Connor,+Carolyn 

About Me: I am a coach (of 13 years) of a relatively small team. I have coached IE's, LD, and PF. LD: Policy and LD are both lovely events with many good attributes, but they are distinct events. LD is philosophical, value-based debate. I dislike any behavior or action that attempts to make LD feel like policy, including spreading. If I don't understand what you are saying or can't pick up the tags, they are not getting onto my flow, and I will not evaluate them. I don't enjoy Kritiks. I strongly prefer the debaters to engage in substantive debate of the resolution at hand, not whether or not the resolution is bad, etc. Such tactics feel like gamemanship, not substantive debate of issues. Avoiding actual debate is generally not a winning strategy in a debate round that I judge. Logical links are big with me. I expect contentions to be linked through the criterion to uphold your chosen value and for you to show that your value is best upheld or that your position best upholds both proposed values. Make the connections for me, don't assume, and give me clear voting issues that follow logically from the cases and clash that have been presented in the course of the debate. I can only weigh the arguments that you actually present and clearly link. I prefer solid clash throughout, but I will not tolerate abusive behavior. A debate without clash is not a debate. Be clear, concise, polite, respectful, stand when you are speaking during the round, and engage your opponent's arguments without neglecting to rebuild your own case. I appreciate clear and concise roadmaps (off-clock). All of that being said, in a round where the basics are all there, a good argument, is a good argument, and I will weigh it if I am given a clear reason to do so.