Jaich,+Melan

Melan Jaich Judging Philosophy

Policy I'm a pretty traditional judge and can flow. I'm not crazy about narratives or performance positions but I'll listen politely. I can and do vote on topicality. If you run an exotic kritik you better explain it clearly and know what you're doing. I don't like evidence abuse or overtagging and I can usually tell. I tend to feel comfortable in the "policy maker" framework unless very persuaded to see the ballot differently. I don't mind speed and I don't care if you stand up, sit down or wander. I will talk back. I believe strongly that the length of your oral judging philosophy is inversely related to your competence so don't expect to chat before or after the round. I've been in policy debate since 1972.

Lincoln-Douglas Very similar to above. I don't believe there is distinct LD theory independent of policy. You are expected to use evidence to support your claims. If you run a value you do need to win the value; its your choice though and I don't think LD needs a value every round. Non-traditional strategies are fine in LD and a nice change of pace sometimes. I don't like the trend I detect of running confusing philosophical positions heavy with small arguments as a conscious tactic. Dumping tons of meaningless points in constructives hoping to extend drops won't win you my ballot. Speed is no problem.