I was a quite experienced debater, but that doesn't matter too much, other than that I understand most common phrases and common debate practice. My goal is to be the judge I wish I had.

I don't think I should have to say this, but please use evidence. Analytics are only good until an expert comes up. Nobody in my rounds are experts on anything brought up in round, so I expect real experts to be used. If no experts are used, I have to decide what's right and wrong.

I don't judge critiques unless both sides force me to, or if the K is run as a valid argument/contention. If you ignore the opposing teams critique, I will probably vote for you, unless the K is topical. Focus on debating the topic, not some K against the topic that my vote has literally no impact in changing. Something similar is true for theory. If you run theory to try to get an easy win, I won't vote for it. If someone doesn't sign up for a random wiki, that has literally nothing to do with debate. If your theory is for something valid and is run as a proper argument, I will consider it. Ex. Op team spreading and you have asked them to slow down.

I won't tolerate racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or other derogatory terms, and these will result in a loss and 20 speakers. The exception is if your evidence uses this word in an important quote or appropriate context. Same thing with swear words, except those won't result in an automatic loss. Hard swears can lead to lower speakers, even if said during prep or other similar times during round.

Framework should be used as a framing device. You need to tell me why it is important, and why you win under it. Failure to do either may prevent me from using your frameworks.

Speed should be kept to a reasonable speed. If you have to gasp for air to get your whole case out, I won't be able to understand. And I won't read a speech doc, because that's doing your leg work for you. I won't penalize slower speeds, and will always vote based on arguments. Speeches that are too fast tend to make me lose arguments, even if they were mentioned.

I may be inclined to vote for a team that sounds confident and projects compared to a team that mumbles and sounds unsure. My top priority as a judge is education, though, so I will always comment and vote mainly off of the arguments brought up in round, and how both teams can improve. But, like most speeches in history, being understandable and confident make people listen and take you more seriously.

Be nice to your opponents. You can stand or sit, figure it out with your opponents. Don't be overly mean or aggressive. Ask any questions about my paradigm before round. And have fun in the round. Believe you can win, no matter how hard a round may seem.

Email is tidbergjosh@gmail.com