Max+Stevens

I'm a pretty generic, slightly older circuit LD critic. My paradigm is very permissive - I'll vote for any argument as long as there is a way to vote for it explained in round. For example, you could run a narrative with a standard of performance in front of me as long as you explain the voting mechanism and how it functions.

I enjoy well-run critical arguments, but will be harsh on badly run critical arguments.

I will vote on **theory**, but rarely do so when there is no clear/actual in-round abuse. I dislike generic, lengthy theory shells that don't address the nuances of the round and hate to see debates devolve into circular discussions of fairness and education. I do care about these issues but am bored by 95% of the in-round appeals I hear. Thus, run theory if there is a compelling violation, but not for its own sake. I am receptive to RVIs, particularly if the first theory is bad in the ways outlined above.


 * Speed** is fine but not at the expense of clarity. I can handle as much speed as you can - that is, don't go fast if you suck at speaking. I will yell clear (only) once and am very reluctant to call for cards after the round if i didn't understand them in the first place. I think analytics, particularly nuanced ones, need to be articulated more slowly than cards. If you expect me to vote on nuanced/small/sneaky extensions in later speeches, they HAVE to be clear in the 1.

Speaks are determined in terms of how easy you made my decision/how in control of the round you are.

Feel free to ask for clarification prior to the round.