Wimmer,+Jan

No one is reading my old thorough paradigm. If you want the old long one, then it's attached.

I did policy for 4 years in high school at Loyola High School in Los Angeles and competed nationally. I've judged bid rounds and final rounds in policy and LD. I do parli at Tulane and now coach at Isidore Newman.

Tell me how to vote; paint me a picture in your last rebuttal and it will make me very happy. I like being told where and how to vote.

I was a fairly well rounded debater in high school, so I probably have familiarity with most arguments you're reading. My senior year, we went for States+Politics most rounds, would read the Cap K almost every round on the neg, and went for conditionality bad about once a tournament on Aff. I also read a Deleuze and Guattari aff before. However, if you're reading a weird K like Badiou that nobody reads, I'm probably not going to know it intuitively.

If I don't get world of alt or a clear try or die/turns case on the K I'm probably not going to vote for it. Tell me how and where to evaluate pre-fiat impacts and how they interact with the role of the ballot if relevant.

I love good T debates. I love good theory debates. I will not just vote on theory or T just because it is dropped. Impact it like any other argument. I have a lower threshold than most for rejecting arguments due to theory than most. Either in-round abuse or why potential abuse in this specific instance, if you want me to reject team is almost always going to be needed.

__Slow down on T and Theory. I hate if I can't flow it.__

I think RVIs on theory are generally dumb but will vote on them if impacted well; I think RVIs on T are probably never true but I've voted on them in the past. I have a very low threshold for answering most RVIs.

Don't be that team that spends 6 minutes on case reading defense. Please read offense or some framework-esque reasons why defense should be enough to win. Disads probably shouldn't get 100% risk of link just on the nature of them being dropped, but if you're not calling them out on it, it's way easier for me as a judge to give them more leeway than I perhaps should.

I'm going to be able to understand spreading at any speed, but if your opponent can't understand spreading, slow down so that there's actually a debate so they can actually understand what's going on. Nobody is impressed that you can outspread a novice from a lay circuit; just win on the flow if you're better than them.

If your advocacy has exclusive impacts, a role of the ballot, or solvency based on who you are, I am going to look for any and every way I can to drop you. Links based on personal experience are fine as long as personal experiences or conditions are not impacts or solvency mechanisms in and of themselves.

Ok: Reading a critical race K, citing personal examples of how the links of the K have affected you in your life. (links) Not Ok: Saying a team can't perm a critical race K because their debaters are white. (solvency)

Ask if the above is confusing, I tried to make it as clear as possible.

I'm fine with tag team and flex prep if both teams are.

Flashing is off time. Don't prep during flashing or I will either dock speaks or take off prep time, depending on circumstances.

I give a 27.5 as representing an average debater who will probably go 3-3 at a tournament. I will not give above a 29.5 if you do not know where you are winning and just extend a bunch of stuff no matter how good you are as a debater unless you're the 1A. I give low point wins frequently. I give leeway on speaks if I know you're slowing down for the sake of an opponent's comprehension and might not hit the line-by-line as well as normal. The lowest I'll give is a 24 unless someone is blatantly cheating or going above and beyond just being a jerk.


 * I default to:**

Competing Interpretations Policymaking Util T before Theory before K

It is very easy to convince me to vote under some other paradigm though. If you win that I should be a stock issues judge, then I'll be your stock issues judge.


 * I dislike (but may still vote for):**

Politics DAs (I love intrinsic perms on politics because I dislike this argument) Disclosure Theory Speed Theory debates unless there's a clear need for it Consult CPs Tons of AC spikes Shitty K debates where no one knows what's going on Severance Perms (I probably won't reject team off of one, though) People changing their alts or advocacies mid debate without a really good reason (ex: a team dropped reciprocity of conditionality means the aff can read a new plan at any point) People saying that the opponent dropped an argument when they didn't (I will give you a look and it will affect speaks) People reading Ks on case and not telling me they're reading a K on case in their overview