Email: fain1738fain1738@gmail.com
 Nats:
 Basically just do whatever you’re most comfortable with… this tournament is in-person and is historically traditional. This means its in your best interest to stand when you speak (if able) speak loud and clear, and be accessible to all judges’ paradigms. I am still going to evaluate the round from a tech perspective, I will call for evidence as needed. Please adhere to nsda evidence standards, I will stop the round if a formal complaint is brought to light with the correct paperwork and proof. Good luck to all, don’t ask me questions that are answered below. I won’t vote on any hidden tricks as an “after the 1ac” ballot so you can focus on super lay rhetoric for the second judge, find another way to get a cheap tech ballot.
 Speed/Clarity:You can go as fast as possible in the constructive speeches or any speech that you have written out. But i need you to slow down a ton for analytics or any non scripted lbl. My hearing is absolutely shot on my left side and spotty in general.
 That is to say, if you have frontlined every possible 1ar and 2nr… send the doc
 Prefs:
 Tricks - 1
 Phil - 1
 Theory/T - 2
 LARP - 3
 K - 4
 High theory falls between K and Phil. I really just don’t know the lit on most Pomo stuff and it’s harder to follow than Hobbes or Kant.
 Some new stuff:
 Defending implementation of the resolution is the same as reading the resolution as a plan. Defending the general principle of the resolution is saying you like LD because it isn't policy and you want to have a phil debate (what is ideal theory). Regardless, either side cannot get the unique benefits of the other. Policymaking offense for implementation, and then auto o/w or delinking from DA and 1NC substance. Good NC util debaters can get around the latter ;)
 My threshold for no neg fiat is super high
 if paradigm issues in the 2nr and 2ar don’t have something clearly float to the top, i default to substance work
 i default to:
 

 condo good
 pics good
 tricks good
 rvis necessary
 reasonability good
 warrants necessary
 cx checks
 flex prep good
 stealing prep bad
 dropped argument with small impact > argument with clash with big impact
 

 Weighing/Paradigm Issues: My voting record indicates that I vote neg about 60% of the time, while I think that this could be due to a potential time/strat skew when it comes to 1AR burden (bad debaters lose on aff more because they suck at the 1AR), I think that it is more often than not an issue with affirmative debaters failing to really cement paradigm issues in the 1AC and 1AR. I default to the following chain when evaluating meta framing issues: accessibility > fairness > education. RoB and RoJ end up flowing the same as fw method in phil cases, both end up netting offense via appropriate execution of advocacy, keep this in mind when weighing these (applies for policy-making ACs too).
 Arguments are true until proven false. From a point of procedure, the AC has 100% validity until it is refuted. The existence of clash makes for a good debate, however, arguments are won with good analysis of clash (this can be called weighing). For substantive debate, my threshold for analytical arguments to o/w warranted args is extremely high.
 Trix: Self-explanatory, if you drop 5] No 2NR responses, paradigm issues, or weighing – and don’t preclude the offensive function of trix, then you lose. For example, 1NC reads the point above, the 1AR has a couple options, A) Respond to each point, B) Up-layer tricks via accessibility shell or trix bad indicts. Obviously, there are variants of these, calling for reasonability and demanding warrants for claims is an underrated response, but generally speaking, you have to directly refute the claim or present an arg that addresses a prior issue (trix functionally bad). I will pull the trigger on any point, no matter how ridiculous it is, if you fail to properly respond in the 1AR or 1NR. Trix make life easier for judges even though they are an objectively less educational form of debate.
 This came up recently in a local round I judged, having trix in the body of a card is fine for me and I will vote off of it. Obviously trix theory up-layers this and debaters who don't want to run trix theory who have me as a judge (nat circuit) will know to ask in CX for hidden trix. I think that on local circuit or in more traditional/lay rounds, this is a pretty poor strategy for an auto-ballot. It would be much more interesting for someone to read dense phil or literally any K against an underprepared opponent because at least they have a chance to respond if they're smart enough to come up with intuitive responses (in this hypothetical, they would more than likely drop the ROTB or something important and it would still be an auto-ballot from a tech perspective).
 Additionally, threshold for individual responses to trix can be set up in CX. Asking about what warrants are, what they mean for the round, and whatnot can set up an A2 trix that either says "no" or "false" to every pointed response. 
 T/Theory: I default to RVIs necessary***, LD times are different than Policy, the topics are different, the rules are different. The majority of shells that are read in LD are ctrl-v onto a new speech doc from policy backfiles, this means that a lot of the RVI bad warrants are specific to Policy and y’all have just changed the numbers in the time skew args. Strategically speaking, in front of me, if you are running a whole res affirmative and someone reads a shell demanding you spec/run a plan, then the 1AR should hedge the entire round on T and an RVI, otherwise you’re spread too thin and can’t even begin to catch up given how broken the 2NR is. I default to CX checks. Violations must have evidence (disclosure, out of round violations), if you’re called out on not having proof, then I can’t vote for the shell (if your opponent doesn’t bring this up, I assume the violation is true).
 Public Forum: Now that PF is attempting to imitate Policy/LD, I don’t really see the educational pull of the activity. If for some reason I end up judging you in a PF round, keep a few things in mind: 1. Assume I do not know any of your lingo, unspoken or spoken rules, or how the speeches are allocated.2. I am a hardcore tech LD judge, I don’t care about the validity of arguments or their reps unless I’m told to care, arguments are true until proven false, dropped arguments automatically hold more weight over arguments with clash… even if the impacts don’t o/w. You can read K’s, plans, counterplans, theory, T, or trix, I’m also receptive to heavy phil/ framework cases.
 Alabama Locals ONLY:
 Stealing time has become a problem on local circuit. When the timer goes off, that is time. When I say time, if you keep talking, -0.50 speaks per instance. Stealing prep is a little different, the doc needs to be "sent" within 15 sec of you calling for prep time to be done. After that, I will say "running prep" and start the clock back up. After the doc is sent, hands off the keyboard... wait for us to get it. If you violate these things and are out of prep time, I will say "over prep", opening you up to a clear violation on a stealing prep shell. The AC needs to be sent at least 5 min before the round, get to the room on time, start on time, finish on time.
 I will only disclose if both debaters agree that they wish to hear the RFD. I will be recording all of my RFD's through the voice memos app on my phone, do not talk during the RFD, all questions MUST be given via email after the round.
 No disclosure shells for AL tournaments, yall are both small schools - unless you have proof ur opponent is in a pay to win prep group OR is paying a private coach ;)