Kamas,+Nicolas

Base paradigm: policy maker.

Topicality: I generally default to reasonability, though I'll go competing interpretations if the aff mishandles it. Standards argumentation is a must. I'll consider voting on RVIs.

K: I will ignore pre-fiat implications without demonstrated in-round abuse (e.g., speed k). All kritiks must be actually understood by the team running them and clearly explained to me. Also, include an alternative.

CP: Keep them mutually exclusive and non-topical.

DA: Negatives must run these. I'll even listen to politics.

The majority of my decisions revolve around percent solvency from the affirmative and disadvantage probability from the negative. I like straight up debate.

Experience: 3 years hs LD. 1 year hs CX. 1 year college NPDA. 4 years judging