Murado,+Nicholas

Hello. =)

I am Nicholas Murado and I am an LD judge. I have judged every format at some point in my judging career and I know how to judge the other formats well, but LD is my baby.

Education: Juris Doctor (law) degree - University of Florida \\ Bachelor's (in Political Science) - Florida Gulf Coast University

When I played, I played LD. I finished high school in 2002. I've been judging ever since. This was riiiight about when LD began its metagame shift away from a distinct, philosophy-based format. The CX players corrupted LD with their fancy "plans" and "cards" and the like, and forever (?) changed the landscape of the format I held dear. Now, people treat LD as though it is one player CX. I do not like this very much. I remember a time when this was not the case, and I wish we could go back to that. A lot of my philosophy is rooted in that belief, and if you want me to love you forever, heed this advice. =)

__**THE FOLLOWING SECTION APPLIES TO BOTH LD A****ND PF.**__


 * Overall philosophy**: It is important for me to note that above all else, I am a gamer. I love strategy games. I do not like punishing a player for making a strategic decision in a debate round. I do not require players to adhere to a strict framework IF they feel that doing otherwise is a strategic benefit for some reason. **However**, I adjudicate rounds solely based on what my flow says at the end of the 32 or 33 minutes. I believe that it is possible to be a "games player" judge (as much as this can even exist in LD and PF) while still voting strictly based on the flow. That said, provided you do not run afoul of the advice contained herein, run whatever arguments you want without worry.


 * Speed**: I hate speed. I really hate it. I believe debate should be won by the smartest player, NOT the player with the most lingual dexterity. I am okay with players speaking at a faster-than-normal pace, but it should not be excessive. I did an experiment: I clicked on a random link on this wiki and read someone else's philosophy, out loud, at "slightly faster than normal speed." It came out to ~230 WPM for something I had never seen before. This means that if your AC is somewhere around 1500 words, you are fine. If you get up to 1800, though, that may be nearing the top-end for what I like. I tend to ask players to read me the first couple of sentences of their constructive before the round to make sure their pacing is okay. If you intentionally break the speed limit, I will drop you. I give warnings.

There are a few exceptions to this preference. First, if it is an outround and there is a panel of judges, I will not require players to conform to my speed preferences. I want to avoid a situation where a speed-based player has to weigh conceding my ballot in exchange for a greater chance of winning the other panelists' ballots. Second, if the match is played by two experienced players, possibly on the national circuit, then I am fine allowing both players to speed. I understand that the metagame is entirely different at the top tier of play, and when "everybody" is doing it and is used to it, having to break rhythm and lose your groove in the middle of a tournament seems unfair. I have no problems understanding speed, I just hate it.


 * Feedback:** I am a very facially-active judge. If I do not understand something, it will be clear on my face. I scrunch my forehead, I tilt my head, etc. If I like what is being said, that should be clear on my face, too. If I think you just hit a major point, I may crack a grin and nod my head as my pencil furiously deposits its graphite onto the sheet of paper in front of me.

I very often stop flowing and look up at the players during a speech. This is not a bad thing. This can mean many things. Sometimes I realize I have not paid attention to the actual speaking style and I need some data for speaker point awards. Sometimes I have already figured out where you are going and have already flowed what you are about to say. Sometimes I have already come to a decision on a given argument -- or even the entire debate -- and I am looking only for things to put on the RFD at this point. There are many reasons for this and you should not worry when it happens while you are speaking. Generally, though, if I am focused on my paper (or on my laptop), my face is easily readable and there is a wealth of information to be gleaned therein.


 * Speaker points:** My award of speaker points is completely and entirely separate from any substantive aspect of the debate. I award speaks based on how well you speak, nothing more. Therefore, low point wins are not so uncommon in my rounds. On the rare occasion that disrespect occurs, I may deduct some speaks based on what happened and the surrounding circumstances.


 * Aesthetics**: I do not care what you wear, how you look, whether you sit or stand, etc. This type of stuff has absolutely no bearing on my decision-making. I do prefer having AFF on my left and NEG on my right, if possible... but I tend to instruct this at the start of the round anyway.

__**THIS SECTION APPLIES ONLY** **TO LD.**__


 * Kritiks and Theory:** They have to be REALLY relevant for me to accept them. For example, there is some argument that goes something like "the AC only used 'he' as a pronoun when referring to people in general; this is bad for reasons X, Y, Z, therefore vote neg." I give no value to this argument whatsoever. It is not relevant to the resolution. It is not checking AC abuse. Don't run things like this. As I stated above, I consider debate a game where the smartest player should win. Games of this type need to have rules. Rules are important as they are the only way for players to prepare their strategies beforehand. At the heart of the kritik is a shirking of the rules of play: a debate on the merits of the resolution. Sometimes this can be useful... but it is very rare, and you should be weary of running something like this without prior permission.


 * Standards:** I like the V/VC structure, but adhering to it is not required to win my vote. You should probably have a good reason to go away from it, but if you do, fear not and have at it.


 * Cards, Evidence, etc.:** LD is not CX. Cards, evidence, etc are nearly irrelevant to me. A simple "Locke said (blank)" or "Based on Foucault's version of the theory of the panopticon, (blank)" is more than sufficient. If your constructive uses cards and evidence (and I am aware most players do this these days), I won't dock you for it by any means... it's just usually unnecessary. Also, if your argument contains an assumption of fact, provided it is plausible and "common sense" dictates that it is not fabricated, then I do not need you to give me a card for it. For example, if you say "significantly more people were arrested for crime X in country Y than country Z in the last year," that will have the exact same effect on my thought process as if you said "country Y had 27,659 arrests for crime X last year; CNN.com reporter Ezreal Taric; country Z had 5,673 arrests for crime X last year; MSNBC.com reporter Katarina Soraka." I also won't give the opponent any ground for saying "where's the card for that?" Use evidence as a foundation for your philosophical arguments... those are the ones that really matter.


 * Plans:** LD is not CX. If I didn't see another plan in an LD round again, I'd be a very happy man. Again, you can run whatever you want, buuuuuut keep in mind that if you run things I don't like, I am probably more open to be receptive to a neg counter than harps on that fact. Also, if AFF does run a plan, do //not// run a PIC on NEG. I'll hate you even more for that.


 * Abuse:** If you believe something the other side has done is abusive, indicate in your next speech's roadmap that you will be discussing the abuse, and then when you get there, BRIIIIEFLY tell me what they did, why you think it's abuse, and what I should do about it. If it is actually abusive, I've already figured out it's abusive and I already have a "punishment" in mind -- either ignoring the argument (by far the most common) or something else. But, just in case I don't see it, you should devote maybe 20 seconds to this. Don't try to //convince// me that it's abuse -- I will decide on my own after the round. In other words, if one player offers an abusive argument and the other player does not recognize it and does not call it out in the round, this does NOT mean that I will extend the abusive argument. I have no problems dropping abusive arguments //sua sponte//.


 * Roadmaps:** They're fine. I like them.


 * Cross-examination:** I tend to consider the CX segments as "shared speeches" insofar as comments made during the cross-examination are binding on the player and the player's case. I know some judges think the CX time "doesn't count" and only the timed individual speeches "count," but I do not see it this way. That said, do NOT use the CX time as an extension of a main speech. Use them to clarify points and to try to trap your opponent. In other words, if it's your CX time, you cannot "gain ground" per se, but you CAN force the opponent to lose ground. Of course, in your next speech, you still need to explain to me why it is lost ground in this way...

I hate time-wasters. If you use common tactics like //frequently// asking "what do you mean by that?" in response to a player asking you a question, I will not be happy and you may be penalized in some way for this. Also, I almost always ask players to finish answering an asked question if they have yet to answer completely when the buzzer sounds.


 * New argument rule:** I am strict about not accepting new arguments in the rebuttals. I know some judges allow small new arguments in the 1AR because the NEG still gets to respond, but I am not one of these judges. Main arguments are valid in the AC and NC only. New arguments made directly against the opponent's counter argument are fine, of course... if it all stems from the same line on the flow, we are good.


 * Presumption:** In the case of a tie on an argument (or the entire debate, rarely), I give it to the NEG.


 * Player-made burdens:** If someone says "If I can prove X, should I win?" and the opponent says "yes," then the one and only voting issue is whether that player proved X. This is very important: despite NOT being sound logically, I will presume that a burden of "If I prove X, I win" is actually "If I prove X, I win; //if I do not prove X, I lose.//" If you do not want me to make this presumption, you need to say so as the burden is established, and you need to explain why I should view it the way you want me to view it.