Marsh,+Steve

Steve Marsh hasn't judged in a long time. He is currently the Executive Director of the Michigan Interscholastic Forensic Association, so it unlikely he will ever judge again, but if he did... Primarily a policy maker, will vote on anything credible. (Not likely to get a big kick out an absurdist kritik.) Will vote on an individual issue if given severe enough gravity in the round, this includes an old fashioned idea called inherency. Will vote on topicality if the affirmative is abusing division of ground. Don't ask me to vote against an aff that is clearly in the topic area because of the 6th definition in some unknown dictionary. I won't. Disads need real internal links. I don't care about outlandish impact arguments. The real disads always fall apart at the link level. I like causality. I do not give much credence to small percentage of likelihood multiplied by infinite impact means DA outweighs all. I like causality. On the other hand, I am likely to vote on real world consequences of a well designed and argued disad.

Be polite. Be cogent. Don't spit. I don't hear as well as I used and I surely don't flow as well either. Something just about 15% north of conversational speed will be my outside limits these days.

Did I say be polite? I'll drop you for being rude to opponents, partners, judges, timekeepers, you coach. Arrogance needs a judicial check and I'm an activist judge in theis regard.