Fee,Sean

updated 1-20-17
 * Sean Fee **

//Background:// I debated policy at Good Counsel (Maryland) and debated the East coast circuit and nationals. I’ve been judging LD since 2009. I judged at 8 TOC bid tournaments in the 2015-16 season and have judged 12 TOC bid tournaments in 2016-17 season. This equates to over 200 rounds in the last 2 seasons combined; and a fair number of out rounds in 2017.

**Overall crowd sourced pref short cut**: I’m typically a 2 or a 3 for most national circuit tournaments depending on judge pool depth.

**Pref Shortcuts based on what you run:**

**Policy arguments:** (Plans, CPs, DAs …): 1-3 **K:** 1-3 **Theory:** 3-4 **Dense Phil framework**: 3-4 **Non-T Affs, performance, narratives:** 2-3 **Tricks:** strike

 **//__Decision Calc and Argument defaults__//**


 * //My Decision Calculus varies based on the in-round debate on what comes first, Role of the Judge and Role of the Ballot. //**


 * My defaults below are just that, if you win another way to evaluate the argument in round, I’ll override my default **

 **//Policy://** Experienced judging traditional policy style rounds.

 **//Kritiks//:** I am receptive to Ks. I have judged and voted for many K's and am familiar with what’s been run on the circuit.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Perms: **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Be clear about how I should evaluate the round if the aff wins a perm. I have a very slight default to using perms as tests of competition: i.e. if the aff wins a perm I’ll kick the alt for the neg, meaning the perm doesn’t shield the links and the neg K may still have offense in the round.


 * //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Theory: //**<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> I will vote on theory, but I’m far from being a theory hack. Checking actual in round abuse, advocacies that eliminate opponent’s ground or sketch/shifty advocacies/maneuvers is where I most commonly have voted on it. I default to reasonability of interps because I don’t think a debater should lose the round because by the thinnest of margins their counter-interp was less good against the standards. I default that winning defense on theory: e.g. winning “I meets” or my counter-interp is good means I kick the theory arg, not a RVI.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Topicality **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> - I default to T is a voter if it applies to the entire AC advocacy, Extra T is a drop the argument, that the Aff burden is to meet a reasonable interpretation of the resolution and that T is not a RVI.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Non-Topical Affs **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">: This is probably the biggest recent change in my paradigm. I understand the argument that the Aff can’t engage in affirming the resolution and your speech serves to critique both the topic and debate. I evaluate these like other rounds in that I need to understand the ROB and the Aff method and how those the elements function to win the round.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Performance/Narrative: **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> I’m evaluating your speech act vs. your competitor’s – which often for me comes down to role of the ballot, method vs counter-method, or narrative vs. counternarrative. I must have a basis for comparison to be able to evaluate who wins.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **Extensions:** <span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">I have a low threshold for extensions, particularly of conceded arguments. “Extend advantage 1” is sufficient to extend an advantage that’s been conceded. That said, make all weighing of extended arguments explicit in rebuttals


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Dense Phil: **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> I’m not as well versed as some judges and haven’t judged many of these kinds of rounds. If you get me as a judge, make explicit the analytics of how what you are reading shapes my decision-making process.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **__Speed__**

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I'm fine with speed. I will say clear in round.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **__Email Chain__**

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Please add me to the email chain.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **__Speaker points:__** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> **I don’t disclose speaks** <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I assign speaks based on how I perceive your debate skills and strategies in this round relative to your competitors <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">30 I wouldn’t be surprised if you won this tournament <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">29.5 Deep run in this tournament likely <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">29 You have a chance to make a deep run <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">28.5 You should clear to out rounds <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">28 On the bubble to clear