((Hodgkins,+Charley))

Hey, my name is Charley Hodgkins and I judge LD for La Costa Canyon where I originally attended school. I will not have any experience on the sanctions topic prior to VBT, but I feel like the underlying conflict of the resolution is pretty clear without a huge grasp of the literature. I did not debate in high school so I will be the first one to admit that I'm not the best with speed, but that does not forbid you from running nuanced positions. I feel like when I tell people not to go fast they quickly and arbitrarily conclude that I am not a fan of well structured, potentially confusing arguments. Anything that you CLEARLY warrant and impact back to a standard is fair game. Having said that, since I never debated in high school I am not quick to pull the trigger on theory--I don't know what abuse IS necessarily, so I will only vote for a shell if it is compelling, clear, and well-developed. Theory needs warrants too. What I often tell my brother is that I tend to evaluate speaks in terms of strategy rather than flawless presentation--don't worry if your tie is a little crooked, speaker points pertain to strength of argumentation in my opinion. With that said, BE CLEAR IN ROUND and you probably won't see to many low speaks wins. K's are acceptable if you provide a clear ballot story. I will not vote on a 1 minute unwarranted K with an incomprehensible voter... probably even if it's mishandled. Ideally, you guys will do the work for me in terms of weighing and decision calculus. I default comparative world, and have trouble granting arguments suggesting the contrary. Good luck!