Berhorst,+Cole

I won't punish you for strategy choices, that is up to you. I do care that what you do you do well, in depth line by line, insightful analysis (not just deny and move on this is boring and mixed with speed gets to be just plain silly), and that your arguments make sense in the big picture of the round (I generally like a good overview of why your arguments are important. arguments without some sort of context, whether it's impact calc or w/e, are ones I generally won't vote on).

T - Competing interpretations preferred, I generally don't really care where the definition is coming from, just about why your interpretation is good. Make sure you explicitly state what your interpretation is.

K - Run them, but explain even before you run the K, what assumptions you will be focusing on / what this means for the world etc., nice long tags actually help here. My only real annoyance is when weighing K's with frameworks. I hate the argument that K's are prefiat or any form of it. K's challenge the assumptions the AFF rests on. If those assumptions are untrue then does the AFF still do or can it do anything worth voting for is the kind of "framework" I look for.

CP - Kind of strict on competitiveness and don't really like generic alternate agent counterplans, but if you run them: give me unique reasons why your CP's method is the way to solve better, and unique reasons why the CP is competitive.

DA - Not a fan of generic DA's unless they are used for a strategic purpose. That being said a good DA is one with a clear link story that has some internal mechanisms to it. Not just tying concepts together, but explaining why the impacts come about. My big rule is don't misrepresent your impacts. If that nuclear winter impact seems pretty unlikely to result from this particular AFF, tell me in your impact calculus that even though the prob is low, I should prefer the large magnitude of your impacts for these reasons (our impact is irreversible once IL threshold is reached etc.)

Solvency - Give me reasons why the AFF won't work and reasons why those reasons keep them from accessing their advantages, these can be analytical if they are logical and based on their solvency cards. This is where I find myself going a lot to decide who accesses the best outcomes.

Inherency - Will vote on it, have voted on it. Kind of old school, but I can be swayed that if their affirmative just assigns money to existing programs etc., that's really not good enough, the AFF has to enact substantial change from the status quo.

Any questions, just ask before round when both teams are present.