Watson,+André

This is a rudimentary page, feel free to ask for clarification before round.

Experience: I debated LD throughout high school, and have a small bit of judging experience. I mostly ran traditional, but enjoy and am perfectly fine with progressive elements and cases. Ks, CPs, aff kritiks, whatever, just give me justifications and framework. If you run progressive, include me in whatever email chain or flashing you do. Because of that, I won't count flashing as prep, but if you start abusing it, I'll start enforcing the rule of stopping prep only when the flash drive leaves the computer.

Judging: I'm primarily a flow judge. I promise that I am paying attention while I flow, and I will say "Clear" if I can't understand you. I do not flow CX, though it may impact speaker points.

Do not try to impact turn racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, basically any kind of oppression. If you make the round an unsafe environment for the other debater(s), I will drop you.

Especially in LD rounds, please don't ignore the framework debate. That's one of your most important tools to make the judge's life easier. Give me intelligent arguments why I should evaluate the round the way you say I should. I don't give a flying fig how you structure that framework, just give it to me.

Theory and T: Theory makes more sense in LD, but I have a high threshold for it. I'll only vote on in-round abuse, no potential. I default to competing interps unless you convince me on reasonability.

T follows mostly the same rules. Because the points brought up in T have more application to other rounds, I may decide to vote off potential abuse, but it's going to have to be a particularly egregious case and I wouldn't recommend going for T 100% unless you think it's absolutely necessary.

Judge Disclosure: I think disclosure is good in general, but a lot of tournaments don't like it and how it messes up their schedule. If I judge your round at one of those tournaments, I'll give you something like 10 seconds of feedback after round and put the rest on the ballot. If you really want to know how the round went, come and find me afterwards.

Regular Disclosure: Disclosure makes higher-level debate better. If you're at a tournament where the policy or the expectation is that you disclose cases, the only reason I'll accept for not doing so is if you're running a completely new neg.

Speaker Points: I know the trend is for high speaker points, so I adjust up a bit so as to not disadvantage you. 30 is amazing, 28 is you starting to make mistakes, if you get to 25 you've got some work to do.

I don't like the phrase "off-time roadmap" (it wastes time and seems to lead to weird posturing), and would prefer that you avoid it. Just tell me what order you're going in.

Don't run over time unless it's to very briefly finish a point. Answering a CX question counts as finishing a point. I prefer you keeping your own time, though I'll run my own timer as backup. Ask for hand signals before the round if you need them.

Sass is fine. Humor is fine. Condescension and cruelty are not. Know the line.

The fact that Gilligan 96 is such a commonly read card and nobody has made a thematically appropriate Les Mis/Dickens/etc. reference in round is a source of disappointment for me. Do so and I will admire your daring. (This will not impact judging)