Walker,+Skyler


 * Background:** I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years. I did two years of policy and two years of LD. I am currently competing on the collegiate circuit in parli.

For my general paradigm, I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter. I don't think it's my job to tell you that you can or cannot run certain arguments. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be I will default to policymaker. Speed is okay with me as long as you aren't sacrificing clarity. If I can't understand you I will stop flowing. Please keep your own time. As for how I feel about certain arguments:


 * Kritiks: ** If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework,a roll of the ballot claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. Additionally, if you are running a K, I would prefer that you only have one advocacy. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well fleshed out arguments that are extended throughout the round, I will not grant you shadow extensions.


 * Theory/Topicality: ** My threshold for theory is pretty high. With that being said, I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. Second, I want to know where the end round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win (hint: don't just say "that's abusive"). And third, I would rather you not run it as a time suck. I default to reasonability.


 * Counterplans/Disads: ** I prefer counterplans to be mutually exclusive and have a net benefit while solving for at least some of the case. In LD if you're going to run one, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you can, considering most of the time, there isn't a plan to begin with. Disads should be structured well.


 * Framework:** I look to fw before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory obviously, specifically in LD. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework.

If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.