My paradigm is pretty simple. I'm a Tabs-Policymaker judge. What this means is it's your guys job to do the debating, weigh the round and impact the heck out of everything. I can handle people talking at an accelerated rate, but garbled mumbo-jumbo will get you nowhere fast with me. I flow on paper - sorry. I'll let you know if you're going too fast (read: unclear), but if you don't see me writing your argument down chances are a) you aren't making one, or b) I warned you to slow down and you didn't listen. And if it's not on my flow.... then you didn't really say it, did you?

At the end of the round I expect you to condense and impact. Usually, the team that impacts the best wins my rounds. Don't think that because I also judge LD means I'm not a "good" judge. I'll give comprehensive oral critiques after the round - but don't argue with me or I'll just leave. Critiques are to help you do better, not so the losing team can take it out on me because they lost the round. I weigh pretty much all arguments equally. Don't think that I'll vote for you just for running a kritik, you still have to do the work on the flow. If you're running some wanky theory crap, ask me about it first (but me calling it wanky theory crap probably answered your question, didn't it?) And no, T is not wanky theory crap, and yes, if your case is horribly untopical and the other team argues it effectively, you will lose.

Offense is always better than defense. In round abuse is always better than potential abuse. Quality is always better than quantity, and peperoni and sausage are the best toppings for a pizza.

Essentially, have fun, weigh your arguments, play nice, and I'm sure we'll all get along just fine.

Note - pretty much the same stuff applies for LD (except that whole 'policymaker' thing). I've been around WI for a long time, if you guys don't know where I stand on something, just ask.