Previous experience: 11 years of coaching on the West and East Coasts (2000-2011), now in the corporate world.
Former LDer from Isidore Newman High School (1996-2000) who did extemp and congress as well. Former Ph.D. Candidate at Yale in contemporary political theory and Stanford B.A. in poli sci with minors in ethics and psychology. Academic work focused on theories of marginalization (especially intersectionality!)

Conflict: Isidore Newman

For a full explanation of my judge philosophy, Jenn Melin's philosophy is like 99% of my own, see the link here:

A few important distinctions:

Preflow BEFORE the round. The tab requires me to keep rounds on time, so if you show up to the room needing 3-5 minutes to preflow, I'll have to start the speech and/or prep time. We all have stuff to do---get the preflows done in advance (i.e. of the tournament!).

Don't waste time in flashing/managing electronics. I will start your prep time if you are taking an inordinate amount of time dealing with the tech of going paperless. It's your responsibility to manage that process efficiently--not my responsibility to be yelled at by the tab staff for running late.

I cannot flow LD speed. Standard circuit LD speed is incomprehensible as most debaters I've seen do not enunciate their words, do not use pausing, do not slow down for tags or key points, etc.
Therefore, you must speak no faster than "fast conversational." I will yell "clear" or "too fast" only once. After that, I will stop flowing. I will not read your "speech doc" as a substitute
for having core debate speaking skills. If you speak monotone, refuse to use voice variation or pausing and go too fast, I won't be able to flow your arguments.

I have a "meat and potatoes" (pre 2012) view of LD. I look for a standard (be it a criterion, burden, whatever) and the arguments that best meet that standard, usually looking for extensions and weighing and debaters who "write the ballot" for me.

No bad behavior. I have no patience or tolerance for student or coach "post rounding." I also have zero patience for in-person OR online bullying/harassment. I'm not volunteering as a judge to deal with or witness the kind of behavior which has been ever present on the circuit in the last 5 years, so refrain.

I am open to pre-fiat arguments, narratives, performances, metaphorical/critical Affs, etc. as I studied much of this stuff (and far more advanced/recent theories than is present in NDT). However, I do not hack for these positions. All arguments need to be well explained, impacted and technically sound. Hint: don't run skepticism or justice doesn't exist, or "racism good" stupidity (as one judge foolishly voted). I'm happy to intervene (especially if asked to do so) and give Ls and 0s were appropriate.

Theory - If you are running theory to defend against abuse (cough, "skepticism", performative contradictions...) Go for it! I tend to be more open to "drop the argument" vs "drop the debater" but go for the impact you think makes sense,

AND.. I consider theory to be axiomatically an issue of reasonability (especially for affirmatives). See Jenn's reasoning why in her paradigm--I share it. I don't care what rules of debate make debate wonderful, fluffy and great. I care about what practices in debate in the round I am watching are appropriate. I don't think a debater should win just because they have the best "competing interpretation." Feel free to try to change this preference, but note that the level of abstraction and depth you'll need to go to win this point may not be worth it.

AND FURTHER...I hate when debaters run theory as a strategic tool or to destroy substantive rounds with a mudslide of nonsensical theory blocks, or use theory to spread out an opponent.
In these situations, I will defer to voting on substance over theory and will be very friendly to RVIs, critiques of theory, turns to theory, etc. (and have coached students successfully to run these positions).