I am a former policy debater (and 2003 IR WA state champ, yo.) and current English teacher (11th grade, AP Lang and Comp) and debate coach in Eastern WA. I have mostly judged policy the past few years, but am very familiar with public forum as well. As far as my judging paradigm, I will listen to anything you want to try and sell me on. The weirder you go, the stronger your link chains need to be. Tell me exactly where to flow things when we get into the weeds so that I can find them when you want me to; I expect roadmaps at the top of speeches and appreciate good signposting.

For policy: I am not a fan of running a ton of off case on the neg with the plan to kick a bunch of it later. It isn't an immediate voter, but will probably harm your speaking points, because it stops really good clash from happening and wastes everyone's time. I would rather listen to the things you actually find relevant to your case. When running T, be sure you have super clear criteria for why the team does not meet your definitions. I'm fine with speed, but if you are really unclear, I probably won't tell you, I will just not get everything you want me to get. Only spread if you are able to do so with clarity.

For all debate styles: above all else: impacts, impacts, impacts! I need to know why the things you say are going to happen matter, and I need to see a path to get there. Re specifics on speeches: Give your own. I won 't flow anything that is verbally given by your partner or anything the non-speaking partner says to the judge. There is a reason speeches are split, and they should stay that way. AMA else in round.