Ulene,+Ben

I debated for Scarsdale, qualling to the TOC my junior and senior year and clearing my senior year. I'm currently a junior at Princeton.

**//__Princeton '16 Update__://** As a disclaimer, I haven't judged in over a year or been at all involved with the activity this season. That just means:
 * Please don't go top speed, especially early on in the tournament. It'll take at least a day for me to remember how to flow again
 * I know nothing about this topic, so don't assume I understand anything about the topic lit or stuff like that
 * If there are new arguments that people are reading these days, you'll have to explain them to me in-round, or I'll have no idea what's going on

I won't make anyone flash cases / speech docs -- passing pages or letting someone look over your shoulder is fine. (If somebody has a paper version of their case and you try to make them flash anyway, I'll probably deduct speaks.) If you do both agree to flash, though, I expect you to have your speech doc ready on a flash drive by the end of prep time; any additional time comes out of your speech.

**OVW**: I'll try my best to evaluate any argument; that being said, I'm probably better at evaluating theory than a LARP, Kritik, or dense framework debate. I'm not great at flowing and will probably call a lot of stuff, so please slow down for anything where wording is important, //especially// if extemped. That includes  theory interps, plan/CP texts, author names, complex framework arguments, etc. I default to truth testing unless anything else is justified. Also, I don't flow CX, so if you get an important CX concession, you should probably repeat yourself to make sure I get it.

**Speaks**: I give speaks based on how good I thought your strategy was, and I don't give higher / lower speaks for particular arguments. I've tended to average slightly under a 28.5, but speaks vary by tournament. I'll reward you for sitting down early (if you're actually decisively ahead), but please look up to see if I'm still flowing / making any gestures.

**Kritiks:** I don't have a great knowledge of most critical lit, so please try to keep it simple and well-explained. You have to justify why I will vote on K > theory if justified, but I default theory first unless the weighing arguments are made. Creatively redefining the topic is fine, but I have a __//very high standard fo////r non-topical// //aff// //advocacies//__//.//

**Theory / T:** I default to competing interps, drop the arg, no RVI, and text of the interp if no arguments are made to the contrary. I won't vote on 2AR theory unless something egregious has happened. If you want to win reasonability, you need to justify a brightline or I'll default to competing interps. Offensive counter-interps need an RVI, but you still have to call them out for what they are. “I meet” and “no abuse” claims are terminal defense if won. If you read an unusual voter, you need to explain what it means and how you weigh under it.

**I don't love evaluating** anything  dependent on out-of-round events or events I can't personally verify, which includes but is not limited to disclosure theory (although I'm more sympathetic to this against policy args), coin flip theory, references to private conversations (with your opponent, their coaches, authors, or anyone else), anything related to judge prefs or other tab-related stuff, etc. Also, don't stop the round for any reason unless there's an emergency. If you want to call your opponent out for miscutting evidence or clipping cards or something like that, please do it in the form of a theory shell with a voter.

Feel free to hit up Nathan Cha or Sam Azbel if you have any additional questions.