Spike,+Jon


 * Judge History:** I have been judging Debate for three years. I have been judging Varsity for about two years, but it has been a year since my last Varsity round, so I am a bit rusty judging speed in rounds.


 * Paradigm:** I am a policymaker first and foremost. I am mainly concerned with weighing the aff world vs. the neg world and determining the best for my constituents. However, I am completely fine with the two sides framing how a policymaker should weigh the round. If you want me to be some kind of new-age "value to life" policymaker, then sure, why not. Otherwise I'm going to weigh based on the net gains for my people.


 * Speed:** When in doubt, slow it down. I have only been judging Varsity a short time, so don't spread yourself off my flow. I will give two verbal warnings ("speed" or "clear") and then I will stop flowing you. I'd rather see a slower debate that someone off the street could at least understand rather than a spread-fest that scares casual observers.


 * Topicality:** I think topicality can be a voter, but the negative team has the burden of proving abuse. For the negs: don't just read your laundry list of violations, standards voters, etc... Give me the story as well. What can't you run? For both teams: If you're running definitions, tell why a) your definition is best and b) why their counter-definitions stinks (or if they don't provide one, why they don't fit yours). Even if you think it's a time-suck, still give Topicality its due.


 * Counterplans:** Make sure you have a legit counterplan text so you're not being all sly and evasive. Counterplans are fine, just make sure the net benefit(s) are clear and well-argued otherwise you're just wasting your own time.


 * Kritiks:** Although kritiks may not seem to fit a policymaker framework, I am willing to pick up a K IF the neg team provides an Alt OR a CP that provides an implementable policy option (reject the aff isn't really policy option. You can adapt your K to fit policymaker - it's not difficult). The important aspects of a K are justifying the worldview and clearly explaining how the Aff plays into your K's mindset. For affs: If you are going to go K theory, commit to proving that K's are abusive to debate. Otherwise do your diligence to dissect how the K's mindset is insufficient compared to your aff mindset.


 * Framework:** As I mentioned above, I am a policymaker, but you can give me a framework for what a policymaker should value. Just make sure that there is some sort of implementable policy option to apply to said framework you provide here. I'll weigh who justified their framework and how they worked their world into the framework in the most efficient manner and then decide what policy option I want to take.