Ziedrich,+Ivy

Ivy Ziedrich **General:** **Preferences:**
 * Experience: ** 3 years HS parli, 1 year HS pufo, in NPDA now.
 * I vote on the flow and default to net benefits.
 * Your aesthetic performance will not impact your speaks as much as your debate skills. If your in-round conduct is offensive, expect your speaker points to reflect that. If your opponents are offensive, make that a major voting issue. I don't think I should have to bring this up, but I've seen enough racism and sexism in high school rounds that apparently I do.
 * In general, I encourage you to make the round entertaining and have fun.
 * Flowing: **
 * I'll let you know if I can't understand your speed. Please slow for taglines or anything you want on my paper in detail. If I'm not flowing, you either make no sense or should move on.
 * I'm down to listen to any theory debate you want to have so long as there's a reason for it. Don't use procedurals as time sucks, and don't run spec if it's not essential to ground.
 * I'm not okay with you excluding your opponents from the round--so slow down when they call clear and don't expect me to weigh the round on any framework that excludes the other team. I probably won't. That said, I'll vote on most things so long as you win on it.
 * Please do not rely on cards to compensate for a lack of analysis.
 * If I'm not voting on anything pre-fiat, I'll be weighing your impacts to determine the round. The value/value criterion debate should be a means of weighing cases in general against each other, but I will still be looking at each case, so please have distinct impacts. Not everything is dehum. Not everything is nuke war. That's okay. "Improves the economy" and "violates the constitution " are not enough for me, however.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or a specific round, please ask me questions anytime. If you can't find me, facebook me.