I’ve had 7 years of debate experience – 4 in high school, and 3 judging. I am a policy judge and will generally vote on the questions “Do I believe this plan will work? Is it doing the best thing for the most people? Why should I put it into place? Or rather, why should I not?” I am okay with counterplans and anything else you can throw out there so long as you can show feasible, real world implications. DA's will need to have links that are not just generic, but have actual implications due to the affirmative plan. I do not like topicality, but in the case that a plan is untopical, the Negative will need to show how this is poorly affecting the debate. I can handle most speeds, although bear in mind that the number of cards you read isn’t half as important to me as how you argue them. I like debaters who can analyze evidence – explain to me why it makes sense and how it affects the round. In some cases, you may need to explain why your evidence is better than that of the opposing team. In regards to tag team cross ex, amount of prep time, feedback at the end of the round, and disclosing the result of the debate, I will defer to what has been decided by the tournament organizers.