shea_d
02-26-07, 12:20 PM
Since I wrote this for this year's NPDA tournament, I figured I'd list it here as well.
---------------
Most people are more interested in what a judge's experience level with the activity is rather than the intricacies of their so-called paradigm, so I'll get that out of the way first:
4 years of high school LD debate
4 years of parli debate
3 years of coaching high school LD debate
4 years of college IE's
...and countless rounds of judging on the high school level (mostly policy)
*If you want a fast glimpse at what I'll vote on, go to the bottom of this*
That said, I have been too busy with work to judge at any NPDA tournaments this year (it is my "first year out" of the activity). I plan to approach NPDA rounds in the same fashion as I wanted judges to approach my rounds at NPDA...by the flow.
I flow. That's how I know which arguments each side made. I do my best to judge by how YOU tell me to judge. If you want me to default to a policymaker paradigm, fine, I'll do it. You just have to tell me. If you want to do something out of the ordinary and tell me to default to a deontological framework (remember I competed in and coached LD), I'll do it if you tell me to. I also accept challenges of these frameworks from the opposing team. I WELCOME challenges of traditional frameworks if the other team doesn't provide justification for why they're using them. If I am not told to default to anything, I will default to the net-benefits paradigm and use the debaters' impact weighing calculus to make my decision. Regardless of what happens in terms of how I am told or not told to view the round, I do my best to stay out of the round as much as possible. If you impact your claims, weigh the impacts, provide justifications for your new and innovative positions, etc, we should get along just fine.
*Here's where the "fast glimpse" part of my paradigm starts. It's okay, we all get lost on the way to the room. :)*
- I default to a net benefits criterion unless told otherwise.
- I like articulated voters on T, K, etc.
- On T: I vote on it, but I prefer abuse stories if you claim abuse. I also tend to prefer more innovative standards than "abuse," "education loss," and "skewed prep time," but that's just me.
- On K: I love good K's and I abhor bad ones. I prefer the specific K's to plan text, your opponent's dialogue, etc, to the 8 minute LOC "statism" K's.
- On CP: Topical CPs are okay with me. Non-competitive ones are not. I'll vote for the GOV plan really fast if they point out you don't solve for what they claim, you're not mutually exclusive, etc. (A note on mutual exclusivity: I do buy the net-benefits mutual exclusivity argument, but that requires an impact calculus by the OPP.)
To boil it down: if it wasn't said, it didn't happen. You do your job on the flow, and I'll do mine as a judge on the flow.
Anything else? Just ask! I'm quite laid-back and I don't believe debate = anything and everything important in life. This is your game. Play it as you will.
---------------
Most people are more interested in what a judge's experience level with the activity is rather than the intricacies of their so-called paradigm, so I'll get that out of the way first:
4 years of high school LD debate
4 years of parli debate
3 years of coaching high school LD debate
4 years of college IE's
...and countless rounds of judging on the high school level (mostly policy)
*If you want a fast glimpse at what I'll vote on, go to the bottom of this*
That said, I have been too busy with work to judge at any NPDA tournaments this year (it is my "first year out" of the activity). I plan to approach NPDA rounds in the same fashion as I wanted judges to approach my rounds at NPDA...by the flow.
I flow. That's how I know which arguments each side made. I do my best to judge by how YOU tell me to judge. If you want me to default to a policymaker paradigm, fine, I'll do it. You just have to tell me. If you want to do something out of the ordinary and tell me to default to a deontological framework (remember I competed in and coached LD), I'll do it if you tell me to. I also accept challenges of these frameworks from the opposing team. I WELCOME challenges of traditional frameworks if the other team doesn't provide justification for why they're using them. If I am not told to default to anything, I will default to the net-benefits paradigm and use the debaters' impact weighing calculus to make my decision. Regardless of what happens in terms of how I am told or not told to view the round, I do my best to stay out of the round as much as possible. If you impact your claims, weigh the impacts, provide justifications for your new and innovative positions, etc, we should get along just fine.
*Here's where the "fast glimpse" part of my paradigm starts. It's okay, we all get lost on the way to the room. :)*
- I default to a net benefits criterion unless told otherwise.
- I like articulated voters on T, K, etc.
- On T: I vote on it, but I prefer abuse stories if you claim abuse. I also tend to prefer more innovative standards than "abuse," "education loss," and "skewed prep time," but that's just me.
- On K: I love good K's and I abhor bad ones. I prefer the specific K's to plan text, your opponent's dialogue, etc, to the 8 minute LOC "statism" K's.
- On CP: Topical CPs are okay with me. Non-competitive ones are not. I'll vote for the GOV plan really fast if they point out you don't solve for what they claim, you're not mutually exclusive, etc. (A note on mutual exclusivity: I do buy the net-benefits mutual exclusivity argument, but that requires an impact calculus by the OPP.)
To boil it down: if it wasn't said, it didn't happen. You do your job on the flow, and I'll do mine as a judge on the flow.
Anything else? Just ask! I'm quite laid-back and I don't believe debate = anything and everything important in life. This is your game. Play it as you will.