Stormo,+Kyle

My general judging philosophy is that it is my job as a judge to just watch and decide who debates best and it is your job to pick what you are going to debate about.

As a Tab judge, it is imperative that you tell me how to evaluate the round. If you don't tell me how to evaluate the round I default to a policy maker (as a policy maker the neg NEEDS to put offense on the flow. If I'm not told to evaluate any other way and there is no offense on the flow I tend to vote Aff, as a warning). I prefer a line by line debate, clarity is essential, speed is fine (I've had no problems with speed but only judged in South Dakota so I don't know how that stacks up), I think spreading is a legitimate strategy and finally I like it when teams give multiple reasons to vote for them ie I win T but even if I lose there I win the DA etc.

The only thing I would caution against running is a Kritiks. I don't hear them run well often. I would say if there is an abuse in round, I'm fine with it but if it's just a general topic indict you would have some work to do to persuade me.

I enjoy a good theory debate (so saying things like "It's a voter for fairness and ground" isn't enough. You have to explain your theory positions). I like T, CP, DA and case all the same. Run what works best in the round.