northwood -> ucla
 email chain - alexfu004@gmail.com
 ld and pf paradigm at bottom
 

 TL;DR
 Debate is a game, do impact calc, I'm more familiar with Policy strats, clipping is bad, and clarity on analytics is important. Tech determines Truth.
 NATO update: lower threshhold for negs doing wacky things bc the topic is so big and there are no good disads.
 ~20 ish rounds judged? I'm not the most familiar with this topic but have enough experience to know some of the jargon at least. Regardless, you might wanna err on clarity.
 General
 Don't be a bad person, you've seen it on other paradigms, no racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, etc.
 DA/CP
 I love them! Your disads should be specific to the aff, but generic links are ok too if you can spin it well enough. Condo is probably good, int'l/private/object fiat is probably bad. I mainly read process counterplans and states in high school so make of that what you will.
 K
 I'm pretty familiar with a few Ks but don't go for that many of them, barring things like Cap and Security. Case specific links would be great! The Aff should explain the perms instead of just throwing them out there, at least by the 1ar but preferably in the 2ac. I'll treat framework like an impact debate, but I tend to lean weighing the aff.
 Ks I'm more familiar with: Cap, Berlant/Suffering, Yellow Peril/Orientalism, Security, Militarism
 Ks I'm less familiar with: Deleuze, Bataille, "pomo"-esque Ks (with reason)
 T
 I'll vote on it, but I'm persuaded by reasonability more than other judges. The neg needs to win a clear instance of abuse beyond just "it's what they justify," and the Aff ideally should have specific reasons why the counterinterpretation resolves or turns neg offense.
 Nontraditional Affs
 I have very limited experience with reading K affs (maybe 2 or 3 times), but I'm receptive to them. I think that having a stasis is necessary for debate, and I think that fairness is good, whatever fairness means. That said, I do think that K Affs can provide unique educational value, and if the Aff can prove their aff is important to talk about certain issues I can still buy it. Framework is probably your best 2NR against K Affs, I went for education and movements mainly in my junior and senior year in high school but I can be persuaded to vote on fairness as well.
 Theory
 Reject the arg, not the team is persuasive in almost every case, condo aside. I lean neg on condo but can be persuaded otherwise, but it's an uphill battle for the aff to win on condo. International and Object fiat are probably illegitimate, and require more work to be done on theory if you want to win on them as the neg.
 Speaks
 

 being creative, strategic
 clarity, especially when spreading through analytics
 efficiency between speeches, sending out docs, etc
 if you're funny
 clear signposting!
 i was inspired by another judge but please get me food (+0.1? speaks) (but dont bankrupt yourself it's not worth it) (better to just speak better probably)
 

 LD
 I'll judge it like I judge a policy round, and I'm not familiar with a lot of LD theory. I'll try to adapt but please exercise discretion.
 Public Forum
 I used to do PF, don't worry about having to adapt too hard
 Everything above applies, don't spread if your opponent is not okay with it though. Don't read policy-esque arguments just because you can, PF probably should be a bit more accessible. I'm more receptive to Ks than most PF judges, but don't read incomplete arguments i.e. a K without an alt just because PF doesn't have advocacies.