting Speed:I have been told that I vote very quickly. Most of the time I already know what the nexus issues in the debate are that I have to resolve for me to make a decision, once I have identified these, decisions come quickly. If you want to win, I would recommend you start to identify them as well. Often times I do not call for cards. This is because I am not going to sort through your evidence to find the warrants in it to support your arguments. You should be doing this work not me. If you are not doing it, that is probably a reason that you will lose the debate. This is a spoken activity; I listen to all of the speech, not just the tags. I do this because I want to list to what your evidence actually says (you know the warrants you are supposedly reading that you have not highlighted out of them). I expect clarity through the entire speech, if you are not able to perform this, then you are wasting your breath. I flow warrants of evidence and I also flow the Cross-X.

Topicality:Competing interpretations really make sense to me. Reasonability seems pretty circular. I am a judge will to vote on T. The biggest problem that I see in T debates is the lack of internal link and impact work in the standards debate. Painting a picture for me of what the topic looks like under your interpretation (usually large or small) and WHY that interpretation is best for debate is the simplest that I can break it down. Too often teams just say, here is our interp and we/they are in/out of it. That is not enough, because the inclusion/exclusion of one case does not make a topic. It is all of the other things that your interp allows/excludes that make the topic, it is really just happenstance that it excludes/includes the affirmative.

Kirtiks:I am getting there. I have read some lit now, I am coming along slowly. Still think I am not the best judge for the K, but there is not an ideological predisposition for voting against it. Read more below on the "performance" debate section about teams that want to pref me who go for the K. I think the same things apply here as well. Sometimes I get lost, once I am lost, like most people I tend to seek ground in debates that I am familiar with, this probably means aff arguments like No V2L without Life and case outweighs or permutation arguments.

Performance/Non-Resolution Engaging AFFs: In my ideal world I think the Affirmative should defend some form of engagement of the resolution. My predisposition does not require the defending of a "plan" but does incline me to believe that the AFF should certainly engage the idea that there should be an (insert action of the resolution here) Now, saying that I think the AFF should engage the resolution does not mean they have to, nor do I have a predesignated will to vote against teams that choose not to. I will and have listened to debates about the state of debate and other things. The difference in my comfort has to do with a level of understanding of arguments. I will be honest. The more often I am prefed into these debates and watch them I think the better understanding I will have for the arguments, allowing me to develop a better skill set as a judge. If you are a team chooses to debate in this style, I understand the perceived risk in prefing me, I will definitely say I am not a perfect judge for this style of debate right now, but to be clear - this is a statement of a willingness to learn and expand upon my capabilities as a judge. So on that note - I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to both broaden and sharpen my skills.


Theory:Still have yet to hear a good reason that makes sense for conditionality, especially when used in conjunction with contradictory arguments. I spend a lot of time coaching and thinking about theory. I actually don’t mind theory debates. I give 2ARs and 1ARs a little more leeway in going for theory, but the argument still needs to be there for the 2AR from the 1AR. I want to hear a warrant for your argument not 7 points of blip. I think 3 good warranted arguments are better than 7 sentences about 7 different things. That being said, plenty of people run conditional arguments in front of me, and it still takes the right arguments from the AFF to win conditionality debates. That being said I think I voted AFF on condo bad when the AFF went for it in the 2AR (does not need to be the whole speech, but you need to invest some time to get it done) probably around 80% of the time. Most of the other theory questions you have about CPs will be answered below.

Counter-Plans:I think most CPs are legit. You should have some form of solvency advocate for your CP. Evidence about the link to the net-benefit is not a solvency advocate. In these instances lit checks abuse for the most part. Be willing to spend time talking about the impact. So be willing to do an impact comparison that "if I reject the argument not the team, then they d/n have a cp to solve case, which was conceded by the 2NR and it outweighs their net-benefit without a CP" This will get you a very long way. NEG read the inverse if you think you are schooling them on the rest of the debate and this is their only way out, a little preempt will go a long way to better speaks. Consult CPs/Condition CPs/PICs are a different monster. AFFs too often fail to debate or understand the normal means, that can get them out of a lot of the consult debates. PICs out of words are probably not the best strat in front of me. There are a TON of CPs on this topic, and there is zero reason why we should not debate them. International fiat is a risky endeavor. I can be sold either way.

Rebuttals (specifically 2NR/2AR):This is where you should be comparing impacts for me and explaining how I should vote. A good impact comparison does more than just magnitude, timeframe, and whatever.. it actually compares your impact risk in relation to their impact risk. Reality is you are not winning all of your arguments. You will start to lose fewer debates once you can realize what arguments that you are and are not losing. This is the speech that you have to think like a judge. The tag line in the rebuttals is not an argument, you need to be drawing distinctions between the text of your authors and theirs and giving me reasons why your evidence or analysis answers their arguments and theirs does not answer yours and what that means to me in how I should evaluate those claims. Seem like a lot to do? Really helps if you are setting this up in the block and 1AR. Just remember that if I have to do work for you, you might not like the outcome…..


Speaker Points:Some have asked me about how I assign speaker points. So the things I think about when I am assigning speaker points are (in no particular order), clarity, delivery, style, strategy, success, how bad you made my flow look (I flow unlike you. My flow is how I decide the debate, the more painful you make my life the more pain I inflict on your speaker points. Line-by-line argumentation is good, and is a dying art. Note: this is about the umpteenth reference in my judging philosophy to flowing...it might be important!

Debated at Missouri State and graduated in 2004

Executive Director of DEBATE-Kansas City until 2017

Assistant Coach and then Head Coach at Barstow starting in 2018

Online update - I have done little online judging, so I don't know how it may alter my ability to understand top-end speed. Based on the other judges, it seems going a touch slower and focusing on clarity helps judges get more on the flow.

Yes, I want to be on the chain, and please be as efficient as possible with the emailing. Email: gabe.cook@barstowschool.org.

I am open to almost any argument, but I defer policy. I like a compelling narrative, especially in the link debate. I value both technical skills and argumentative truth. Clarity and flowability will increase speaker points and chances of winning.

T - I defer to reasonability on T and I do not mind larger topics. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote on T if you win the argument. Limits can be the cleanest standard for the neg to win but I also find ground loss important to provide context. I want both sides to explain the model of debate your interp creates and impact why it’s comparatively better.

K-AFF/Framework - I am fine with kritik affs, but I will also vote neg on framework. TVAs can be persuasive for the neg, and both sides should focus on what their model means for debate. I believe k affs need a topic link and a clear method for the negative engage. I lean towards believing you do not get a perm in a method vs. method debate.

Case - Here is where I copy and paste from every judge paradigm and say I want more case debate. I dislike AFFs with lousy internal links, and I will reward NEGs that take the time to point out flaws in AFF ev.

K - You need a specific link, and I appreciate it when debaters use lines from the 1AC to get a link. I am open to voting on presumption/turns case. But you need to explain how the K actually eliminates solvency and/or turns the case, and contextual examples help.

By default, I evaluate ontology, epistemology, discourse, and AFF consequences through the lens of link and impact rather than as something resolved or excluded by debate theory.

NEG FLEX - I generally believe the negative should have the flexibility to run a K and disads as long as they don't try to create and go for double turns.

DA - The starting place is to be on the right side uniqueness. Then I need a compelling link story contextualized to the AFF. Impact comparison is obviously essential. I will vote on effective AFF criticism and/or takeouts of low probability disads.

When I debated I went for politics often, and I still cut a lot of politics cards. For me, uniqueness research determines the viability of any politics DA. I don’t like forcing a story because of the links or impacts. I appreciate nuanced and clever link stories, and I will reward NEG teams that have a compelling link story.

CP - I like core of the topic CPs and smart PICs. I dislike process CPs with little topic literature that compete only at a textual level. I also dislike consultation CPs. This doesn't mean I refuse to vote for them, but that I am receptive to theoretical objections and solvency arguments.

Condo/Advocacy Theory - I believe the fairest standard is to give the NEG one conditional CP and one conditional K. Or I think you can have unlimited dispositional advocacies. The more advocacies the neg runs, the more grounds the aff has for a condo argument.

Points

29.6 – 30 – Approaching perfection to perfect.

29.1-29.5 – Excellent

28.5 – 29 – Above average to very good.

28.4 – Average

28.3– 27.7 – Slightly below average to below average

27.6 – 27 – Below average to well below average.

26.9 and below – Bad to potentially offensive.

Hi!

My name in Matheno. I have been a participant of this activity for about over 17 years. I started to debate in High School out of the DKC Urban Debate League. I emerged onto the national circuit my novice year in 2004. I have attended debate camps at University of Iowa, University of Missouri Kansas City as well as the University of Louisville. "Performance" debate is mostly how I approached debate as a framework. Do not call it Performance debate. Debate itself is a performance. I do understand what many call "traditional debate." It's how I got introduce to this activity. I just felt better equipped as a debater dozing into what felt more authentic for me. I judge my debates on what is on the flow sheets. If its not on the flow then I cannot evaluate it. Speed does not mean to forfeit persuasion. I will listen to mostly everything. I like new and different arguments. I was a big fan of K arguments and of course ran many Kritiks. I am now a staff member at the Bay Area Urban Debate League as a Program Manager. I have been a judge every single year since I left debate as a competitor. I love this activity! I have assisted BUDL, DKC and also Atlanta Urban Debate League. Write the ballot for me. If I have to do a lot of framing and impact calculus myself then I don't think you did much coverage of handling the flow. Write the RFD for the judge. Who knows what may happen if you leave it in my hands. I have a very queer mind.

Email thread: bfandbo@gmail.com

I have debated for 7 years, first in middle school then high school at Sumner Academy. I've also volunteered as an assistant coach for 4 years. My default judging paradigm is as follows:

Tech or truth?:

Im very middle ground. I want structure to speeches, and if one team drops arguments from the other side I am inclined to vote them down. However reading 10 cards is not very engaging nor helpful, id much rather have arguments explained to me than read at me. 10 crappy cards can be beat by one good analytical if properly executed.

Theory/spreading:

By the end of my career I found myself running theory more and more and am a fan when it's applicable. When the AFF (or neg) starts being abusive, I think the neg should call them out, even if it doesn't lead to the main argument by the 2NR (or 2AC).

In terms of spreading: I do not think spreading is good for debate. If both teams agree to spread, I can handle it, but please ask your opponents if spreading is ok. If one team doesn't want spreading, please respect that decision, and if you decide to spread anyway, and the other team reads spreading bad, Ill find it hard not to be compelled.

Policy:

Debated mostly policy Affs so I'm very familiar with technical policy stuff and jargon. Here's a rundown of my feelings on args:

Case: love me a good case debate, turns can make or break a round. Aff needs defend all stock issues to have a chance of victory. Don't forget that 1AC cards cross-apply to off-case cards 99% of the time.

DA: LOVE DA'S, one of the best args out there. The link/internal link debate is always make or break for the DA, but UQ answers can also stop a DA. Impact answers alone are not enough to win against a DA

CP: Not bad, am ok with PICs but can be convinced their not fair. In terms of condo, I think the neg can drop the CP whenever but shouldn't run more than 2 counter advocacies. The neg dropping a CP doesn't mean the perm drops (unless I'm told that's wrong).

T:

I will vote on Topicality if it is either A) inherently clear the AFF is un-topical, or B) the AFF fails to adequately answer T.

Ks:

On the neg I'm very open to the K debate, though not too familiar with lit outside of genetics, I'll probably need explanation. Links can serve as case turns and can independently win rounds, but the alt is the #1 part of the K.

On AFF im pretty cool with K Affs except for a caveat (which I will get to). I don't really buy T or policy/state good args unless mishandled and I think these affs have a role in debate. HOWEVER, I hate rage politics or personal attacks against opponents. I get why calling your opponent racist or sexist helps your case, but it makes me disinterested, bored, and unable yo take your position seriously. If the opponents take the heat I'll listen but the moment they call you out it's an immediate loss. If you still want to run rage politics, direct your rage at the system or me: I can take the heat it's fine.

However almost everything (minus rage politics) can change!: If you explicitly give me a framework/role of the ballot, I will vote on your interpretation based on clash with the other team, not with my own paradigm. Please understand that while I have my preferences, they’re not static.YOU have the power to convince me to completely change my paradigm, and I implore both teams to exercise this power.

Do not hesitate to ask any clarifying questions if needed. Thanks :)

Hello!

My name is Desmond Mason and I possess 10 plus years of policy debate experience between debating in high school and college and coaching middle school and high school debaters. My paradigm is tabla rasa: I tend to judge based on the arguments from the participants and I try not to do extra leg work that wasn’t done within the debate. Impact calculus is very key in my decision making, so effectively debating the gravity of your position in opposition to your opponents position goes a long way with me.

I debated 1 year in High School earning a NFL Ruby. I then debated two years in college placing in the top 5 on our circuit. I have coached Middle School debate for 14 years. I am a flow judge and base my decisions on argumentation.. I am not a fan of speed talking or of Kritiks. I want to hear about Inherency, significance, harms, and solvency, Counterplans are acceptable, Topicality can be an issue if argued well.

Middle school debate coach for 5 years, Language Arts teacher for 10. Have clear arguments that show you firmly grasp the stock issues and your (and your opponent's) claims and reasoning. I'm not picky on types of arguments, just don't wait until rebuttals or cross-x to make it clear (beyond reading cards) why what you're saying matters; you should be explaining that each step of the way.

As a Language Arts teacher, any creativity that helps make the story you're telling through your debate more interesting and appealing is welcome (debate should be fun!). Just keep it grounded in reality, have strong clash, and clear impact calculus.

I oversee the program at my school as head coach. Having said that, I am a pretty traditional judge. Trickery, excessive speed, and jargon usage are not appreciated and could lose you the round. Gain the advantage by demonstrating the coherence of your presentation, the strength of your argument, and the accuracy of your supporting data. I will only reveal if asked to do so by the tournament organizer. I will not provide verbal feedback. The ballot is intended to serve those two purposes.

When assessing you, these are some of the things I look for when judging.

1. Speak slowly and clearly. Learn to judge adaptability if you are accustomed to speeding. You've lost the round if I can't follow your reasoning and comprehend what you're saying.

2. I prefer empirical data; attempting to win an emotional debate will not win you the round.

3. I prefer cases that are well-planned and logical; I want to be able to draw connections between the many points.

4. I'm not as skilled at flowing as someone who judges PFD on a weekly basis, but I can still flow and can tell if you are doing the same.

5. DO NOT BE RUDE. I can handle assertiveness, but it's not appropriate to yell, ridicule opponents, roll your eyes, shake your head, or act in general contempt.

My judging paradigm is pretty simple.....I want to see a good debate with a lot of clash. Take the argument, and give your response and your warrants. Tell me why that argument is a voter, why I should vote for your team. Why does the argument matter. For example, if you decide to present a philosophy that should be considered before the policy, then you need to tell me why that's important. How will it impact not only my decision, but the round.

I'm pretty much willing to listen to most arguments, but the debaters need to make it compelling. An hour of silent protest might be interesting for the debaters, but it isn't a very compelling argument. Debaters need to show respect for one another, not lose their temper, and show respect for what is a truly wonderful activity.

brubaie at gmail -- Please add to email chains, thank you

Updated March 2022 for championship season -- congratulations yall!

1. Just do what you do and do it well.I like every "style" of debate and have been lucky to debate, coach, or judge most over these past two decades. Thank you for being stewards of a beautiful game at a pivotal moment in debate history.

2. Above all. The 2NR/2AR should clearly describe what the most important issue(s) in the debate are, why they're the most important issues, and how voting your way best addresses them. Choose, compare, and dig in on a few A+ arguments over a greater volume of A- arguments.

3. Framework. I judge quite a few framework debates and like them. I don't have a strong "lean," but I do notice some slight trends;

-- For the neg, I often find that leaning on fairness/some procedural impact is best. It's the thing the neg's interp most often clearly solves relative to a counter-interp. I think the TVA + aff doesn't solve combo is an effective strategy. I often find that lots of direct pushback vs. case (even without evidence) is necessary and effective. If you don't win some significant defense to the aff it can complicate most paths to victory.

-- For the aff, it helps to clarify a role for each side and to negate/impact turn the neg's interp from there. If you don't have a description of why debating the aff is good and/or how the other team can engage then it can complicate most paths to victory. I am more moved by "here's what the neg could do" than counter-interpreting "resolved."

4. Evidence quality. It's very important, but the key to activating it in my RFD is rebuttal framing. The way evidence is utilized and framed in the final rebuttals is usually the most important variable in how I assess it. The easiest way to hypothesize which evidence I read is a simple if/then: if I hear a clip/quote/even an author name referenced directly in the last speech then I'll 100% read it. Beyond that I'll read for comprehension but that is less likely to drive the outcome of my RFD than direct framing by debaters.

5. Counterplans/theory. Not the worst judge for a funky counterplan. Most common 2AC theory objections seem like competition concerns remedied by kicking the counterplan. I'm not terrible for conditionality bad, but that's almost always because of tech concerns like a flippant block that doesn't answer the 2AC than truth concerns like any real aversion to conditionality (I generally think it's good).

6. Topicality. I haven't really judged a big T throwdown this year. If you prefer someone with no set preferences I'm great, but if you want someone to adhere to consensus I'm afraid I'm unsure what consensus is and will need more explanation than most. Despite my unfamiliarity with many interps, T has generally been an efficient/low-risk/high reward block option in past rounds I've judged.

7. Critiques. The more a K identifies specific parts of the 1AC/2AC that it disagrees with, the better. The aff should attempt to identify which parts of the aff are offense, why only the aff solves them, and why they outweigh. I generally think the aff gets to weigh the aff and most neg framework arguments just seem like impact calculus.

8. National championships!! Congrats again yall :) March 2022 will mark my first tournament judging in person since February 2020. I am thrilled to see you all again and to celebrate all you've done for debate. I know it's the national championship and it's tough to relax, but try as hard as you can to just have fun and enjoy it. Debate goes by way too fast and is very easy to take for granted. Sending all who read this the best of luck and hope you can lift each other up and give each other some really fun, challenging debates to end the season.

Jayden Sampat

they/them

yes, put me on the email chain: jsamdebate@gmail.com

email chain >> speech drop (but do what you must)

Barstow '24 (immigration, arms sales, criminal justice, water, nato, econ inequality)

Wake Forest '28

if you have any accommodation requests email me or ask me before the round. also email me abt any questions you have before the round

TLDR

you do you. I enjoy all arguments and styles and i will evaluate everything evenly as long as it isn't a harmful arg (i will give u a loss and tank your speaks for any intentional misgendering, racism, queerphobia, misogyny, etc). have fun, don't stress- ik that’s easier said than done but do your best and lmk if there's any way I can help make debate a good learning experience for you.

basic things

-most of what I've learned is from Lucia Scott, Alaina Walberg, and Maeve Ella

-speed is good, but clarity is better. if you can spread really fast, go for it, but make sure you are clear. i will clear you 3x before I give up flowing. and I have auditory processing issues so I may clear you more than a different judge

-open cx is fine, but I don't want you to not let your partner ask any questions during their cx

-JUDGE INSTRUCTION. please spend a few seconds in your rebuttal speeches writing out my ballot for me. what impact should i put first in this debate and why? if u don’t do this then idk what i should evaluate first so even if it’s just a little bit, pls do it.

-ask questions after the round. i want to help you understand things. also feel free to email me after the round for any questions

Preferences:

The biggest thing is have fun and learn something. I would rather watch a round where you all are enjoying yourselves than one where it looks like everyone is about to lose their temper, and in general you will take a lot more from the round if you’re enjoying it. also, respect others and yourself- debate is an educative space where we all can learn, pls don’t ruin that for some by being disrespectful, misogynistic, homophobic, etc (i will fill out my ballot then and there and give u lowest possible speaks)

Topicality:

I am an insufferable T debater. I love topicality. especially against clearly untopical affs. its so fun. do what you want to do here and ill sit back and enjoy the show. also love t substantial

DA

Love a good disad debate. Also love when an aff straight turns it. any da is fun to judge

CP

Love counterplans too, especially ones with a case turn as the net benefit. dont forget sufficiency framing and make sure you impact turn the other adv if going for an adv cp. not the best for a bunch of process cps, i get lost in theory debates pretty easily esp if you are spreading theory blocks.

Kritiks:

my favorite part of debate but also probably means i hold you to a higher threshold of explanation than i do on other off case positions. am most familiar with cap, queer theory, Baudrillard, and biopolitics, but as long as u explain ur worldview im good. if you are going to go for the k in the last speech, please know what your alternative does - unless ur going for fw. Im also down to judge a good framework debate, as this is what my partner and I often go for. make sure you do impact calc on here because that will factor greatly into my decision (if your impact is structural violence, i need you to tell me why i should weigh that over the aff’s nebulous extinction impacts. usually something along lines of “aff isn’t probable now and our constant desire to avoid their extinction claims results in the worsening of structural violence”)

Case:

i know this is on everyone’s paradigm but case is underrated, and i think all teams should do more work here. i love watching impact turn debates on case, and will definitely vote on them. i also will vote neg on presumption, assuming the neg successfully constructs those args out in the 2nr. my 1nr is usually only case, so id love to see a good case analysis, even if its only a couple minutes

Speaker Points

I start with a 28.5 for speaks and move up or down from there. 29 means I think you should break, 29.5+ means I think you should be in late elims.

I have given one 30 before, and it was to the best middle school debater I've ever seen

Topicality is the most important issue. Is there a problem? Is there a solution? If the answer to either of these questions is no than what are we doing here? Tied to this than is solvency. Is the solution practical? Does the proposed solution create more problems than it solves? Debate should solve problems not create them. I am looking for what inherencies need to be addressed. Again debate is about solving issues everything should flow from that.

Please ask if you would like more details

Owen Snyder

Junior @ The Barstow School

owen.snyder.debate@gmail.com

I want to judge the arguments that you want to run. I believe that asserting my argumentative preferences is a fundamental hindrance to the aspirations and unique preferences of each debater in the activity.

That being said, i'm not super knowledgable on kritik literature outside of the basics (i.e. cap, security, fem ir, setcol, etc.), so if you are reading something which isn't as 'mainstream', please add some additional explanation of the thesis of the kritik for the sake of my understanding.

Clipping will result in an automatic L, though I will allow the round to finish. I define clipping as missing 5 or more words in a single card, though I reserve the right to vote you down for less. I don't distinguish between accidental and malicious intentions here.

PLEASE only read cards that are highlighted.If you read unhighlighted cards, your speaker points will go down.

If you have questions about specific arguments or desire clarification, you can feel free to ask me questions before the round or via email.

Debate:

- I would like to see:

- Money saved

- lives saved

- Great enunciation of words, and powerful young speakers

- Not a huge fan of spreading

- I love seeing new ideas

- Love seeing on case attacks as well

IE Forensics:

- I'm looking for the following

- Your own interpretation of the literature

-Good Memorization

- Understanding of the character

- Understanding of the entire literally selection

- Good characterization

- Projection