Affiliations: Bard High School Early College Manhattan, Wellesley College, London School of Economics, DC Prep Edgewood, Fulbright Taiwan.

I have the most experience/comfort with judging PF and parliamentary formats and also have some limited experience with LD and CX. I have been participating in debate for 9 years as a coach and competitor in various formats.

You can contact me and add me to the email chain using this email: maya.rubin56@gmail.com.

General things applicable to all debate formats:

• I am very sensitive -- as I hope most judges are -- to the exploitation of inequities between teams. Particularly in evidence-based or more technical formats, do not do things like run theory on novices because you know they won't understand theory or use language on an ESL team that you can reasonably predict will be inaccessible to them. Similarly, in all formats, please be extremely cognizant of the way you discuss and characterize countries or groups to which you do not belong, particularly countries in the global south and marginalized groups.
• Be respectful to your opponents. When in doubt, err on the side of being overly so. I can't believe I have to put this in a paradigm, but do not do things like call your opponents stupid in your speech, yell at or berate or repeatedly interrupt your opponents in crossfire/cross-ex, or be rude to your opponents before/after the round.
• Off time roadmaps. I do not know why debaters use these, 99% of the time they are unnecessary. Unless you are doing something very wonky -- "my first argument, then their third, then framework, then my second" -- it is completely unnecessary and irritating, please do not do it. If you are following anything close to a normal structure, please just signpost well during your speech and assume I can keep up.
• Timing and finishing sentences. I will time you but I suggest you time yourselves. If you continue speaking after your time has elapsed, I will knock on the table. You may finish your sentence (or crossfire/cross-ex answer) if time runs out mid-sentence, but please do not abuse this. Often when the time runs out, I hear the longest run-on sentence I've ever heard in my life. Just finish up what you were saying and sit down.
• Weighing. There is no format of debate in which weighing is not essential. Weigh explicitly, early, and often. If not, you leave it up to me to intervene and weigh as I see fit. In absence of weighing, I use a utilitarian framework and prioritize the arguments that were warranted/mechanized best. I think this is the consensus among debaters of how weighing should work absent a clear in-round framework. However, I'm extremely receptive to non-utilitarian frameworks and weighing if offered by the debaters in any format.

Public Forum:

I believe that Public Forum debate, like any format, is what you make of it -- which is to say, as long as it's not inaccessible to your opponents, I am fine with pretty much any argument you want to run (except for counterplans, which are explicitly forbidden in PF rules). I do not believe my personal preferences or beliefs about the format should influence how you choose to debate. I view my role as the judge to be the neutral arbiter of whatever debaters put in front of me.

I am not familiar with the cutting edge of PF theory. That said, my lack of recent and specific experience should not imply that I am incapable of judging theory: I am very familiar with theory arguments in Parliamentary debate formats and I feel comfortable evaluating technical and theory arguments even when I haven't heard them before. That said, please make sure to fully and carefully explain the theory and how it should affect my ballot. And, as mentioned previously, do not run theory or other progressive arguments on teams to whom they are inaccessible.

Go as fast as you want as long as it is accessible to your opponents, but be clear.

No new responses past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary. Admittedly I am sometimes bad at throwing out new stuff, so if there's something important that is new in your opponent's case, it's a good idea to say so during your speech rather than just assuming I'll throw it out on my own.

I listen to crossfire and will occasionally note things down, but I consider crossfire non-binding unless something is brought up during a speech.

World Schools:

I probably undervalue style in comparison to many worlds judges, so you should prioritize coherent argumentation over style and rhetoric.

Mechanisms are always more persuasive to me than examples, and I will not drop an argument simply because it has no real-world examples.

Truth > tech. Do not blatantly lie because you think the opponent won't catch it. If something is obviously factually untrue, I will probably throw it out. Same goes for poorly mechanized arguments -- I will usually not evaluate a massive impact if you never mechanize how you access that impact and merely assert something happens.

CX/LD:

If I'm judging you in CX or LD, it's probably not a very good tournament or the tournament organizers were really desperate. I am not very familiar with these formats. If you are unlucky enough to have me as a judge, please treat me as a lay/relatively inexperienced judge. That said, unlike many lay judges, I don't have a preference against Ks, theory, etc if that's what you want to run, just make sure to explain them very clearly.

I will do my best to keep up, but please explain anything that wouldn't be intuitive to someone who's familiar very broadly with debate conventions but not the specifics or literature of progressive debate.