Mozynski,+Kate

As a general rule, if you make something a voter and argue the issue well, I'll vote on it. However, I don't want to hear that something IS a voter in rebuttals. Instead, I'd like to hear WHY it is one. Obviously, impact analysis and extensions matter a lot for me.

T- I'm not a huge fan of T, but I'll definitely consider it and other stock issues if you choose to direct the round that way. I wouldn't recommend going for T though, unless the aff is a blatant violations.

CPs- PICS are fine when they are run strategically, agent CPs are fine...basically, I'm ready to vote on a CP as long as the net benefit is clear and it doesn't link to other off case arguments. Conditionality is fine with me, and I very rarely find perms abusive.

Theory- This is the type of argument I am least likely to vote for. Actually, theory as a timesuck in a round tends to be one of my pet peeves. However, as with anything else that could happen in a round, it is entirely up to the debaters. If it comes down to a theory debate, I will vote on theory.

Ks- I really like Ks. However, I've noticed that a lot of debaters will run a K based off a paradigm sheet as opposed to what is most beneficial for them in the round. I suppose that's my general take on a debate though- just go for the arguments you think will give you the most ground and clash on the flow and extend them well. Even if it's a strat I'm not fond of, if it's a voter, it's a voter.

I'm fine with speed, as long as it's clear. I don't flow CX (and open CX is fine), but I always keep a very detailed flow of the round. However, this doesn't mean I will do work for you on the flow. If a card is extended, you'll need to tell me that. If an argument is dropped (always a really big voter for me), you'll need to let me know in rebuttals.