Affiliation: La Crosse
Experience: Four years of VSS at Neenah, judge for two years with La Crosse. Judged novice at several tournaments this year.

Paradigm: Policymaker. Impact calc is the most important thing for me in the round. If I buy your impacts outweighing theirs, you will probably win.

DA's and CP's: Yes. I prefer specific links to generic ones. I have a soft spot for Politics, but not enough for it to be preferential.

Kritiks: Kritiks are not a strength of mine. If you absolutely must read one, give me some real-world impacts. Let me tell you, when you spout phrases like "transcending the fantasy" or just shout "HEGEL, HEGEL, HEGEL" (I've had both in round), you'll make me very angry, because chances are, neither I nor your opponent knows and understands the context of these phrases because kritiks are debated so poorly. If and when you read the kritik, go slow, and help me through it.

Topicality: I'll vote on it, but you need to prove in-round abuse. Tell me exactly what arguments you can't run because they're not topical. I won't vote on potential abuse. You're not going to win T by spitting out "vote on T for fairness and education", I'm not buying it. Explain your voters.

Theory: Sure, but again, give me some in-round abuse. Chances are you're not doing that when you're flying down a 15-point theory block. This is another one of my weaker areas, so you need to explain yourself thoroughly.

Miscellaneous: Theoretically, I admire Dan Hansen's paradigm, I agree that viewing the judge as "the president" can be viewed as the crux of the policymaking paradigm. I agree that pre-written analysis is annoying, because it inevitably leads to two teams arguing on two different levels, completely ignoring the other's arguments. No clash pisses me off. I'm not going to assume the role of myself as the president, but I do think that the "judge-as-president" mindset leads to better debates.

Speed: At your own risk. I debated VSS for four years, but I'm now almost two years out of high school, and haven't judged a single VSS round since. All the rounds I've judged this year have been novice, so keep that in mind. Don't assume I know what you're talking about and can speed through it as usual. I'm not going to shout clear or drop my pen or anything silly like that if you're going too fast. I'm just going to stop trying to flow. Perhaps stay on the safe side, and turn down the jets with me.

A Good Round: Civil and educational. I'm not going to say what arguments I want, that's up to you, but you can judge which ones can better lead to your victory with the above. Above all, I like to see a round where both sides know what the hell is going on. One of the biggest dangers to this activity is increasingly one-sided debates due to the deliberate use of confusing and misleading arguments. Explain your arguments, and we can all learn something. You might pick up the win by confusing your opponent, but know you're contributing to the decline of this activity.