Lassus,+Nick

 Issues:  1.) Speed -- I am generally fine with the speed of LD rounds so long as the debaters are clear. I will only yell "clear" once and then, if you're still unclear, will try to flow as much as possible but I'll probably miss important arguments and your speaks will drop a lot.  2.) Theory -- I am willing to vote off of theory if it is won. If you run theory, be sure that your opponent is actually being abusive, or else I'll be holding your opponent to a much lower standard in terms of answering it and probably won't give you the best speaks. If you run theory that is missing a lot of links (so basically any bad theory), your speaks will definitely drop. I’m not someone to run theory in front of if you aren’t sure it’s a well-written/thought-out shell.  3.) Standards -- I default to the value/criterion model but am willing to vote under a different framework if said framework is justified and won.  4.) Speaks -- I base speaks on the intelligence of your arguments, your strategic awareness, and how you treat your opponent in round. If you make smart arguments and are strategic and polite, then I will give you good speaks. If you are completely unclear in the round, I’ll drop your speaks. That is both verbal clarity (this doesn’t imply I want you to go slow, just be clear) and intellectual clarity. If your arguments make absolutely no sense in general, your speaks will reflect it. I’d give a 30 if I wouldn’t change anything about how you debated.  5.) Paradigm debate -- I seriously don’t care about this AT ALL. If you spend a lot of time discussing it in round, I give you my 100% guarantee that I will zone out. Instead of justifying truth-testing or comparative worldviews, I would prefer that you just run theory against the strategy that is abusive and that the paradigm you are defending would exclude. For example, if your opponent runs a skepticism case, instead of running theory justifying CW, just run theory indicting skepticism.  6.) Micro-political stuff. It is extremely unlikely that I will vote on a position based on my ballot being symbolic. I am discouraging you from running arguments based on discursive impacts. I will say it is possible I’d vote off of it, but probably only if your opponent says literally nothing against it.    I will not vote for arguments that I do not understand or that you do not explain well to me or your opponent. If I understand the argument and believe you are winning it, then I will be willing to vote for it. If your extensions are missing an important link, I wont vote off of the argument. Basically, I wont do any work for you. I’m willing to call evidence, but its unlikely that I will do this because I didn’t understand the argument when you read it.