TLDR: I like saying everything I expect, but I don't expect all of you to read that. Instead, I'll keep it simple. I'm very traditional, consider me as such (I like convincing arguments and good delivery, but still expect sound messaging/arguments). What I value above all else in mostly extemp and debate (my main 2 fields) is a good grasp of the status quo, I HATE when people pretend to understand an issue. We play a game based on concepts like lives, livelihoods, and deaths based on issues; don't mock the lives we're talking about by trivializing the issue.

If you're interested in what I specifically judge on, read below:

Congress:

TLDR - I weigh delivery/argumentation/questioning on a 30/35/35 scale, no canned AGDs or rhetoric (I will know), and I will tell your coaches if you are rude to judges or competitors. I also think that the problem we've seen in modern extemp applies here - ANSWER. THE. QUESTION. (or) STAY. ON. TOPIC. Too many of you bums would be debating something like trafficking in the Indian Ocean and be perfectly okay with bringing up cornfields in Idaho as an impact.

Round structure -

1st aff - describe the problem, explain the solution, and frame what the aff and neg must prove throughout the debate.

IF YOU ARE NOT 1ST AFF, PUT CLASH WHENEVER POSSIBLE, I expect more and more clash as the round goes on.

1st neg - attack the legislation, put clash if you can.

early-round speeches - provide warranting on why 1st aff and neg are right respective to your side using clash to prove your side correct.

mid-round speeches - reframe the debate to be advantageous to your side based on debate that had happened already (there should be one on either side), whichever speech is better decides which side becomes more offensively focused in the late-round. This is THE hardest speech to give, so I won't dock points for not blowing my socks off.

late-round speeches - spend a lot of your time attacking arguments from throughout the round on the opposing side.

Crystal - summarize the debate, provide evidence as to why your side should win, weigh each side's major impacts, and explain why your side won.

PO -

I will start you at a 5, if you make ZERO mistakes, you MIGHT T4. If you make some mistakes, you'll drop down 6-8. If you are a bad PO, you will get my 9 (if I'm parli, I may even rank you lower). Just because other judges rank POs well, does NOT mean I necessarily will, you bang a piece of wood against a table often because you DID NOT prep, I literally could never weigh you the same unless you have a horrible/un-prepped chamber.

Extemp:

4-7 sources, answer the question.

IEs:

Don't be boring.

CX/PF/LD:

No spreading, no email chains, consider me lay and traditional.