Long,+Corey

About: I did 3 years of LD and have coached LD for 4 years.

General Paradigm: There’s no category of argument that I won’t listen to, I try to intervene as little as possible.

*An argument and the extension of an argument should include claim, warrant and impact.

Speed: I’m fine with speed but you should be clear. I’ll clear you but not continuously. Read names slower so I can understand your signposts.

Theory: I don’t default to anything, you should make arguments for competing interps if you want theory to be evaluated that way. Your standards should be actual arguments with warrants that you explain like any other argument. If there’s multiple different violations being argued it will help you to weigh them or weigh standards, etc.

I will gut check things if it really does come to that, but only based on arguments that you have made.

Framework: I don’t default to anything here either, if you both make consequentialist impacts that’s fine. If not, I expect there to be some kind of framework debate or analysis to resolve that so you can weigh.

I have no problem with skep triggers as long as they don’t come in the form of unwarranted spikes. I don’t find them controversial if made clearly but if not, or if you think your opponent’s variety is unfair, I’ll listen to that debate.

Kritiks: I enjoy topic specific kritiks especially, be clear about your links and alt or how you’re weighing offense.

I don’t have a problem with non-traditional cases or PICs, CPs, etc.

I’ve only judged one performance based advocacy. I don’t have much experience with them but be clear about why I should vote for you, role of the ballot, etc.