Pierry,+Patricia

St. Francis HS '12 UC Berkeley '16

I debated for four years at St. Francis HS in public forum, as well as competing in oratory. I was a captain of the speech & debate team my senior year. I've judged public forum on the national circuit since 2012, and judged league (read: lay) policy during the 15-16 and 16-17 seasons. I've judged 2 rounds on the current policy topic. I have judged exactly 6 rounds of (slow / lay) LD throughout my judging career.

__**Policy**__

Minimal. I know what the People's Republic of China is, and have a basic understanding of what they are doing/what we are doing. Acronyms or jargon need to be explained further. I have judged two rounds on the China topic.
 * Topic Knowledge:**

//I don't understand spreading.// However, I am a flow judge, and, provided you are speaking at an intelligible level, I will evaluate arguments as they appear on my flow. Since I am a former debater, you can speak faster than you would in front of a parent, but, please, do not spread. If you are speaking faster than I can understand, I will shout clear twice, and then give up.
 * Too Long; Didn't Read:**

Flashing isn't prep unless I feel it's egregious. I'm fine with tag teaming cross-ex as long as the speaker who's not being cross-ex'ed doesn't completely take over.

Paneled rounds: I won't punish you for tailoring to other judges -- although I will still judge off the flow.

I default to a stock issue paradigm:
 * Evaluating Rounds:**
 * Topicality: If it's logical and you can show why it's unfair for them to read the aff, I will vote on T.
 * Harms: What are the problems in the status quo? Are they significant?
 * Inherency: Are steps being taken in the status quo to solve the harms?
 * Solvency: How does the plan specifically solve the harms?
 * Disadvantage: The disadvantage must outweigh the case. You can use jargon such as uniqueness, internal link, and link, //if// you explain them clearly.

However, I am comfortable judging the round in other lenses (tabula rasa, offense/defense, game theory) provided the debaters explain //how// I should evaluate arguments and //what// those arguments mean.

Please, please, please do impact calculus - explain how your arguments interact and why yours are more important. This is the best way to get my ballot and the best way to get high speaks. If you do not do impact calc, I will have to intervene and one of you will be unhappy with the way I did that.

Feel free to read arguments like counter-plans, kritiks, or theory - however, you need to explain to me how to evaluate them and how they interact with other arguments. I'm not versed in any literature (but down for counterplans), and again - the no-spreading rule applies.
 * Circuit Arguments:**


 * Speaker Points:**
 * >29.5 --> Top three speaker
 * >29.0 --> High elimination rounds
 * >28.5 --> Clearing low
 * >28.0 --> Average
 * >27.0 --> Not quite ready for this division
 * <27.0 --> Blatantly offensive (sexism, racism, anti-queer etc)

Aggression is good, rudeness is not. Make me laugh, but don't if you're not funny.

__**Public Forum**__

I am a flow judge and will evaluate arguments as they appear on my flow. You can speak faster than you would to a parent, but public forum has gotten faster since I graduated, so you should probably go slower than you are able. If you are speaking faster than I can understand, I will shout clear twice, and then give up.
 * Too Long; Didn't Read:**

Paneled rounds: I won't punish you for tailoring to other judges -- although I will still judge off the flow.


 * Evaluating Rounds:**
 * I'm pretty straightforward. I will evaluate framework first, and then look at your contentions and impacts to help me determine who won the round under the framework provided.
 * I am looking for clash -- please weigh arguments for me. That means explaining how your arguments interact and why yours are more important. This is the best way to get my ballot and the best way to get high speaks. If you don't, I will have to intervene and one of you will be unhappy with the way I did that.
 * Think of your final focus as writing my RFD for me (that is, impact calculus, weighing arguments) -- not as a fourth rebuttal.
 * If the tournament allows it, I will call for any evidence I feel is necessary. Please do not turn the round into a back and forth about what the evidence says.

Adhere to my preferences and make the round easy to evaluate and your speaks can only go up. Aggression is good, rudeness is not. If you make me laugh, plus speaks.
 * Speaking Notes:**
 * >29.5 --> Top three speaker
 * 28.0 --> Average
 * <27.0 --> Blatantly offensive (sexism, racism, anti-queer etc)

__**LD**__

//I don't understand spreading.// However, I am a flow judge, and, provided you are speaking at an intelligible level, I will evaluate arguments as they appear on my flow. Since I am a former debater, you can speak faster than you would in front of a parent, but, please, do not spread. If you are speaking faster than I can understand, I will shout clear twice, and then give up.
 * Too Long; Didn't Read:**

Paneled rounds: I won't punish you for tailoring to other judges -- although I will still judge off the flow.


 * Evaluating Rounds:**
 * I have //very limited// experience with LD.
 * I generally judge rounds by first deciding the value and value criterion debate, and then looking at which debater most met the provided value / value criterion.
 * Do not expect me to be familiar with literature or theory. However, I am comfortable with evaluating any arguments you want to run, as long as you //explain how I should do so.//
 * Please, please, please do impact calculus - explain how your arguments interact and why yours are more important. This is the best way to get my ballot and the best way to get high speaks. If you do not do impact calc, I will have to intervene and one of you will be unhappy with the way I did that.

Adhere to my preferences and make the round easy to evaluate and your speaks can only go up. Aggression is good, rudeness is not. If you make me laugh, plus speaks.
 * Speaking Notes:**
 * >29.5 --> Top three speaker
 * 28.0 --> Average
 * <27.0 --> Blatantly offensive (sexism, racism, anti-queer etc)