Boreczky,+Chance


 * Summary**

- Be sportsmanlike - Don't take prep for flashing - Tag team cx is fine - Don't advocate genocide or racism or sexism - Run what you like but be ready to defend it against all comers - I will believe absolutely anything if it goes unanswered or mostly unanswered - I’m not here to make arguments for you or fill in the gaps in your arguments - I’m here to listen to arguments and, if I must decide between arguments, vote for the ones that are made most logically and with the best evidence. Do as much of that work for me as you can when comparing arguments.

I like; - Evidence qualifications and general quality - Innovative, case-specific, well-supported offcase arguments (especially Ks) - Background knowledge and familiarity with subject matter - The occasional pop culture analogy (if it’s tasteful) - Impact calculus or standards comparison that makes my job easier - Nietzsche

I don’t like; - Generic links (although I can’t complain about using generic links against unconventional or drastically new cases) - Multiple contradictory T violations, or ones that only include specific cases - Lazily written link chains or ones with gaps - Smarm, in CX or speeches - Nietzsche