Vasquez,+Camila

have been judging LD, and the odd Policy or PF round for the past three years. The essentials: -Not speed friendly. that being said, if you're brisk but clear, we're good. If you see my pen go down, what was being said doesn't go down on my flow. -Give me voters. Tell my why you win(without being abusive, please) or else I'm gonna come up with my own way to judge who won. -Please clash. If you don't, I'll probably default to some arbitrary voting standard that will make you mad. -Same goes for The value debate. Give one. Don't argue morality vs justice or some value that's almost the same thing. That's silly. -I get that you're debating but that is no reason to be excessively rude or obnoxious. -Don't expect me to make connections between arguments. Tell me where there's cross-application and what that means. ^What I mean by this specifically is that if you're going to use evidence to argue that, for example, red is blue, and read that evidence, make sure you actually tell me "this evidence shows that red is blue" (Make the interpretation of evidence for me, or else it's just evidence). -If I'm judging a policy round and the CP is AC + something else, DON'T ARGUE SOLVENCY, like seriously, why? That makes no sense, you're now arguing against your case and that's silly.
 * Assistant Director of Palo Alto Speech and Debate Team**

Also, BTW I'm super stingy wth points (sorry, It's something that has been pointed out to me and I am working on being reasonable) and if you ask for an RFD, as long as the tournament and time allows it, I'll be happy to give it.