Recent Changes

Wednesday, April 19

  1. page Sauer, Benjamin edited ... the national circuit and competed in impromptu speaking, persuasion and CA/rhet crit. circu…
    ...
    the national circuit and competed in impromptu speaking, persuasion and CA/rhet crit.circuit. I formerly
    ...
    and policy debate, anddebate. I now regularlycurrently judge policy debate and moot court competitions (Universityserve on the Board of Chicago Law graduate).
    Judging
    Directors of the Milwaukee Urban Debate League.
    Judging
    Philosophy: My preference is for policy to be debated inI favor a policy debate. Themaking / stock issues philosophy. Ideally the AFF should
    ...
    by AFF. That said, I vote for what I am told is a voting issue.
    Quick Tips:
    Speak clearly.
    Do not simply argue a tagline. Argue the evidence. Argue the logic.
    Maintain clash. Go down the flow. Debate line-by-line. Avoid jumping all over the flow.
    ...
    voting framework. Identify the voting issues.
    Restate your thesis in the rebuttal. Present the key compelling issues for your side.
    Provide impact assessments informed by relative risk analysis and evidence.
    Take advantage of the cross examination to force concessions and formulate your arguments.
    Do not be rude. Play nice. Be witty. Smile.
    Have fun.
    Speed: While you will not necessarily lose my vote due to poor speaking skills,

    Speed: I have no problem with spreading. That said,
    debate is orally communicative. I
    ...
    and evidence. I will let you know if I am having a hard time hearing you by saying "clear" or "louder." If I
    ...
    your speeches. Please remember that the quality of each of your arguments can be more important than the quantity of arguments made.
    Calling for Cards:
    I do
    ...
    specifically claims a falsificationsome form of evidence violation by the opposing team. If the opposing team is making an argument clearly not supported by the text of the card (i.e. the card is misused) or the opposing team is selectively highlighting or reading the card to distort meaning (i.e. the card is misquoted), then I will review the cards if a claim is made. A team needs to make clear that a dispute exists regarding the validity, context or meaning of a card before I will call for cards. So no, I do not want to be on your e-mail chain at the start of a round. Do not
    ...
    less clearly. Please remember that the quality of each of your arguments can be more important than the quantity of arguments made,Do not expect me to weigh evidence independently by calling for cards and examining them myself. I dislike strategies that use spreadingexpect you to force concessions out of another team instead of actual clash onargue and weigh the evidence in the policy arguments.round.
    Stock Issues: TheWhile I think the AFF needs
    ...
    all five issues: inherency, significance, solvency, topicality and harms. All stock issues are important when forming and arguing policy implementation, and an AFF thatissues, I only vote on what I am told is missing a stock issue will lose if the NEG makes that a voting issue. If the NEG wants to concede certain stock issues, I willwon't intervene to vote on stock issues, including solvency, significance (disadvantagesthem. That said, the AFF must have some form of plan or advocacy statement (if the AFF isn't affirming any specific plan, advocacy or course of action, then the status quo doesn't change, and advantages) and topicality.NEG wins on presumption). Significance arguments
    Cross Examination: I think cross examination is an extremely important and undervalued tool in current policy debate. I will flow a CX that adds arguments or forces concessions, and I recommend flowing those developments into your speeches. Do not be elusive in response to questions. A simple "I don't know" is an acceptable response if you do not know the answer. I expect a witness only to ask questions to the questioner when seeking clarification, and I have no problem with a questioner interrupting a witness, especially if a witness is attempting to filibuster, to ask for more concise answers or to stop a witness if an answer is sufficient. I do not prefer tag teaming on CX, and I award higher speaker points for individuals who do not rely on verbal assistance from a partner in asking or answering questions or making speeches.
    ...
    of debate. Different forensic competitions exist for those types of activities. That said, I am not an interventionist judge, and I will
    ...
    for a functionally competitive CP
    ...
    I am hestitanthesitant about multiple
    ...
    is not). Unless otherwise stated, I default to unconditional CPs. If the status quo remains an option for me to consider, the NEG should tell me. I vote on what I am told, and I dislike doing work for the debater. If you are attacking AFF's case and running a CP, I will infer some amount of conditionality to the CP and that the status quo is an option, but you will receive higher speaker points for making that link for me.
    Kritiks: I
    ...
    AFF's policy. Remember I view debate as a policymaking exercise, and many Ks do not further this objective. A K
    ...
    philosophical thought (NB: I(I am familiar
    ...
    term means.
    Off-Limits Arguments: No argument is out of bounds or off-limits in the debate round.
    If I am a blank slate,the argument is objectionable / morally wrong, then I have no outside knowledge of your particular theory, and you havethe burden is on the other team to educate me.
    Decorum: How a policy
    explain why this is presentedso and explained to the public can sometimeswhy I should not vote for it. Your team should be as important as the policy itself.able to explain why sexism, racism, homophobia, genocide etc. is not good.
    Decorum:
    You will
    ...
    offensive (e.g. excessively swearing in
    (view changes)
    9:42 pm

Tuesday, January 10

  1. page Sauer, Benjamin edited Background: In college I debated on the national circuit and competed in impromptu speaking, persua…
    Background: In college I debated on the national circuit and competed in impromptu speaking, persuasion and CA/rhet crit. I formerly coached collegiate parliamentary and policy debate, and I now regularly judge policy debate and moot court competitions (University of Chicago Law graduate).
    ...
    Philosophy: My stated preference is
    Quick Tips:
    Speak clearly.
    (view changes)
    3:18 pm
  2. page Sauer, Benjamin edited Background: In college I debated on the national circuit and competed in impromptu speaking, persua…
    Background: In college I debated on the national circuit and competed in impromptu speaking, persuasion and CA/rhet crit. I formerly coached collegiate parliamentary and policy debate, and I now regularly judge policy debate and moot court competitions (University of Chicago Law graduate).
    Judging Philosophy: DebateMy stated preference is a policymaking exercise, and I expectfor policy to
    ...
    by AFF. That said, I vote for what I am told is a voting issue.
    Quick Tips:
    Speak clearly.
    (view changes)
    3:16 pm
  3. page Sauer, Benjamin edited ... Have fun. Speed: While you will not necessarily lose my vote due to poor speaking skills, deb…
    ...
    Have fun.
    Speed: While you will not necessarily lose my vote due to poor speaking skills, debate is communicative. I need to be able to hear your arguments, including your claims, warrants, impacts, links and evidence. If I cannot understand you because you are not speaking clearly enough due to speed, any arguments you make will not be flowed. I do not have your cards or speeches in front of me, so while your opponent may have them and can follow along more easily, I can only flow and follow what you communicate to me in your speeches. I do not call for cards unless a team specifically claims a falsification of evidence by the opposing team. Do not rely on a call for cards as a way to speak more quickly and less clearly. Please remember that the quality of each of your arguments can be more important than the quantity of arguments made, and I dislike strategies that use spreading to force concessions out of another team instead of actual clash on the policy arguments.
    ...
    issue will lose.lose if the NEG makes that a voting issue. I will
    Cross Examination: I think cross examination is an extremely important and undervalued tool in current policy debate. I will flow a CX that adds arguments or forces concessions, and I recommend flowing those developments into your speeches. Do not be elusive in response to questions. A simple "I don't know" is an acceptable response if you do not know the answer. I expect a witness only to ask questions to the questioner when seeking clarification, and I have no problem with a questioner interrupting a witness, especially if a witness is attempting to filibuster, to ask for more concise answers or to stop a witness if an answer is sufficient. I do not prefer tag teaming on CX, and I award higher speaker points for individuals who do not rely on verbal assistance from a partner in asking or answering questions or making speeches.
    Performance / Critiques of Debate: I do not enjoy performance debate or meta-critiques of debate. Different forensic competitions exist for those types of activities. That said, I am not an interventionist judge, and I will not vote on a "Performance is inappropriate" or "Current debate practices are good" / "Status quo debate is good" without an argument stating so from the opposing team. If the opposition concedes framework, I will not vote on it, but if the opposition makes it a voting issue, I will.
    (view changes)
    3:13 pm

Friday, January 6

  1. page Henning, David edited ... Judging Philosophy Version 1.22—December Version 1.4—January 7, 2009 School 2017 …
    ...
    Judging Philosophy
    Version 1.22—December

    Version 1.4—January
    7, 2009
    School
    2017
    NSDA Qualifier Debate Tournament Edition
    School
    Affiliation: Independent HiredThe Sheb--Sheboygan South High School Position: Director of Debate
    Hired
    by: Marquette UniversityHomestead High School, Milwaukee,Mequon, Wisconsin
    Rounds
    Position: Judge
    L-D Rounds
    judged this year/on this topic: 6 /4season: 8 Lifetime: 400 Years250 Years Judging: 20+33
    Experience with academic debate: PolicyI began my debate career during the Carter Administration. I was a policy and Lincoln-Douglas debater in
    ...
    and college (NDT); CEDA and LD debater; frequently judgeduring the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate; oftendebate judge Lincoln-Douglas debate;for many years. This is my seventh year as a high school debate coach and judge parliamentary debate.
    Paradigm:
    was my fourth year as a college debate coach until Lakeland University eliminated the debate program. I've had some success as a debater and as a coach.
    Paradigm:
    Tabula Rasa,
    ...
    or agency. That also holds for Framework arguments. Ignore my philosophy at your own peril.
    Framework: AA Framework is
    ...
    Lincoln-Douglas Debate. ByBy this I
    ...
    dictionary.
    Argumentation: AA well-written, structured
    ...
    Requirements: The December 2009January/February L-D topic,topic is Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization, virtually demands a more policy debate-like treatment. Bodies oncolleges and universities in the flow go a long way toward justifying some sort of action. ImplementationUnited States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. You need to tell me what is constitutionally protected speech and rights issues are bothwhy it is or is not important, legitimate areashopefully with more than some nebulous philosophical evidence. There are lots of argumentation. Asgood arguments and evidence on this topic, so please use them. Implementation is fair game for Lincoln-Douglas debate. As in policy
    ...
    voted against.
    Delivery

    Delivery
    Style: SpeakSpeak loud and
    ...
    the round.
    “.

    ".
    . .
    ...
    mean?”—Lionel Hutz
    “When

    “When
    Stalin says
    ...
    dances.”—Nikita Khrushchev

    (view changes)
    7:57 am
  2. page Henning, Dave edited David Henning—Policy Debate Judging Philosophy Version 4.9bis(c)—January 14, 2015 2015 Wisc…

    David Henning—Policy Debate Judging Philosophy
    Version 4.9bis(c)—January 14, 2015
    2015 Wisconsin State
    4.12.5—January 7, 2017 NSDA Qualifier Debate Tournament Edition
    School Affiliation: Lakeland College, Sheboygan, Wisconsin Position: Director of Debate and Forensics

    School Affiliation:
    ...
    High School Position: Position: Director of
    ...

    Hired by: Homestead Homestead High School, Mequon, Wisconsin Position: Judge Position: Judge
    Rounds judged
    ...
    (College/High School): 0/310/20 Lifetime (C/HS): 60/2000+70/2100+ Years Judging (C/HS): 3/315/33
    Experience with
    ...
    is my fifthseventh year as
    ...
    coach and was my secondfourth year as
    ...
    college debate coach.coach until Lakeland University eliminated the debate program. I've had some success both as a
    ...
    own peril.
    Important Note: There will be some changes to this philosophy by the state tournament. I posted this now in order to meet the posting deadline. This philosophy is 90% complete, and there will be no radical changes in my philosophy between now and the tournament. There will be minor edits and changes and a few quotations added to this philosophy. The addendum on performance/advocacy/non-traditional debate will be revised and extended, although it does lay out my current but ever-evolving views on this type of debate. There will be printed copies available at the tournament, and if this infernal machine allows me to update the philosophy here, it will be.
    Topicality:

    Topicality:
    Show me
    ...
    strategies are 5-56-5 with me.
    ...
    like Topicality. However, I voted on Topicality last year--that team, from the University of Kansas, did everything I asked for and more, not only arguing actual abuse in the round, but running a disad that the aff claimed they didn't link to, at which point the negs pointed to that as an example of actual abuse.
    Counterplans: Counterplans
    ...
    agent-of-change counterplans. TryPlease try to make
    ...
    debate rounds.
    Kritiks:

    Kritiks:
    Kritiks must
    ...
    always liked Goldust and Roland Barthes.Barthes and Goldust. As with
    Debate Theory: Theory has its place, but don’t read cards from some debate coach at me, especially if I debated against them in college. Why is that coach any more qualified than you, me or someone judging in the next room? Explain your theory positions to me and tell me why they matter in this round. What are the in-round impacts to your theory argument? Are there impacts on the activity itself? Does my ballot have a role in your theory argument? If you are claiming some kind of “abuse” of theory, show me the in-round abuse and tell me why it should be a voting issue. As for conditional arguments, they are neither inherently good nor bad. I am not a fan of junking up the round with lots of conditional arguments or vacuous theory, about conditionality or anything else. Conditional arguments should usually be of the nature that you could maybe win them if you chose to go for them. If you choose to run your position(s) dispositionally, be sure you understand what that means and can explain it to me in the round. If there is abuse, show me that abuse and tell my why it is bad. Most of what I said about topicality also applies here. Arguments predicated upon “punishing” the other team are ill-advised; such arguments usually hurt the team making them. And remember, I do not default to a policy-making paradigm.
    ...
    your speaker points.Purposefulpoints. Purposeful speed is
    ...

    Performance/Advocacy/Non-Traditional Debate: See attached addendum.
    An “Ideal” Round: There are no ideal rounds. That becomes clearer to me each year. Each round is unique and has its own (de)merits. A good round usually consists of an affirmative case with big, clear advantages or well-explained and evidenced small ones. The negative will present disads, counterplans and/or kritiks that are also specific and hopefully big sig in nature. Negatives should narrow the number of issues in rebuttals. Specificity is always good, as long as it applies, and usually more is better. Bodies on the flow, nuclear wars and things that outweigh nuclear wars make it easy for me to vote for you. Anything that could result in my own death is especially persuasive. Arguments on why these (or other) impacts are important, hopefully the most important thing in this round, or something that says when
    I sign the ballot it will have an impact on the world outside of the round, are good ways to go. I like arguments about mindsets and language, although these are almost always done poorly. I like speakers who directly respond to and clearly resolve arguments. I don’t find it helpful whenam not a speaker groups a bunch of arguments, and rather than responding specifically to any one of them just reads some block of arguments against the grouping. Clash directly with the arguments of the other team. I prefer fewer positions, ones that are more substantial, have more evidence and invite more clash. As long as you have evidence, no position is too bizarre or counterintuitive, so be creative with your arguments. I've voted for immortality in an elimination round, and one of my high school teams ran (with my approval) Nazi Moon Base. And have fun—a little humor in a debate round goes a long way. If you are unclear about my philosophy, ask me and I will do my best to explain it. The same holds about my decision. I am quite willing to explain my decision and discuss how I saw the round.
    Performance/Advocacy/Non-Traditional Debate Addendum
    Please note that
    fan, but I am
    ...
    for it recently.in the past. However, do
    ...
    than a bad traditional policy
    ...
    them all. AsShould you want to do a performance with me as a judge, you should have strong arguments both for such approaches, specifically,your approach and against traditional policy debate or whatever it is that you are challenging. I like
    ...
    arguments that claim to make a real, tangible, real-world
    ...
    opinion or viewviewpoint in the
    ...
    a whole.
    Teams
    Teams should argue
    ...
    increasing awareness isof is more important
    ...
    worlds than is another debate
    ...
    policy topic.
    Don't bother with The Project at this tournament. Since this tournament is
    Teams facing a performance team would be advised to contest the lastnarrative and counter the role of the year withinballot position in substance. Teams should also defend policy debate, and/or make arguments that voting for them would also have an impact outside of the state,round (by telling the debate community that I rejected this type of argumentation), or that there isare no accountability, nothing to point to see if the team actuallyimpacts or results outside of this debate room.
    Don't bother with The Project. Unless you can convince me that you will act, and somehow demonstrate that you
    did their project. During the regular seasonact (in a later round, which is problematic given I am more open the project debate. Nor willdeciding this round), The Project is a weak strategic option. I will not participate in
    ...
    the teams.
    Identity
    Identity debate is even more problematic.
    ...
    other team canshould just complain
    ...
    can too.
    Should you want to do a performance with me as a judge, you should have strong arguments both for their approach and against traditional policy debate or whatever it is that you are challenging. Teams facing a performance team would be advised to contest the narrative and counter the role of the ballot position in substance. Teams should also defend policy debate, and/or make arguments that voting for them would also have an impact outside of the round (by telling the debate community that I rejected this type of argumentation), or that there are no impacts or results outside of this debate room.

    Organization and
    ...
    most welcome.
    I
    I am certainly not opposed to the genre,this sort of debate, and think
    ...
    for Wisconsin debate.debate in general. As long
    ...
    for them.
    An “Ideal” Round: There are no ideal rounds. That becomes clearer to me each year. Each round is unique and has its own (de)merits. A good round usually consists of an affirmative case with big, clear advantages or well-explained and evidenced small ones. The negative will present disads, counterplans and/or kritiks that are also specific and hopefully big sig in nature. Negatives should narrow the number of issues in rebuttals. Specificity is always good, as long as it applies, and usually more is better. Bodies on the flow, nuclear wars and things that outweigh nuclear wars make it easy for me to vote for you. Anything that could result in my own death is especially persuasive. Arguments on why these (or other) impacts are important, hopefully the most important thing in this round, or something that says when I sign the ballot it will have an impact on the world outside of the round, are good ways to go. I like arguments about mindsets and language, although these are almost always done poorly. I like speakers who directly respond to and clearly resolve arguments—this isn’t rocket surgery. I don’t find it helpful when a speaker groups a bunch of arguments, and rather than responding specifically to any one of them just reads some block of arguments against the grouping. Clash directly with the arguments of the other team. I prefer fewer positions, ones that are more substantial, have more evidence and invite more clash. Do the line-by-line where possible. As long as you have evidence, no position is too bizarre or counterintuitive, so be creative with your arguments. I've voted for immortality in an elimination round, and one of my high school teams ran (with my approval) Nazi Moon Base. And have fun—a little humor in a debate round goes a long way. If you are unclear about my philosophy, ask me and I will do my best to explain it. The same holds about my decision. I am quite willing to explain my decision and discuss how I saw the round.
    "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life."---Captain Jean-Luc Picard
    "The numbers don't lie . . . I got a hundred forty three and a thirds percents of winning."—"Big Poppa Pump" Scott Steiner
    “Huh?”—Max McGee; “What?”---Stone Cold Steve Austin
    "Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking is as quickly rewarded."—The Keeper, planet Talos IV
    "When Stalin says dance, a wise man dances."—Nikita Khrushchev
    "Nothing really matters much, it's doom alone that counts."—Bob Dylan

    (view changes)
    7:02 am

Wednesday, December 14

  1. page Sauer, Benjamin edited Background: In college I debated on the national circuit and competed in impromptu speaking, persu…
    Background: In college I debated on the national circuit and competed in impromptu speaking, persuasion and CA/rhet crit. I formerly coached collegiate parliamentary and policy debate, and I now regularly judge policy debate and moot court competitions (University of Chicago Law graduate).
    Judging Philosophy: Debate is a policymaking exercise, and I expect policy to be debated in a policy debate. The AFF should advocate a policy topical to the resolution, and the NEG should explain why I should reject the specific policy case made by AFF.
    Quick Tips:
    Speak clearly.
    Do not simply argue a tagline. Argue the evidence. Argue the logic.
    Maintain clash. Go down the flow. Debate line-by-line. Avoid jumping all over the flow.
    Provide a voting framework.
    Restate your thesis in the rebuttal. Present the key compelling issues for your side.
    Provide impact assessments informed by relative risk analysis and evidence.
    Take advantage of the cross examination to force concessions and formulate your arguments.
    Do not be rude. Play nice. Be witty. Smile.
    Have fun.
    Speed: While you will not necessarily lose my vote due to poor speaking skills, debate is communicative. I need to be able to hear your arguments, including your claims, warrants, impacts, links and evidence. If I cannot understand you because you are not speaking clearly enough due to speed, any arguments you make will not be flowed. I do not have your cards or speeches in front of me, so while your opponent may have them and can follow along more easily, I can only flow and follow what you communicate to me in your speeches. I do not call for cards unless a team specifically claims a falsification of evidence by the opposing team. Do not rely on a call for cards as a way to speak more quickly and less clearly. Please remember that the quality of each of your arguments can be more important than the quantity of arguments made, and I dislike strategies that use spreading to force concessions out of another team instead of actual clash on the policy arguments.
    Stock Issues: The AFF needs to maintain all five issues: inherency, significance, solvency, topicality and harms. All stock issues are important when forming and arguing policy implementation, and an AFF that is missing a stock issue will lose. I will vote on stock issues, including solvency, significance (disadvantages and advantages) and topicality. Significance arguments should have fleshed out impact assessments with relative risk analysis supported by evidence. While I try to keep my background knowledge from affecting my decision, I am able to spot ridiculous arguments that involve areas in my background (economics, law and political theory). Topicality arguments that are well developed and given time during the 1NC/2NC are more likely to be successful, and the NEG should explain how AFF violated a reasonable and fair framework. If you are going to argue topicality and the AFF asks what a topical plan would look like under your framework for topicality, you need to be able to give an answer. If you cannot provide an example of topicality under your own framework, your argument is very unlikely to persuade.
    Cross Examination: I think cross examination is an extremely important and undervalued tool in current policy debate. I will flow a CX that adds arguments or forces concessions, and I recommend flowing those developments into your speeches. Do not be elusive in response to questions. A simple "I don't know" is an acceptable response if you do not know the answer. I expect a witness only to ask questions to the questioner when seeking clarification, and I have no problem with a questioner interrupting a witness, especially if a witness is attempting to filibuster, to ask for more concise answers or to stop a witness if an answer is sufficient. I do not prefer tag teaming on CX, and I award higher speaker points for individuals who do not rely on verbal assistance from a partner in asking or answering questions or making speeches.
    Performance / Critiques of Debate: I do not enjoy performance debate or meta-critiques of debate. Different forensic competitions exist for those types of activities. That said, I am not an interventionist judge, and I will not vote on a "Performance is inappropriate" or "Current debate practices are good" / "Status quo debate is good" without an argument stating so from the opposing team. If the opposition concedes framework, I will not vote on it, but if the opposition makes it a voting issue, I will.
    Counterplans: I will vote for a competitive CP that provides a reason to reject the AFF's policy. I am not a good judge for a PIC, particularly if your PIC includes the entirety of the AFF's plan. If a CP accepts or results in all of AFF's plan, competition arguably does not exist. That said, I will not vote against it outright without AFF attacking the competitiveness / theory of the CP. Permutations test the CP. Be careful not to use a permutation to amend the CP or adopt things different from the originally proposed CP. I am hestitant about multiple CPs and kritiks, so keep your conditionality within reasonable constraints (i.e. two or three is reasonable, five or six is not). Unless otherwise stated, I default to unconditional CPs. If the status quo remains an option for me to consider, the NEG should tell me. I vote on what I am told, and I dislike doing work for the debater. If you are attacking AFF's case and running a CP, I will infer some amount of conditionality to the CP and that the status quo is an option, but you will receive higher speaker points for making that link for me.
    Kritiks: I am not opposed to a K, but the NEG needs to link the K to the AFF's policy. Remember I view debate as a policymaking exercise, and many Ks do not further this objective. A K with significant impacts without an explained logical link to the AFF's plans and evidence has minimal utility. The K should have an alt that competes with AFF's plan, links to AFF's plan and is a conditional policy option. Successful Ks will provide a reason to accept or reject AFF's specific policy. Also, if you are running a K-AFF or a K, you need to make sure that you are not speaking so quickly that I cannot follow or understand. Ks can involve a lot of specific philosophical terms and concepts, and I am not extensively familiar with the entire realm of philosophical thought (NB: I am familiar with a lot of economic, legal and political theories). Make sure that you go slower for your Ks and don't use a term without explaining what that term means. If I am a blank slate, then I have no outside knowledge of your particular theory, and you have to educate me.
    Decorum: How a policy is presented and explained to the public can sometimes be as important as the policy itself. You will probably not lose my vote for being offensive (e.g. swearing in round), but you will likely lose speaker points. I expect you to stand when presenting constructive and rebuttal speeches and engaging in CX.

    (view changes)
    2:16 pm
  2. page home edited ... Sailer, Phil Sajdak, Ken -Policy Sauer, Benjamin Schaffer, Angela Schams, Greg
    ...
    Sailer, Phil
    Sajdak, Ken -Policy
    Sauer, Benjamin
    Schaffer, Angela
    Schams, Greg
    (view changes)
    2:15 pm

More