Hi everyone! I'm Claudia and I debated PF for six years at Poly Prep (Poly LM/LS).
 I'll call for specific stuff if I need to so don't add me to the email chain unless you're sending out a TW, opt out form, or need to send speech docs- cleduc@wesleyan.edu 
 Yale: pls bring me snacks/ drinkies, my team is depriving me of food
 TL;DR
 tech > truth. You can speak fast (but <300 wpm, you should send a speech doc). Defense is sticky if it's not frontlined. First final can do new weighing. Collapse. Extend well, warrant, weigh and you should be good!
 Read what you want
 I will vote for pretty much any argument that is warranted well. Obviously, I won't vote for an argument that is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. 
 How I judge
 --1: Speeches--
 Cross: I don't listen to cross. Any concession must be explained in a speech. Be nice. If both teams agree to skip GCX, that's fine with me. Both teams would get 1 min of prep instead.
 Rebuttal: Read as much offense as you want. Reading DAs in second rebuttal is mean and probably not strategic, but it's allowed. You must frontline in second rebuttal, especially turns. Defense should probably also be frontlined, but I'll be more flexible
 Summary: First summary needs to extend all offense you want to to consider. First summary also must extend defense if it was frontlined by the second rebuttal. No need to extend defense that was not frontlined (defense is sticky). I'll evaluate new offense in first summary if it is in response to an argument made in second rebuttal.
 Final focus: You can weigh new in first final as long as its not like crazy prereq stuff or new overviews. You should probably try to expand on weighing from summary- it'll end up being more strategic in most scenarios. Second final cannot weigh new or give new implications. The best finals are the ones that slow down and clarify tech rounds.
 --2: Technical Stuff--
 I default to util but I'll evaluate pretty much any framing argument. I presume neg. I'll disclose after the round. If you ask me to disclose speaks, I'll also do that.
 Evidence: I really don't like paraphrased evidence in case. If your opponents call you out for paraphrasing poorly, your speaks will be severely hurt. If the round is being decided on evidence, I will almost always vote for the non-paraphrased card. You need to have cut cards available on demand. If it takes you longer than like 2 minutes to find a card, it comes out of your prep :'(
 -> Misconstruing evidence is bad for you. It will either hurt your speaks, or, depending on the severity, lead to you losing. I would MUCH rather evaluate an analytic than poor evidence.
 -> I also don't think evidence is that important. I will evaluate a good warrant over badly explained evidence.
 Prep time:
 Don't steal prep- it's so annoying. Flex prep is totally fine.
 Speech times: I'll allow like a 5-10 second grace period. Just please don't abuse that. If you start weighing or move onto a whole new area of the flow after time, I probably won't evaluate it. You can finish your sentence in cross ig but I'm probably not listening so it won't matter lol.
 Speed: Send a speech doc over 300 wpm. If I miss something because you're going too fast without a doc, that's your fault.
 Disclosure: I do not care lol- I'll vote for disclosure theory. I will also vote against disclosure theory.
 Speaks: I think speaks are kinda dumb and random. I do them based on strategic decisions and clarity. I will disclose them if you want.
 Postrounding: Go ahead :P
 Trigger/ content warnings: I think it's better to be safe than sorry. TWs aren't required, but I think they are good. If someone is actually triggered in the round, the round should be paused anyways. Please let me know if something like this happens. I will also vote for TW theory (I won't hack for it, but I think there are some pretty good arguments so).
 --3: Progressive Debate--
 I am pretty experienced in theory rounds, with framing, and with topical Ks. Read what you will, but do it at your own risk. I will try my best to evaluate it as best as possible. Overexplain rather than underexplain please. You can read prog on younger debaters, but please help them try and understand rather than dunk on them.
 Preferences:
 Theory/T - 2
 LARP - 1
 Kritik - 2, 3
 Tricks - 4
 Non-T Kritik - 4
 Performance - 4
 High Theory - 5
 Theory:
 I don't really think disclosure does anything. I think paraphrasing is bad (especially in case). I will not hack for any theory despite personal opinions on it.
 I don't like frivolous theory. I will evaluate it, unless it's literally heinous. But, you will probably get low speaks.
 You should read a counterinterp. I will also vote on RVIs unless one team reads no RVIs and wins it.
 Theory has to be read in the speech after the violation. You must extend your shell in every speech after you read it.
 Kritiks:
 I ran a Cap K like twice and I've watched/debated in some K rounds. I'm less familiar with Ks so I would appreciate some extra explanation.
 I will evaluate non- T Ks and performance Ks. I just need some extra help because I'm not as familiar.
 Tricks:
 Alright ig. They're dumb, but whatever.