Dessi,+Katie

Changes have been highlighted. This is current as of 03.30.2012

//**Tell me HOW to adjudicate a round, and then tell me WHY, based on the arguments you are winning and the method of adjudication, you SHOULD win the round. The HOW part would be something like a standard, or burdens. The WHY part would include the warrants and impacts/link story for the arguments being extended.**// IMPORTANT: The most common reason I sit out/drop someone who thinks he won is a lack of clarity. When some I drop asks, "What about X?" either it was never explicitly articulated how X interacted with the particular arguments I did vote on OR it was articulated, but NOWHERE (geographically) on the flow near the arguments I voted on making me question the linkage. The more organized you are, the less likely I am to overlook something and the less likely you are to miss making a link explicit (and I don't vote on implicit links). I try my best not to overlook things, but I don't have an infinite amount of time to make a decision either.
 * In short:**


 * Preferences, attitudes, and assumptions...**


 * Speaker points:** I average a 28/28.5.


 * When I sign my ballot:** I vote by checking to see if I can affirm. This means I look for 1. aff winning offense and 2. aff not losing any arguments that necessarily mean the aff can't win. Otherwise I negate.


 * Speed:** Not an issue, but if you're going fast to blip-spread, expect leniency with your opponent dropping stuff. I will shout "slow" or "clear". You get 3 warnings. __**DO NO SPREAD YOUR TAGS OR IMPACTS!!!!**__ Spread the cards. **DO NOT SPREAD ANY ANALYTICS** **THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE PRE-WRITTEN.**


 * Theory:** I had a long entry here. I'm replacing it with this: Run it if you want to, but know that NOBODY is EVER happy with my decision in a round where theory is a major issue. I doesn't make sense to me, I don't find it compelling, make of that what you will.

**Things I Don't Think are Abusive (but I guess you can run theory if you want to lose with low speaks):** 1. Plans in the AC. Simply put: I can't count the number of times I've heard negs tell me to drop an aff b/c "they don't have an implementation mechanism!" In this regard, affs are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Feel free to argue a plan isn't topical/sufficient to affirm though. (I don't think most resolutions are worded in a way that plans are topical.) 2. Multiple Necessary but Insufficient Standards: Yes, the person running them can extend one and win the round. But how many rounds are won because someone was winning one key argument while losing others? The same logic would require me to ignore spikes, multiple warrants, multiple impacts, THEORY, etc. 3. Not having a plan in the AC: A deontological or categorical position doesn't require one. This is easily the dumbest theory arg I've ever had to flow.

**Things That Never Require Theory to Make an Argument Go Away:** 1. An AC that isn't topical. Just tell me what your interp of the topic is, why it's better than the affs and why the aff doesn't meet it. STOP THERE! 2. New args. Just tell me the argument or it's cross application is new. STOP THERE! 3. CX IS binding. If someone says A in CX, that person is stuck with A. If they shift in a later speech just tell me they shifted, tell me what they originally said, deal with that. STOP THERE!


 * Cards:** Number cards by the same author. "Author i1, Author i2,... Author iN" Reference the cards by author AND number in rebuttals.

**Philosophy:** I don't have a background in it. I don't know the differences in social contract authors. I don't know wtf Zizek said. If your case is "dense", don't spread it, because I'm not going to be able to comprehend "deep" philosophical arguments at 100 wpm. Be crystal clear when answering questions in CX. Watch my face, you'll know if I'm keeping up with you or not. I don't mind ignoring arguments that make no sense to me.


 * Overviews, underviews, off case, etc:** If you want an off-case argument cross-applied to something specific MAKE THE CROSS APPLICATION AT THE TIME YOU READ THE CARD NOT IN A LATER SPEECH!!!


 * Paneled Rounds in general:** Things that either annoy me, or I have a low threshold for in pre-elim rounds, when on a panel, I'm a little more forgiving about.

I don't care if you ask questions during prep. I don't care if you want to sit to speak. 10 minute road maps annoy me to no end.
 * Random stuff:**