Helfgott,+Jonathan

I think I'm a pretty standard judge. I will listen to pretty much any argument (obvious caveats: arguments like "the holocaust was a good thing" aren't going to get you very far). I have no problem with theory, though I will admit a personal preference for substance. I will point out that I have a pretty high threshhold for voting based on abuse arguments, and while I have voted for potential abuse it's pretty rare. If you want to run an abuse-based theory argument, it will behoove you to point to actual in-round abuse rather than running a standard shell regardless of what's actually happened in the round.

In general I try to judge rounds based on the terms the competitors set for themselves. If you use a traditional criterion structure, I'll expect you to give a good link story at the end that incorporates that criterion, because that's what you've told me you need to do to win. If you want to focus on a priori voting issues, that's fine too. Set up the burdens early in the round, and then work to meet them, and you'll do just fine with me.

No problem with speed unless someone is speaking faster than they're physically capable. If you're clear, you're golden, and I don't care what your words per minute is. If you stumble over words at a moderate pace, it'll affect your speaks. Know your limits and don't exceed them and you'll be fine.

Finally, I'm a pretty big proponent of the idea that the debate should be narrower at the end of the round than it was at the beginning. If you try to go for everything, chances are you haven't done a very good job of setting up a clear burden and honing in on what you need to do to win it.