Shelburne,+Jesse

I debated for four years at duPont Manual High School in Louisville, KY, and I am currently a senior at Harvard College (I no longer debate).
 * I'm a pretty traditional LD judge: emphasize your values and value criteria, make strong contentions, and provide clear voting issues.
 * I'm fine giving you time cues for prep, mid-speech, whatever, just let me know beforehand.
 * I'm open both to value-based and policy-based arguments, and while I certainly won't categorically vote down theory, kritiks, or other arguments along those lines, if you're going to make them, they should be abundantly clear since I don't have much experience running them myself. If you're going to make more pragmatic, policy-based contentions, they should still link in strongly with a V/VC.
 * I'm not a huge fan of skep; again, not an automatic vote down, but it might make a vote up more difficult. If you can make a strong case for it, go ahead, just be careful.
 * I value good speaking skills but strong, coherent arguments are superior to an excellent speaker who doesn't say anything worthwhile.
 * I don't necessarily default truth-testing or comparative worlds; I can be convinced either way, and I care more about the substance of the argument than the theoretical grounds for running it.
 * Don't spread just for the sake of speed; if I can't understand you (which is possible considering I haven't debated in a while), I can't vote for you, although if you can speak quickly and clearly then by all means do what you want. I won't vote you down just because you spread, but it's your job to make sure I can understand you.
 * Relatedly, slowing down for your contentions and then blazing through your support isn't a good strategy either.
 * If your opponent asks for it, I do expect you to provide some sort of copy of your case, whether you flash it to them, let them look at your computer throughout the round, or provide a paper copy.
 * I certainly will pay attention during CX and note if you get a concession, but if you don't pounce on it in rebuttals I can't do anything with it.
 * Nothing beyond being incoherent or blatantly racist/sexist/etc. will get an automatic vote down from me. Do what you do best, just be mindful of clarity and substance.
 * Above all, be smart, be substantive, be topical, be coherent, and make it easy for me. I don't want to have to search through my flow to find reasons for you to win.

Credit to Kate Garrett for parts of this paradigm.