Richardson,+Nate

=Nate Richardson=

__Experience:__ 3 years competing, 4 years judging across all events. I've judged my share of LD, but mostly other things. That being said, I talk to more LD people than is probably healthy given my lack of regular involvement in the event. But hey, maybe that'll change. I'm generally affiliated with Shrewsbury HS in MA.

__Speed____:__ I'm comfortable with speed up to probably 90% of the legally-mandated disclaimers crammed into the last 1.5 seconds of tv ads. My primary concern is clarity. Go as fast as you want, but if you're unintelligible, it won't go on my flow, and it certainly won't find its way there retroactively if your opponent has no idea where it came from when you bring it up later. I am interested in your ideas, not the degree to which you've practiced for the Non-Marketable Skill Olympics. I'll yell clear if I need it, but won't dock points unless I have to do it again for the same reason.

__Points:__ While I've reminded myself, I tend to give a bonus half point or two if you're personable, and reward clever/original arguments. If you're abusive, unreasonably arrogant or flippant, or run things that are just broadly offensive, I'll start docking points quickly and copiously even if you do pick up the win.

__Theory:__ Please only pull theory as a necessary response. If you do want to run theory, make it //very// clear what you'd like me to do with it. As with all else, if you don't give me some clear weighing, I get to weigh things however I want, and I'm very unlikely to put much here.

__Framework:__ I'd very much prefer it if you could either agree on a basic FW or make the FW debate as brief as possible. I like to walk into rounds thinking that there's a solid chance I'll learn something, and I don't think I've ever learned anything from debaters who get bogged down in framework for 2-3 minutes a speech.

__Spread:__ Spreading is fine, and I'll flow it, but if you try and tell me that you should win because your opponent dropped a whole bunch of little subpoints that you failed to make impactful, I'm going to assume that your opponent correctly recognized that her one big voter squashed your bunch of noise.

__Ks, RVIs, etc.:__ These can be a lot of fun, but I don't suggest hanging your hat on them.

__Policy:__ I like policy arguments because I like policy. However, if you're just whining that implementing things in the real world is hard, I'll ignore you. I think talking about what we should do is a higher order discussion than how we should do it.

__Broader stuff:__ Of all the times I've ever walked out of any sort of debate round really frustrated, I'd say almost every one was because no one provided me with a weighing mechanism. Give me something to weigh on, why it's better than whatever your opponent is telling me to weigh on, and how you win based on it, and we (I) can walk away happy. I like clear links to even more clear standards/burdens. Good for you if you understand how some clever statement links back to your clever standard, but unless you take me along for the ride, it's not going to get you anything. I'd like this to be an actual, meaty debate, not a display of strategic points and counterpoints. If you're actually diving into the topic, I'll accept just about anything. Except Bostrom, which only works if you somehow wipe all else that I might find some way to vote on, or the man himself comes into the room and offers me a fellowship at Oxford. I do very much like sound empirical arguments and am receptive to similarly well-constructed micro-politics args.