New Judge Philosophy

I took a glance at my judge philosophy the other day (as I think everyone should, once a year or so), and it was starting to look pretty stale. I had added this and that over the years, but it was mostly the same thing I wrote 6 months after I graduated high school.

The new version isn't much longer, but I think it's much "denser" in terms of useful information about me. I tried to include all of my opinions that lie outside the mainstream, whatever that is.

One piece that is an important change from years past:
On Delivery, I have no problem with speed per se, but I'm increasingly troubled by the clarity problems that I used to tolerate as part and parcel to speed. I desire to hear and understand every word in the round. I'll make a good faith effort to inform you, verbally and nonverbally, if you are unclear, but there is a limit to how much I'm going to yell at you.


Also, instead of littering the page with random rants and pet peeves, I just included the following at the end.


A short list of other things that are on my mind

-It's much easier to flow when things have descriptive names. "Next off is Healthcare Politics" instead of "Next off!"
-I think that Plans and Counterplans alike need an advocate in the literature.
-Absolute defense is just as good as offense.
-Arguments about the existence "side bias" are always stupid
-Impact comparisons are just as necessary on theory.
-I've seen plenty of politics disads that could be killed with a good interpretation of fiat.

1 comment:

rigs said...

I am developing a new theory of abuse.

When you argue in 2A for four minutes that a conditional counterplan is abusive, you have engaged in self-abuse.