and

Tab, Flow critic. Speed is fine, as long as it is clear.

I will vote on anything, as long as the position is clear and it is articulated how and why I am voting. Impact / Voting calculus (on any or across frameworks) is crucial in the rebuttals. If this analysis is missing, I will vote in the way that involves the least intervention. This includes voting on presumption (AFF or NEG) if that requires less intervention than extending impacts, links, or voters, standards, or solvency.
 * Policy**:

That said, I do have personal preferences that will make me more interested in the debate: - I am on the on the far left politically, - I enjoy non-traditional debate, - I love debate about debate (theory and framework), - I am a sucker for well written and articulated procedurals (especially T; spec arguments only if they are well warranted, usually requiring in round abuse through a "no link")

However, I will give fair consideration to all other arguments. I have voted and will vote on solvency, inherency, politics DA, states CP, A-spec, and many more (though I feel bad every time I do).

If operating outside of a traditional "policy-maker" framework, make sure I know how impacts on different frameworks interact (if at all). I need to hear how my ballot functions in critical arguments.

I will vote on anything, as long as the position is clear and it is articulated how and why I am voting. Impact / Voting calculus (on any or across frameworks) is crucial in the rebuttals. If this analysis is missing, I will vote in the way that involves the least intervention. This includes voting on presumption (AFF or NEG) if that requires less intervention than extending impacts, links, or voters, values or critera.
 * LD**:

That said, I do have personal preferences that will make me more interested in the debate: - I am on the on the far left politically, - I enjoy non-traditional debate, - I love debate about debate (theory and framework)

However, I will give fair consideration to all other arguments.

I do not believe that a value and standard are necissary on either side of the debate.

I do not object to running plan texts, counter plans, or critiques, just please call them what they are and defend them theoretically from there. It annoys me when people run critical arguments and refuse to acknowledge them as a K to avoid the theory. If you are going to be non-trad, embrace it. It seems illegit if you wont admit your own strat.