Anderson,+Jim

[//a work in progress//]

I have coached LD at Capital High School in Washington state since 2002, so I've learned new modes as the event has evolved. At a western Washington tournament, you're as likely to run into a complete traditionalist as a progressive, and I can operate (mostly) comfortably in both modes. Risk-taking, passion, cleverness: these can all be good traits, and winning traits at that. I'll admit, though, that I'm biased in favor of debating the resolution. And I have no idea how to judge a performance. No idea whatsoever.
 * Experience and Biases:**

My two overriding concerns are fairness and laziness. Fairness means acknowledging and mitigating my own biases (described above), and voting on fairness when it comes to theory. (But, to be fair, if you can make a theoretical argument based on education or some other voter--give it a go!)
 * On Debate Overall**

Laziness is for me, not for you; you're doing the bulk of the work in the round, by communicating clearly, making warranted arguments, explaining impacts under whatever framework wins out; giving me time to digest abstruse or obscure ideas.

I can't judge what I can't hear, so I'll give you the benefit and say "clear" once. Ignore that, and you're on your own. Remember that I haven't seen all your cards.
 * On Speed:**

Run good theory arguments as needed.
 * On Theory:**

I don't want to intervene. I do want to enjoy the debate I have the privilege of judging.
 * In Short:**