Boyd,+Jane

=Jane Boyd=

*Policy paradigm is below the LD paradigm on this same page*
=**LD:**=
 * Good debate is good debate. Keep in mind that trying to be cutting edge does NOT make for good debate by itself. While I appreciate innovation - I hate tricks for the sake of tricks. Keep that in mind.**

Burden of Proof depends on the topic This is very important on the matter of theory.

**Presentation: I have put this on top for emphasis.**

 * I will be a part of your email chain, but I won't look at it unless I want to clarify after the round. UNDERSTAND - if I can't understand you I will NOT look at the script to make sure I got everything on the flow. That is your job to be clear. Decisions are based on what I get on my flow from the beginning.** I can flow very well. Speed isn't a problem, it is usually clarity that is the problem. Unless words are clear I won't flow the debate. If I am not writing then you probably need to adapt. Speed for the sake of speed is not a good idea.

Standards, criteria, framework and/or burdens serve as the same thing - these are mechanisms on how to determine who wins the debate. If a value is used it needs to be defended throughout the case and not simply an after thought. The framework of the debate should not be longer than the rest of the case. Unless it is absolutely necessary to make the framework clear, cut to the chase and tell me what is acceptable and not acceptable, but don't spend 2 1/2 minutes on something that should take just a few sentences to make clear. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic not excessive framework or theory. Note the word excessive. I am not stupid and usually get it much quicker than you think. In the debate resolve the issue of standard and link it to the substantative issues of the round then move on. Evidence adds credibility to the arguments of the case however I don't want to just hear you cite sources without argumentation and analysis of how it applies to the clash in the debate. I don't like arguments that are meant to confuse and say absolutely nothing of substantive value. I am fine with philosophy but expect that you are able to explain and understand the philosophies that you are applying to your case or arguments. A Kritik is nothing new in LD. Traditional LD by nature is prefiat, but I recognize the change that has occurred. I accept plans, DAs, counterplans and theory (when there is a violation - not as the standard strategy.) Theory, plans, and counterplans must be run correctly - so make sure you know how to do it before you run it in front of me.
 * Framework/Values/Criteria/Standards/Burdens**
 * Evidence and Basic Argumentation:**

**Flow and Voters:**
I think that the AR has a very difficult job and can often save time by grouping and cross-applying arguments, please make sure you are clearly showing me on the flow where you are applying your arguments. I won't cross apply an argument to the flow if you don't tell me to. I try not to intervene in the debate and only judge based upon what you are telling me and where you are telling me to apply it. Please give voters; however don't give 5 or 6. You should be able to narrow the debate down to the critical areas. If an argument is dropped, then make sure to explain the importance or relevance of that argument don't just give me the "it was dropped so I win argument." I may not buy that it is an important argument; you have to tell me why it is important in this debate.

I have been around long enough to have seen the genesis of Kritik arguments. I have seen them go from bad to worse, to good in policy. I think that K arguments are in the worse state in LD now. Kritiking is absolutely acceptable IF it applies to the resolution and specifically the case being run in the round. I have the same expectation here as in policy the "K" MUST have a specific link. "K" arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of a generic Kritik that questions if we exist or not and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate at hand. Kritiks must give an alternative other than "think about it." Most LD is asking me to take an action with a plan or an objective - a K needs to do the same thing. That being said, I will listen to the arguments but I have a very high threshold for the bearer to meet before I will vote on a "K" in LD.
 * Kritiks:**

**Theory**:
I have a very high threshold of acceptance of theory in LD. There must be a clear abuse story. Also, coming from a policy background - it is essential to run the argument correctly. For example having a violation, interpretation, standards, and voting issues on a Topicality violation is important. Also knowing the difference in topicality and extra-topical. or knowing what non-unique really means is important. Theory for the sake of a time suck is silly and won't lead me voting on it at the end. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic not just generic framework or theory. **RVI's: Not a fan.** Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote though unless you have a compelling reason why.

Policy debate paradigm
My paradigm is pretty simple:

First: I try to judge the way you ask me to, but if it is not clear, then I am a policy maker.

Second: I am open to multiple negative stances but putting 7 off case for the sake of seeing what stick still causes me some hesitance. If you do that then start making choices early.

Third: I am not a theory fan, but I love a good topicality debate. If you intend to go for theory - I need to understand the position from the beginning. **RVI's:** Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote though unless you have a compelling reason why.

Fourth: Kritical arguments are fine, but need to link to this topic and this debate. Generic links are not favored by me.

Fifth: Generic arguments or generic links that don't apply to the debate on hand or this year's topic will have a strict scrutiny.

Sixth: Speed is not usually a problem, but clarity is the issue. I will say clear, several times, but if it isn't on the flow at the end, I won't vote on it.

Seventh: Finally - this is an educational activity as much as a competition. I will have a discussion afterward, but if there is rudeness or argument about my decision, I will stop talking and leave the room. Rudeness will not be tolerated.

Eighth: If you have questions about how I judge, ask me, but be specific with your questions.