Lyman-Barner,+Levi

As far as deciding the round goes, the contestants should tell the judge how to weigh the round. Criterion clash is preferred, though I will still weigh the round if it boils down to something different that's fine. Just make it more interesting than a pedantic definitional debate.

I can handle speed and most spreading. If you are not clear and become unintelligible because you cannot handle speaking at the pace you have set, then I can't flow what is so garbled that I don't understand. Keep that in mind as you decide your own pace.

Ks are fine and Theory is fine. I will evaluate the abuse based on what you tell me but I won't intervene unless I'm given a specific reason to see something as abuse. Though, I will still have to "buy" your argument for the abuse. RVIs are also fine.

Give me signposts and analysis on your extensions. I consider any information "new" if it was brought up in the 2AR without the same arguments and impacts in the 1AR. Weighing analysis and debating the quality of an extension is never a new argument.

Other than that, just remember: remain coherent (or I'll very clearly stop flowing), have effective clash, and give me weighing analysis and voters.