Walton,+Shayne

**Update for Harvard Westlake:**
I've been out of the community for a bit, so I definitely am not up to date on all the current LD trends. I'm most comfortable evaluating theory and philosophy debates, but I'm definitely least comfortable evaluating K debate. I never read Ks and typically K debaters don't pref me highly/don't read K positions in front of me, so I really never got exposed to the arguments. If you do read kritikal arguments, __please__ explain them well.

Hi! I’m Shayne! :) I’m currently a senior at UCLA. I debated on the national LD circuit for four years for La Costa Canyon High School, and was an independent debater for my entire senior year. I was previously affiliated with Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy and Palo Alto Independent as well. I cleared at nearly every bid tournament my entire senior year. If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or email me : Shayne.walton@gmail.com
 * Background**

-Competing interps -Drop the debater -Aff gets presumption
 * Defaults (but I can be persuaded otherwise)**

I first pick who wins the framework/role of the ballot, and then I decide who has the best offense linking back to it. Make this clear for me and you’ll make me happy J
 * How I Evaluate Rounds**

Speed is totally fine. BE CLEAR. I will yell clear. If I have to yell it more than 4 times, I stop flowing and I watch Gilmore Girls on my computer instead.
 * Speed**
 * Slow down for all tags, author names, theory interps, alt texts, etc.** *

I love framework debate please do it <3 <3 <3
 * Framework**

When I was debating I always loved debating theory, so go for it. I’m okay with it being used for strategic purposes, but please make sure there’s at least a semi-believable abuse story. I really prefer that theory be in a shell format. If it's paragraph theory or something like that, just make it very clear what the implication is- if I don't hear a warrant for drop the debater or something, then I won't drop the debater. I believe that competing interpretations requires a counter interpretation. If you do not have one, I will vote for your opponent off of the other shell (so long as it is drop the debater).
 * Theory**

I will NOT vote on arguments that tell me to vote down your opponent for being racist, sexist, etc. if the link comes from anything other than an explicit racist or sexist remark. That being said, I'm still fine with prefiat justifications for a standard or to reject certain arguments. (Stolen from Brennan Caruthers’ wiki)
 * Performance**

As much as it may be fun to watch you sing or dance or read a poem in round, I am not willing to vote off of these arguments. Also any arguments indicating that you should win because you have had unique experiences due to being a woman in debate, independent debater, etc. and there are structural things against you is not sufficient to achieve my ballot either. I understand that it sucks, I've been there and I’m totally willing to help out with anything if you just email me :) (Shayne.walton@gmail.com).

If you need clarification on this, let me know.

I only read one K ever and that was Speaking for Others. I don’t completely understand a lot of K lit like other judges, but I am not unwilling to vote on them. Please please please explain them for me. If I don’t understand them, I will probably accept the silly arguments your opponent makes against them and evaluate the rest of the round instead. **I am not good at evaluating K debates, sorry, but if that's going to be your main strat, you shouldn't pref me.**
 * Kritiks**

Totally okay with everything. I understand how they work and I’m happy to vote off of them.
 * Policy Args**

-I will give you an extra .1 speaker point for every good Gossip Girl, 24, Chuck, or Taylor Swift reference, up to a 29ish. -Have fun in CX and then I’ll have more fun judging your round! (Also don’t lie in CX.) -BE NICE TO EACH OTHER -Don’t be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. -Don’t say “silence is consent” -I will not vote on anything I find offensive and will probably vote you down if you do anything offensive. (Offensive args include religious/theistic args) -I don’t want to vote on presumption, but I will.
 * Misc Stuff**

From Rory Jacobson's wiki: ===**IF AT ANY POINT IN THE ROUND YOUR OPPONENT HAS MADE YOU FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE (this doesn't just mean racism, sexism, or ableism arguments etc but instead turns to racism, turns to sexism, or other similarly offensive or triggering arguments) pound three times on the desk (this is so you don't feel like you will be stopping the round) and I will stop the round and have a discussion with your opponent about what they have done and will give you a 30 for putting up with it. This also means that I will have to have to agree that what they did was offensive, but this shouldn't be too difficult (my threshold is low, but I wont intervene unless you ask me to because I dont know your limits or personal perspective). **===