Heathcock,+Nicole

[Not to be a pain in the ass but you might also see Nikol, Nik, Nikole, etc. or possible var. Kinu on the postings/ballot and honestly I do not care what you call me that is 100% inconsequential seriously]

Four years of policy in high school at Broken Arrow HS in Oklahoma ('02-'06 / mental health care - detain/search). A mix of judging and coaching on and off following graduation to the present, with consistent judging experience over the past two years (you can check tabroom.com for this year + I judged about halfway through elims at nationals last year). Minor LD judging/coaching experience as well (mostly right after high school). From the back of the room, the most enjoyable debates tend to be the ones in which both parties are thoroughly engaged in the round. Debaters should strive to provide higher level analysis contextually appropriate for the round; run arguments you understand, not what you think will appeal to me. Clash is necessary. Think about your strategy in terms of how to approach the other team, not how to curry my favor. It's your debate, not mine. I don't like to call for evidence; it feels interventionist, but I will if it legitimately becomes an issue. In keeping a non-interventionist approach, I also tend to glaze over when I hear partisan rhetoric, to either side. I'm pretty tab/flow (I really like/prefer being able to clearly refer back to the flow, I also don't like having to do the legwork for your arguments on it so.... be cautious with blippy extensions). I'm comfortable adjudicating based on the frameworks that are presented to me, which often includes deviations from the standard policymaking view, and those are extremely enjoyable to me even though my competitive background was more grounded in that style of policy. [Some lines are drawn though- ie don't think you can get away with stuff like justifying racism. I take systems of oppression and the material conditions that follow as matter-of-fact, more of than not.]

So, to the specific stuff: T, procedurals, theory, etc: I have variable levels of ambivalence. Fonder of theory (and T, which I tend to view more as a theory argument) than most of the rest of policy/procedural stuff, but I will definitely vote wherever the flow is compelling. For procedurals, there is definitely a pretty even split between good/bad debates and arguments, and my overall judging experience has been that this category tends to end up as filler arguments most of the time. So, do what you need, just give me a substantive debate out of it if you go this route. Last blip here- especially on theory, buzzwords/jargon are not replacements for warrants and analysis. I have to understand and care about voting here if this is the story you want to spin. In particular, theory gets messy so it requires more work: if you've got some great analysis then you really want to make sure that I catch it all - remember that I'm not reading your computer! It's up to you to make that work and give me a clean story out of everything. Disads: Obviously a specific one tends to be better than generic, but sometimes you have to work with what you've got. If you decide to go for it though, obviously make it relevant, contextualize it, etc... explain why I'm voting, why/where you link, why you outweigh, etc. Counterplans: Just don't screw it up*. I don't hate them. I just like K's better. [*OK I have to explain this I guess: Net Benefits. Solvency. Functional competitiveness??? The last probably explains why I tend to just say 'I liked the K better.'] Kritiks: I love 'em. The exception: when it's bad, because a bad kritik debate is a BAD round. This is why I am explicit above about not pandering to me for the ballot. Running a K just because you think I will like it or just because you know it will confuse your opponents is annoying (and that tactic usually reveals itself really quickly with the first bits of terminology or unfamiliar author name). I like actual advocacy behind them. Running one solely for specific strategic placement has lent to a tendency to bite back into ones own K. So watch that maybe. Despite my long involvement with policy I am outside the academy/self-taught so maybe don't rely so heavily on offhand references to external source material by your authors, but instead on connecting your thesis in round. Don't, like, BS me though. By the end of the round I want to be seeing links, alt solvency + I like hearing about a post-alt world, why do the implications outweigh, etc. This usually means getting creative + really understanding your evidence but I give a lot of weight on the flow if the round goes there.

It's encouraged to ask specific questions over any of these areas (including just my general paradigm) if you have any!