Jain,+Sachin

My judging paradigm is premised on the belief that the round is yours and that I ought to intervene as little as possible. I hope that this judging philosophy will explain my limitations as a judge and what I envision for an ideal round.

Ideals round would have a clear decision calculus(doesn't have to be a standard) set out for me in which I can filter argumentation through. Strong weighing analysis is highly beneficial to you and makes my role more clear and objective. Lastly, I find that rounds are far easier for me to adjudicate if debaters are organized and signpost well.

I debated LD for all four years in high school and have been judging for the past two years(a couple tournaments per year).

Despite having an “open” judging philosophy, I believe that this paradigm will be most helpful in expressing my own limitations:

Speed-- UPDATED: No spreading. Prefer normal pace. I can't handle speed anymore.

Critical Theory / Theory – I am definitely not as well-versed in critical theory as many other judges. However, if you offer clear analysis at a moderate pace I should be able to follow. I'll vote on any type of argument you make important in the round, just make it clear and relatively simple for me to understand. Seriously, make it clear. Don't assume I know the literature. I'll vote on anything, but if you don't do a good job making complex arguments simple, I blame you.

As for theory, the same applies—it's all okay as long as you clearly explain to me what it is your doing and how it functions.

As for speaker points, I use a scale of 26-30 and tend to give out a few 30's per tournament. In addition to debate skills I add courtesy in the mix when evaluating speaker points.

All in all, it's your round, have fun!