Hone,+Joshua

I'm about as tab as anyone can truly be tab, and I will evaluate the arguments you give me as they are presented. That being the case, there are two things that are very important to me as a judge.

Voters: I want to see clear and well argued voting issues. Giving me a framework with which to view those voters is equally important. I hate intervening to decide how to evaluate an argument, so give me a warranted standard by which to do so.

Extensions: one of the most under emphasized points in policy debate. Saying an authors name does not an extension make. Claims, warrants, impacts, people. Just like I hate intervening on framework or voters, I hate intervening to make an extension. Make good, clean, extensions and we will all be happy.

I'll vote on anything, but know for me to enjoy voting on T there either needs to be actual abuse or a good voter on theory. Don't pretend there is abuse when there isn't. Not a critical point but a personal pet-peeve.

I can flow as fast as you can spread with the obvious caveat of clarity. If you are unclear and I am trying to understand you I will not yell "clear", but will be visibly trying to follow what you're saying/reading. If I cannot understand you, I can't flow you, which doesn't bode well for the ballot.

Speaks will be based on speaking ability (including spread clarity), persuasion, professional demeanor, civility, and strength in cross-ex.