TOP-LEVEL I: if you can engage with your opponent's arguments and do PROPER weighing (for PF) or proper analytics/framework (for CX/LD), i will fall in love with you; doing so = high speaker points.
 TOP-LEVEL II: debate is supposed to be a fun activity. i get that winning is great and that most of you guys are pressured to bid (this applies only to the national circuit). i love winning too, who doesn't. but seriously, please relax. i want everyone to have fun. please do not solely rely on the ballot to have fun with this activity; this activity should be more about the friends you make, the arguments you choose to read because they are the ones that interest you, and many more.
 hello! my name is tim (sim low's league boyfriend), and you can refer to me as judge or just by my name! i competed mainly in public forum and lincoln-douglas as well as some forensic events (impromptu and original oratory) during high school (c/o 2020), and i currently compete in college parliamentary for johns hopkins university, where i study neuroscience.
 email chain: littletimmy10004@gmail.com (please do not judge)
 credentials: won multiple speaker awards and broke at tournaments in college parliamentary and VHSL district level awards (my high school team solely competed at local/district levels).
 you can reach me at hdo11@jhu.edu for any questions or concerns; i am always open to giving feedback and helping you understand why i evaluated the round the way i did, so just feel free to reach out!
 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 notes to all formats:
 --- always remember to warrant, mechanize, and weigh; don’t ever give me bare statements. be comparative, add layers and depth to your rebuttals, and always be explicit rather than implicit. what this looks like is engaging with your opponent's arguments and showing WHY your argument/impact is more important than your opponent's. how you delineate this importance is up to you, as there are many avenues you can take to do this.
 --- i can, and will, follow speed; that does not mean, however, that you should speak at an incomprehensible pace. i will say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ up to three times - if you fail to adapt, i will flow what i can and whatever i cannot will be missed. UPDATE: i realized that there are some of you guys who genuinely speak at >500 wpm; this is absolutely insane for me, so please slow down or you risk me not catching and flowing what you say, which will be reflected in the RFD.
 --- if you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible. i believe that debate should be fair and equitable to all, so if you include any arguments that are prejudiced/bigoted or actively display any actions that belittle your opponents, i will drop you; trust me, i have done this in the past and will continue to do this as it makes my job easier.
 --- please do not be rude to each other during the debate, particularly during the cross-examinations/rebuttals; if i find that you are being excessively, and persistently, disrespectful, your speaks will be docked -0.5.
 --- i will happily answer questions after the round, but i will not tolerate being yelled at by you or your coaches. as much as i love feedback from you guys, please do not post-round me in bad faith. UPDATE: no one has ever post-rounded me in bad faith yet, which is a good thing, but if you do end up post-rounding me, trust me that my decision will not change. my RFD will be comprehensive enough that when i explain it to tab, they will also agree with my RFD and stick with my decision.
 --- i am uncertain as to whether or not this applies to all formats because i came from a high school with a relatively small debate team, but please disclose your case(s) online in a timely manner. i hate voting on disclosure because debates should be about the actual resolution. however, i will always believe that debate should be an activity that is equally accessible to all individuals, so if there is a disclosure argument that has substantive warranting and weighing, i will still end up voting for it at the very top.
 --- remember to have fun! at the end of the day, debate is, and should always be, an activity that everyone enjoys. let’s have some educational and meaningful debates!
 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 public forum (my favorite event):
 --- i prioritize efficiency, so please be EFFICIENT AND QUICK in sending cases, cards, etc. when necessary and requested. ive had too many rounds where the round went past the tournament time by 10-15 minutes; if this happens in your round, i will deduct speaker points.
 --- send me your cases and any evidence you all intend to read prior to starting your speeches. yes, this means the ac/nc and rebuttals. if you all opt out of this, speaks will be docked -0.5. UPDATE: if you cut cards throughout the round, please send me the updated version; this just provides me a second alternative in determining what was said in the round in the case that i missed something on the flow.
 --- i want to see cards with proper citations on them; if not, don’t be surprised when your speaks are low. UPDATE: proper citation is very, very important. do not cheat and paraphrase what the research stated; if this happens and someone picks up on it, i will 100% vote on this. please don't have miscut cards or misrepresent your evidence as i will drop you with the lowest possible speaks.
 --- do not make me do extra work. if you are going to make a claim, warrant, mechanize, and impact it out; if you are going to go for impact calc, delineate everything to me. what this looks like is going from step one of an argument and showing me all the steps in between to reach step five of the argument. you should never give me one step and then jump to the conclusion without delineating to me how you got there. fail to do so, and i will start to make assumptions and trust me, these assumptions will not help you.
 --- i am a firm believer that the most important skill in PF is analyzing evidence and weighing arguments; if you don't know what this looks like, i am happy to go over an example prior to the round starting.
 --- just because there is an argument that is dropped and you collapsed on it does not mean i will auto-vote on it. you need to still show me why you are going for that argument, why it is important, and why it outweighs any other argument that your opponents bring up. this is where comparative analysis comes in.
 --- my new biggest pet peeve in this format is when debaters tell me "this is frontline" or "i extend this." if you do not tell me why you are doing these things or why these things matter in the round, i will be sad... very sad.
 --- i am okay with theory and Ks being in PF, but i would prefer them not to be; theory is okay if it pertains to misrepresenting cards, not cutting cards properly, and violating basic rules.
 --- you can run any argument you want. i am a firm believer that every judge should be able to adapt to the debaters to ensure that the debaters can run any argument they want. however, this does not mean that you should just throw arguments at me and expect them to work. you need to warrant it out, provide specific link-chains, impact it out, and weigh it.
 --- besides that, i don't think i have anything else to say about this format. PF will always be my special place in debate, so feel free to debate however you like. i am a pretty straightforward judge; i will evaluate you the way you want me to, but just make sure you uphold what i stated above!
 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 policy:
 i will be honest. if i were you, i would not pref me very high. although i have a general understanding of policy and how arguments should interact with each other, i am nowhere near as good as the top judges that you have seen on the circuit. i will change this once i feel confident that i am a good enough judge, but until then, do not pref me lol.
 TOP-LEVEL: i know many judges include in their paradigm like specific preferences for how certain arguments should play out; for example, a judge may describe their preferences regarding CPs, DAs, theory, topicality, etc. for me, i genuinely do not care about which arguments you run, as long as they are all properly explained. what this looks like is don't just run the cap k and just spit out words. tell me why you link and why it matters in the round you are in. my biggest pet peeve is when debaters just throw words at me and expect me to do the extra work.
 --- tech >>> truth.
 --- i am a BIG, I REPEAT BIG, fan of analytics and framework in policy; if you can do meta-analysis framing, that is *heart eyes*.
 --- ive gotten increasingly better at understanding Ks; if you are going to include them, just explain them a bit more to me and i should have full understanding of them.
 --- you must extend or collapse on whatever you are going for in the 1NR, 1AR, 2NR, or 2AR; if you don't include these arguments here, then don't really expect them to be reflected in the RFD.
 --- please don't rely on policy jargon. i am a firm believer that simply stating policy jargon will never be sufficient substitutes for explanations of your evidence or thesis. if you are going to use jargon, explain them and then move onto your other arguments.
 --- overall, i perceive policy to be a format that is becoming even more diverse in terms of what arguments can be made. this is what i enjoy about policy, so make any argument you want, but just make sure you always explain your arguments and concepts to me.
 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 lincoln-douglas:
 --- this is the event that i am LEAST picky with; just do whatever your heart desires and i will evaluate you the way you want me to!
 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 speaks:
 --- when i judge, speaks always start at a base level of 28. depending on how the round goes, i move up/down. if you want me to move you up, be communicative, have good strategy and in-round choices, be comparative, weigh, impact… you get the point. if you want me to move you down, i think it is pretty self-explanatory as to what you should do.
 --- if you get a 30.0, i will be framing your speech and showing it to my novices on my debate team. if you get a 29.5+, i am clearing you and expect to see you in outrounds; if you get 29.0-29.4, you did well and i believe you can break if you are in a bubble; if you get 27-28.9, you performed as expected; anything below 27, you did something terrible and i had no qualms docking you.
 --- most importantly, no speaks theory.