Stocker,+Will

General Philosophy:' Tab flow judge. I look to vote directly off the flow. With that, I am okay with all arguments. In general I like being told specifically where to vote on the flow. Absent that I default to an offensive/defensive paradigm, and then after that I default to negative presumption when there isn't a clear winner on the flow or voters/impact cal. aren't presented. On speed: good with speed, if you go too fast I will yell clear. So far have not announced clear in eight years. Generally I do not penalize for yelling clear. Time: I would prefer debaters tracked each others time so I can concentrate on flowing.

Cx philosophy: all arguments are fair game. I do not evaluate the cx time for direct ballot considerations, so I am fine with open cx and flex. On flashing, either someone eats prep time while you are flashing and you can prep during that time, or no one preps during flashing and no prep time is getting used, I will leave that up to the debaters.

Ld philosophy: I like it when aff's group arguments in the 1ar, not a requirement, I just like it. my ld pet peeve, I hate it when someone says "this is not cx debate" or "this is ld" but then they don't warrant or impact that claim. This scenario happens all too often and it irritates me to no end. I will evaluate all arguments presented but claiming someone is not doing debate correctly does not mean you buy out of having to form an argument correctly. In addition, all arguments are fair game (t, k's, counterplan, plan etc.).