Moore,+Todd

Todd Moore Mount Vernon High School (I've also coached at Oak Harbor, Burlington-Edison, Sehome, and Sunnyside...all in WA)

I debated 3 years of policy in high school, 2 years of CEDA in college, and I've coached 15 years...mostly policy. I attempt to be as tabula rosa as possible, so I look to the debaters to establish the voting standards for the round. To make this work I need you to:
 * 1) 1 Have a consistent story.
 * 2) 2 Establish a voting hierarchy that refers to specific issues and clashes with (or demonstrates the irrelevence) of your opponents offense.

In absence of guidelines, I will evaluate the round by looking for criterial impacts to a live value. Value comparison is ok, but most rounds come down to a link comparison as most competitors attempt to link to both values (or have the same value). In terms of impacting I look first to in-round language implications, then resolutional issues, then procedural issues (theory), and then case issues. I will follow competitors guidelines if they argue for a different structure.

I've judged more than 50 rounds this year. but only about 20 LD. I judged at Berekeley and my policy background makes me pretty familiar with the content of the resolution. I am not very familiar with LD specific theory and norms, so spend time explaining if you want to win on that ground and/or I look puzzled.

I can handle a pretty fast round. Where I run into problems are hidden procedurals inside of counter-plan shells (I hear them, but my ears are faster than my pen), and blippy 1 liner theory wars. If you are unclear or too fast I'll tell you.

Rudeness is very annoying and totally avoidable. Please do so.