Gersh,+Annie

Marlborough (2016) Brown (2020)

General:

I default to a comparative worlds paradigm. I'm not really comfortable with truth testing paradigms so this probably wouldn't be smart to run in front of me. I typically run policy style arguments - Plans, CPs, DAs. I'm fine with framework as long as you explain it well, especially in your extensions. I have a low threshold for extensions of dropped arguments (author name and brief warrant/tag). I'm fine with speed but don't let it compromise your clarity. Please slow down for card names. I'll say clear but if I have to say it more than twice I'll start docking speaks. I really enjoy strong, strategic CX so use this time well. I won't vote on any offensive arguments, (e.g. genocide good).

Substance I love plans, CPs, and DAs. I'm fine with the neg not reading a separate framework. I'm fine with Ks but if it's not a generic K (cap k, CLS k, etc) and it has more dense writing please be clear and slow down a bit.

Theory I'd rather see a great, substantive round with lots of clash, evidence comparison, and strong weighing. But, obviously if there's a flagrant abuse, then run theory. I typically default to a competing interps paradigm but I have no problem with reasonability as long as you explain why it's a good way to evaluate theory. Please slow down for interps/counter interps as I'll evaluate them based off of the text not the spirit. If you can prove the abuse is marginal and the theory is frivolous/unnecessary, a bit of offense is probably enough for theory to go away. I won't have a high threshold on how much offense you need to generate if the abuse is small. I'm not super sympathetic to RVIs. But, if you can explain why you think you really need them I wouldn't be opposed to voting on them, just note I have a high threshold. Also, if there is a K in the round with theory, please do weighing as to which layer comes first.

Speaks I'll evaluate speaks based on how I think you'd perform in comparison to the rest of the field.