Martinson,+Sean


 * TL;DR: I'm a gameplay judge, about as laid back and against judge intervention as possible. I've voted for everything from A-Spec to Nietzsche, I have no problem with any argument as long as it's made well and given sufficient time in the final rebuttals to be considered a voter.**

Qualifications: I participated in high school policy and classic debate at Roseville Area High School for 4 years from 2008-2012. I judged policy debate from 2012 to the present, and I have coached policy debate for the past two years.

Preferences: I am definitely a gameplay judge, so strategy and time allocation are taken into account as much as possible when judging. I will take prior questions as priority (duh...), make sure all the requisite parts of any particular position are plausibly intact before voting for it (Uniqueness link impact for DA's, etc.), and prioritize theoretical positions citing abusive arguments first. Personally, I enjoy hearing K's that are outside the box, but that doesn't mean I give any added weight to them. I like speakers to be LOUD. If you're whispering, I'm going to miss something. I'm fine with speed, but if you're at the ludicrously fast level, please give me a way to read along, I'll have a computer so just cc me on the email chain or give me the pocketbox code.

A few comments:
 * Speed should be inversely proportional to the complexity of the argument. I try to make it as visible as possible when you've lost me, so look up occasionally.
 * Don't be a jerk. I won't vote you down for it, but it will definitely be reflected in your speaker points. (things that might make you a jerk: being really condescending in cross-ex ["Oh, you don't know what epistemology is? I didn't realize we were letting peasants into policy debate."], not giving opponents a way to read your evidence [this might get you voted down if they claim abuse], yelling over your opponents when it's not your cross-x, obviously ignoring an opponents speech, playing games or nonessential texting during the round.)
 * I don't flow Cross-x, so if you want something to be on the flow for the round, say it in a speech.
 * Pre-written overviews that don't take the state of the current round into account are a waste of everyone's time. Just extend the parts that get dropped and move on, no need to tell the whole story again, especially if you're claiming they dropped something that they didn't. Overviews should focus on the main points of clash, and then go into detail on those flows when you get to them.
 * __SIGNPOST__ I tend to flow arguments in line with eachother, and if I don't know where to put it, I'm going to put it at the bottom and consider it unresponsive unless it's given context in the round.
 * I don't like judging "Yu-gi-oh" rounds, meaning throwing cards at the other team is not going to be enough, give it context and analysis.