Paradigm

TL;DR: I care immensely about this activity, so be kind and I will adapt to you.

Email: docs@sachagg.com; lddocs@googlegroups.com

On Evaluation

I view debate as a technical game. My strongest bias is that intervention is bad, so I will use a purely technical paradigm for evaluation unless it is first technically won that I should not. This means everything said within speech times will be evaluated unless the flow, tab, or some law justifies not to. Arguments require a warrant logically tied to an implication, must be something you can extend (probably no "eval after 1AC"), and implicate nothing more than my ballot (probably no "30 speaks").

I promise to put as much effort as possible into flowing and evaluating the debate. I attempt to transcribe and do not open documents, unless requested or required. I will send my typed-out RFD into the chain, unless asked not to.

Over-explain. I refuse to fill in gaps for unwarranted theory, philosophy, or really anything, because it would be more interventionist for me to do so.

My Preferences

I appreciate debaters that demonstrate their knowledge and provide thorough judge instruction.

I went for topic DAs, performance Ks, process, philosophy, procedurals, and much more; each can be debated better or worse. The best versions typically involve research, preparation, and pristine execution and will be rewarded with speaks. Smart cross-examinations, while not flowed by default, are of similar benefit.

Sans instruction, I assume that the affirmative has the burden of proof, that judge kick and unread insertions are bad, and that I should use offense/defense. For procedurals, I will weigh the model as determined by an interpretation text to reject the team with no reverse-voting issues.

Ask other questions pre-round, via email (if you include a coach), or see Fiona Hu's paradigm.

Have fun & good luck!