Berry,+Robb

(updated as of spring '16 for the sake of efficiency and clarity)


 * 1) 10th year as head coach at Northside College Prep (UDL school from Chicago, though we compete nationally). i’ve probably judged about ten rounds this year, but very familiar with the topic from coaching and running tab rooms.
 * 2) i don’t want to be on the email chain; if you all make it such that i need a card after the round, i’ll ask for it. note: this means i’m not reading along with the speech doc. if you want the card to matter, make sure you’re clear and organized enough that it’s on my flow the way you want it. i don’t generally take prep for flashing/emailing; in panel rounds i’m happy to defer to less lenient judges.
 * 3) fine with national-circuit speed when you’re reading cards, though per the above note you do need to cue me when you’re moving between cards or from the overview to the line-by-line. when you’re making analytics or reading your t/theory/fw blocks, you need to go slower. i say this knowing every other judge says the same, and yet for some reason it’s still necessary to say this.
 * 4) non-traditional affirmatives (whatever that means now) have generally done well in front of me, although that’s largely a result of negative teams not being terribly strategic. i’m in a weird position in that i probably agree with your critique of societal ills and probably agree that they need to be aired, but i default to disagreeing that entirely delimiting the affirmative team is good for the educational value of the game. my initial degree of sympathy towards the neg on fw is usually dependent on how untethered the aff is to the core ground of the resolution as opposed to a particular method of defending it.
 * 5) more than four off probably means either your neg strat is bad, one of your flows has awful/absent links, or you’re hoping i do some work for you on a flow. or perhaps a combination thereof.
 * 6) i will vote for arguments that i hate (besides the obvious like racism/sexism/etc. good), though both your burden and my blood pressure is higher in those instances.
 * 7) Ks i hate: death cult/death good (it might be, but we have no game without those impacts), arguments that the state itself is bad (it might be, but we have no game without the aff being topical) as opposed to a specific action the plan fiats that the state takes. Ks i don’t love: those with alternatives that don’t take an action (and unless your alt solvency evidence is good, rethinking =/= acting). Ks i’m fine with: the rest. CPs i hate: artificially competitive process CPs. everything else is reasonable if you can justify it.
 * 8) early in the year i look more to competing interpretations/potential abuse on t; later in the year, as the community is more settled, for me it becomes more about reasonability/in-round abuse.
 * 9) i’m almost always going to default to RANT rather than dropping a team on a cheap theory violation. i’ve got more tolerance to outright drop a team on well-developed theory args on status questions as opposed to type questions.
 * 10) ways to improve your speaks: have a coherent strategy, whether aff or neg; have causal scenarios that make sense as opposed to being distinct ideas from different contexts clumsily Frankenstein-ed back together; provide comparative impact and link work rather than ignoring what your opponent is in front on; don't be a tool in cx (better yet, at all); stick to the 2AC order (particularly in the block); structure your last rebuttals in such a way that i don't have to intervene a ton.