Thomas,Hilary

I am a traditional policy maker judge. I weigh the round based on impacts. I like to see a lot of impact calculus (especially using time-frame, magnitude, probability) really early in the round. Your arguments are only important if they have an impact - tell me why it matters! You can run worst case scenario impact scenarios with me but let me know how you reach it - you still have to have a link and the stronger the link is to your impact, the stronger your argument is.

**Topicality** -- I don't like topicality because I don't think it has an impact in the round. The only one anyone ever claims is abuse or time suck - which hold zero weight in the round for me. Abuse is not a voting issue. Please please please don't run topicality unless they are blatantly untopical. I hate the specs more than anything. Seriously I hate them so don't run them. Just please don't waste my time. If topicality is not blatant I really won't flow it.

**Counter Plans and DAs** -- I love CPs and DAs. I love good impact scenarios and strong solvency debates on case and on the counter plan. I much rather you run a good, strong CP with good NBs and DAs than any critical argument, procedural or kritik you would run.

**Theory** -- I really rather not hear theory. I don't care about theory arguments and they don't have an impact except abuse. Which again, is not a voter. So unless it is vital to your strategy, please don't run theory. You can mention that they are not mutually exclusive so they won't solve as well or that they are topical so they are affirming the resolution etc. these arguments can help you but don't cry abuse.

**Oncase** -- If the negative team fails to attack the affs advantages or solvency, they will have a really hard time winning the round. The only thing the aff would need to do would be to constantly show how their advantages outweigh and they have the round. So, neg, if you want to win, don't leave the advantages untouched. I don't really like harms or inherency arguments and I hate huge case dumps without any offense or impacts.

**Kritiks** -- Kritiks fall outside of my paradigm. They require an outside framework to work under - which would trump my paradigm. That is why I don't want you to run them. They can't be evaluated under the impact calculus I want and usually don't have any viable impact. Your chances of picking up my ballot with a kritik are almost zero. So, don't waste your time and run a CP and DAs instead.

**Word for the aff** -- critical affs are also not easily evaluated under my paradigm and the impact calculus doesn't generally hold up well against traditional impacts. So, if you run them know that I will start off not liking your case and it will be harder to win my ballot.

**Speed** -- I'm fine with speed. What I am __NOT__ fine with: screaming, yelling, hyperventilating, slurring, mumbling, not making coherent sentences etc. Don't go fast if you don't have to. Speed doesn't impress me and I feel like half the time you can go faster if you just calm down, breath and read. Most of you won't listen to me anyway and will scream and spit at me, just know that I will give you one warning and then i'll stop flowing. Its not my fault if you can't articulate what you say. And also, I hate jargony, long critical taglines that have words no one understands in them. So please, don't say them I will be throughouly unimpressed if you do.

**Word for the Neg** -- I hate when you run fifteen positions in the constructives and kick down to one or two in the rebuttals. If you are planning on only keeping one or two then only run those and work on making them stronger. I hate flowing stuff that doesn't matter and I hate listening to it more. You never know what could win you the round and I have been in too many rounds where the neg ran stuff I didn't like and then kicked out of all the positions I might have voted for them on. Its painful don't do it.

Feel free to ask me anymore questions and make this round fun for me by actually paying attention to my paradigm! There is nothing worse than watching four debaters scream at each other using jargon to sound cool while I sit and doodle.