kissmycls
11-29-06, 11:42 AM
This is from the 2006 GGI.
Jenni DeRuosi- HIRED (Cal alum)
Welcome to Cal! I competed in Parli at Cal for four years. I competed in Policy in HS for four
years. I generally enjoy clean, policy-style debates. I’m happy to listen to other types of Affs, but
please present a clear paradigm for evaluation.
I consider myself a flow judge, speed is just fine if you’re clear.
Please articulate the parameters and implications of any theoretical arguments that you make. For
example- “pre-fiat” or “RVI” … what do these terms mean to you and how do they function in
the round? Impact your arguments. Dehum isn’t an impact that means much to me.
All the following are up to you in YOUR round, but generally: I’m not a trichotimist; resolutions
are up for your interpretation. I think that T can be a valid debate even without abuse. I hate
ASPEC/OSPEC/ETC unless there is actual abuse. Love a good K, even better with actual
alternative solvency mechanisms!
Theoretically, I’ll listen to anything you want to dish EXCEPT double wins/double losses and the
number of speaker points that you expect me to award. I won’t vote WW or LL, and I’m unlikely
to agree with the number of speaks you need/want/think would look pretty on the tournament
cumes. I normally give between 24-28 speaker points anyhow.
Jenni DeRuosi- HIRED (Cal alum)
Welcome to Cal! I competed in Parli at Cal for four years. I competed in Policy in HS for four
years. I generally enjoy clean, policy-style debates. I’m happy to listen to other types of Affs, but
please present a clear paradigm for evaluation.
I consider myself a flow judge, speed is just fine if you’re clear.
Please articulate the parameters and implications of any theoretical arguments that you make. For
example- “pre-fiat” or “RVI” … what do these terms mean to you and how do they function in
the round? Impact your arguments. Dehum isn’t an impact that means much to me.
All the following are up to you in YOUR round, but generally: I’m not a trichotimist; resolutions
are up for your interpretation. I think that T can be a valid debate even without abuse. I hate
ASPEC/OSPEC/ETC unless there is actual abuse. Love a good K, even better with actual
alternative solvency mechanisms!
Theoretically, I’ll listen to anything you want to dish EXCEPT double wins/double losses and the
number of speaker points that you expect me to award. I won’t vote WW or LL, and I’m unlikely
to agree with the number of speaks you need/want/think would look pretty on the tournament
cumes. I normally give between 24-28 speaker points anyhow.