Recent Changes

Yesterday

  1. page KM Lab Notes edited ... 6. The outcome of the plan is acknowledged by the knowledge of the affirmative a. You can nev…
    ...
    6. The outcome of the plan is acknowledged by the knowledge of the affirmative
    a. You can never say something is good until you can justify what good is 7. The alternative
    ...
    world works
    b. Instead How to Respond with Aff
    That’s not the assumption we have made
    ...
    Find cards saying strict scrutiny won’t spill over into abortion laws
    Right to Education - Dash
    Notes 7/21
    Topicality - comparison of aff and negs models of debate or what debate should look like
    1NC shell
    1. Interpretation -- lays out the negatives vision of what a word or phrase in the resolution
    means
    Grounded in evidence (card)
    interpretation evidence sources:
    i. Legal dictionary
    1. Make arguments about the meaning of words for the purpose of
    establishing something in law ii. Legal code (laws, and court decisions)
    1. When people make decisions in courts they will often have to say for the purpose of this decision I had to decide what x,y,z mean’t
    iii. Contextual usage
    1. Department of education
    a. People in relevant fields talking about meaning of terms or phrases in the resolution
    2. Literature reviews
    Violation-- explains why the affirmative and specifically the plan (unless aff doesn't read
    plan) why that falls outside of the negative vision of the word or phrase from the resolution
    Don’t want typicalities on advantages, just on what they plan to “fiat”
    If no plan- use advocacy statement to run typicalities on
    Reason to vote neg/reason our interpretation is good/standards-- describe the argument
    for why the judge should prefer the negs interpretation
    Disadvantages to any interp that would allow the aff
    Impacts to reasons to prefer interpretation, have to be connected to the reason
    that debate itself is a good game to play
    What values does your interp maximize
    What values does aff interp minimize
    Why is your interp valuable
    Different standards
    Value in maximizing the depth in which we research and talk about the
    topic(limits)
    Depth > breath
    Better/more focused debates that clash with one another
    Ground -- the ways the negative can engage the aff
    Some people say there is always ground because there’s always something to disagree on
    Predictable Ground -- ground you came into the debate having prepared
    Limits
    Strict side debate-- you can basically read aff on neg
    Bright line-- you can obviously tell if something spends money or not--you can tell
    which affs are topical because you can tell which affs spend money and which don’t
    If there is a bright line it makes it more predictable
    Best topicality cards are included (say what's included in topic) and
    exclusive (say what’s excluded in the topic)
    Qualifications -- comparison of authors- authors have specific and credible
    qualifications
    Specificity - evidence is more specific about topic
    5. Voting issue
    Topicality is a voting issue because of the standards
    You have to win your standards - reason to win your interpretation
    i. Vote neg because it’s more fair, or more educational, or maximize x,yx value
    6. Values to forcing affs to be topical
    a. Agonism- we should argue without feeling strongly about it, benefits come
    through disagreement
    i. Opposite of antagonistic relationship
    b. Switch side argument
    i. Educational argument how to determine how to defend both sides of an
    issue c. Limits
    i. Standard of why an interpretation is good, impact of why that must be a voting issue is because if debate is not fair than the impact is not good
    d. Public speaking skills
    i. If you don’t have anything topical to say, you don’t learn skills of debate
    and you can’t engage with those things e. Abuse = problematic metaphor
    i. Abuse is a loaded term prefer squirly
    Topicality
    You are proposing an argument of what debate ought to look like, and what it ought to
    be
    Not saying that because you vote neg you decide aff isn’t topical
    Competing models or competing
    Aff responses (2AC)
    1. We meet -- aff falls within Negs definition of the word or phrase
    a. Don’t always need evidence-- don’t read a purely inclusive definition to establish “we meet”
    2. Provide a counter interpretation -- provides a proposed interp of word or phrase that includes the affirmative
    a. Need evidence
    b. The aff must meet their counter interpretation- don’t read counter interp that the aff clearly does not meet
    We meet our counter interpretation
    Reasons to prefer our interpretation
    The flipside of what we said on the neg
    Advantages to affs interp of resolution and disadvantages to the negs
    i. Point out both of these things
    c. Reasons to prefer do not require evidence but there may be evidence sometimes
    that people might read
    d. Most of standards are same
    Only standard that changes from aff to neg a. Limit
    Aff says that negs interp makes it too easy for negative
    “Over limiting is bad”
    Aff needs to win that having more affs is better for debate for these reasons xyz..
    What value does it maximize to have more affs (including yours)
    Reasonability -- do not vote against the aff just because the aff made debate a little bit
    harder for the neg
    a. Suggests judge should determine whether aff meets a reasonable interp of topic
    i. Neg has to win that our model of debate is sooo bad that it is impossible to debate, not just that neg has interp that is a little bit better
    7. Specific Arguments the aff might make (specific to the aff these aren't generic)
    Productivity bad
    Do not tell me what to do
    Our things should be done in secret so predictability is bad
    Any aff can have different reasons why different standards/limits are bad
    Answering affs Topic is bad arguments-- neg answers
    Many ways to affirm the topic that do allow you to talk about identity/other stuff
    They say t is bad bc it excludes certain things but that is not the case topicality talks
    about parameter for what aff defends, not how it does it
    a. The neg in order to win should have to win the practice of being topical, not that
    thte topic in itself is good i. Includes USFG
    If aff offense is usfg is bad, instinct is to say the USFG is good but it draws you into a debate you don't have to win-- you have already said the aff has won if you are trying to say USFG is good
    Predictable plan of stasis
    When aff says USFG is bad thus no topical plan
    Reading a topical plan is not the same as defending the USFG -its saying they should do something, that thing can be a radical shift away from current process
    Not responsive to the argument that the aff should be topical
    No requirement that the aff defend goodness of USFG in reading a topical plan
    Such a lovely coincidence
    that in 50 percent of your debates you get to talk about why the USFG is bad
    i. Saying anything is bad is negative ground
    If aff doesn’t have to fall within topic their aff can be US is
    unethical
    If aff does this neg has to say US is ethical which aff is saying is
    impossible
    6. When aff says education/education policy is bad
    a. b. c. d.
    7. Why is a.
    b.
    Any criticism you have is a good neg strat
    Don’t force neg to say something you say is super unethical/impossible
    No relationship between voting aff and aff being good idea
    The arguments we have made demonstrates neg came to debate with no ability to test whether the aff is a good idea
    i. Not a testable proposition if we have no idea how to debate it because it is not topical
    1. Means aff has showed up and expects you to vote on it with no one saying their ev is wrong
    T bad (aff argument)?-- how do respond to this as neg
    What is debate if we can’t tell you what and what we can’t talk about Limits bad answer
    i. Debate is a game- we are not telling you what to do in life, we are only saying you need to affirm the topic
    1. Games need rules in order to function
    Aff gives ground for how neg can respond
    Aff tells neg what to do
    Aff limits too much ground
    Aff is telling neg what they have to do by saying they have to disagree

    (view changes)
    6:40 am

Friday, July 21

  1. page home edited Demo Debate 1 Evidence {fwddemodebate1ac.zip} Demo Debate 2 Evidence Verbatim Driving Direc…

    Demo Debate 1 Evidence {fwddemodebate1ac.zip}
    Demo Debate 2 Evidence
    Verbatim
    Driving Directions
    (view changes)
    11:55 am
  2. page Demo Debate 2 Evidence edited Aff Evidence {R1 1AC AwsareAwsare v Kennedy Kennedy.docx} {2ac Demo 2.docx} Neg Evidence {…

    Aff Evidence
    {R1 1AC AwsareAwsare v Kennedy Kennedy.docx}
    {2ac Demo 2.docx}
    Neg Evidence
    {Policy vs K Demo Debate -- Negative Cards.docx}

    (view changes)
    9:01 am
  3. file 2ac Demo 2.docx uploaded
    9:00 am
  4. file 2ac Demo 2.docx uploaded
    9:00 am

Thursday, July 20

  1. page KM Lab Notes edited ... 1. Neg No evidence that says the states can’t do it ... things that are wrong with t…
    ...
    1. Neg
    No evidence that says the states can’t do it
    ...
    things that
    are wrong with these bills
    i. Bill wants to encourage school interior facilities
    ...
    States CP
    T - deregulation
    ...
    Deschooling K
    2. Banking model of education
    ...
    regurgitates it
    3. Opportunity cost
    ...
    another thing
    Foreign language NSLA 1. Neg
    Spending DA
    ...
    Cut a ton of uniqueness cards that foreign language is up now
    Visas CP
    ...
    to people
    Stem
    1. Neg
    ...
    Trade-off with afterschool activities
    2. Advantages
    a. Competitiveness
    b. Industries -- pharmaceutical and chemicals
    ...
    solving extinction
    Right

    Right
    to Education 1. Neg
    a. Specific Links to Generics (except deschooling K) 2. Advantages
    Human Rights
    ...
    2. Solvency mechanism
    a. Black panther party
    ...
    panther movement
    c. Decolonization
    ...
    impact argument
    Zero Tolerance Aff 1. Neg
    Guns in schools are bad
    Zero tolerance for guns is necessary to stop gun violence
    Federalism DA
    ...
    tolerance policy
    Foreign Visas 1. Neg
    Brain Drain
    ...
    Trumps tax cut plan
    Trump political capital
    ...
    1. Advantage
    a. Educational inequality 2. Neg
    CRT
    Court legitimacy
    i. Congress CP
    ...
    public schools
    are segregated, court ruled if you can’t prove that was done randomly it’s not segregation, aff says it is and we need to challenge it
    Kritiks
    General
    Disagree with assumptions or premises of affirmatives
    ...
    the way
    we think about the world is correct
    Epistemology - study of knowledge
    Ontology- study of being
    Structure of Kritik
    ...
    of assumptions
    a. Neoliberalism example - markets are good
    Here is why that assumption is problematic
    Instead of that we should start from a different assumption
    a. The alt
    ...
    the world
    4. The point of competition for Kritiks is at the level assumptions
    Disagree about how we ought to think about these things
    Should the affirmatives assumption be included or not
    ...
    primary question
    5.

    5.
    Make arguments
    ...
    a debate
    a.

    a.
    The representation
    ...
    is problematic
    b. Discourse-- word + meaning
    ...
    the affirmative
    a.

    a.
    You can
    ...
    The alternative
    a. An explanation of how else we could assume the world works
    b. Instead How to Respond with Aff
    ...
    Link to STEM
    Lots of job opportunities in the workforce
    ...
    into workforce
    (shared link w foreign education)
    Links to Visas
    ...
    a. Messed up to lock kids who are under 18 up 7. Link: Right to education
    a. Right to education entails need to produce more capital from each individual i. End goal is to have individuals be productive citizens
    Notes 7/20
    *Note: Advantage CP-solves the impacts of the Aff’s advantages
    Millikan Affirmative Plan – Emily
    States CP
    Congress CP
    Deschooling is definitely possible
    Advantage CP:
    Resolves the two advantages
    DA to read with:
    Politics DA
    Spending DA
    Brain Drain DA
    Timeframe argument
    Research VISA policy and why H1 VISAS are needed
    On Case Cards to Find:
    Not closely related to military hot spots they claim to solve
    Relations with China are improving
    Relations don’t solve
    No spillover
    Inherency- relations have already been solved
    Search “Educational and Culture Engagements”
    Visas Affirmative Plan -Lynnea
    Natives Affirmative Plan – Kacie
    T argument on elementary and secondary education
    Spending DA – how much the Aff would cost and if it would push over the threshold
    Figure out which version of the Spending DA you would like to use
    Spending DA is more generic but if the Aff doesn’t spend a lot of money, there is no link
    Debt Limit DA- any amount of money can trgger it (good and bad)
    What bill does:
    Creates a constest
    Consults with Indian Tribes
    Mostly about colleges and Universities
    Teaches the Native American language
    Spends money
    Already Cut Cards:
    Restorative Justice doesn’t work
    Zero Tolerance is beneficial and needed – in response to Social Justice advantage
    Texas wants Zero Tolerance for Marijuana – linked to generic federalism DA
    Portland spends millions of dollars for restorative justice by increasing violence – Spending DA
    PIC CP – eliminate zero tolerance except for this thing
    Write the CP text
    DA to getting rid of zero tolerance on sexual assault is bad
    Net benefit-zero tolerance policy is necessary for reducing sexual assault
    Already Cut Cards:
    Zero Tolerance started off good but schools started to limit too many things using Zero Tolerance
    CP- keep some zero tolerance policies
    Federalism DA link
    T- decrease in regulation – deregulation isn’t regulation
    Find cards saying the states could do it – net benefit of federalism
    Find cards saying states want authority over zero tolerance policies – they want it to be their choice
    Zero Tolerance- Ethan
    Zero Tolerance - Christian
    Decolonization – Anthony
    Looking at the State-phobia K
    External impacts – extinction and climate change
    Link to Aff – their Mignolo ’09 -
    Deschooling – find a card on Afrocentric education
    This form of education is within a larger form of education that is problematic
    Afrocentric education assumption that Africa is a single unit is problematic
    Write up a block that identifies three link arguments based on things the 1AC says
    What assumptions about decolonization are made and why are they bad?
    Have link specific cards and try to find how they link to 1AC cards
    Possible Fem Ks
    Still need to find the link cards
    Already found alt cards
    After School PE trade off DA:
    Increase of academic topics take away from physical activity programs
    Impact- leads of obesity
    Impact – obesity kills Heg
    Find card that says if people join STEM or after school educational opportunities takes away from physical activity
    Competitiveness
    Find card that says doing STEM during school solves
    States CP
    Federalism DA
    Find Learning STEM after school doesn’t solve
    Find Uniqueness card
    Liberal Arts Case Turn
    Liberal Arts lead to innovation
    Deschooling Link – they assume that schooling kids is key to fight the WOT – the aff uses education as the means to an end to stop terrorism
    Find cards saying that it is racist
    Have K links
    Use of foreign language training in educational context for the purpose of WOT – someone would be critizing the way that we think about the purposes and uses of education is problematic when it is for purposes that are about protecting the nation state
    Links to Security K – criticism of the way we talk about threats to ourselves or the world
    Neolib – neoliberal foeirgn language school
    Visas CP
    STEM da cp
    States cp
    Advocacy Statement
    They have cards saying the government is bad
    Right now the education system (standardized testing specifically) creates segregation and widens the achievement gap
    Topicality arguments
    Possibly run a K because they have used the language of the “first step”
    State phobia – if the USFG does it, there will still be racism – link card in their 1AC
    Look through state phobia K and find three places in their 1AC where they link
    Use of Critical Race Theory ought not be regulated
    Deployment is a weird metaphor/word to use
    Find Deschooling cards
    Write out the parts of the 1AC that we disagree with
    Cut Cards
    Standardized testing good
    Found three cards – allows us to study the achievement gap, shows the inequality in our system, and enforces a more structured curriculum
    Found cards saying opting out doesn’t solve
    Also found card saying the states can solve it
    Find cards saying opting out worsens inequality
    STEM – Tyler
    Foreign Language – Grace
    Accessibility - Mia
    Native – Renna
    Spending DA – Aff spends $450 million
    Read the Deficit Spending DA
    Solvency in aff is funding the DIE schools but the problem is that even the curriculum is still Eurocentric so they don’t solve
    States CP
    Every website goes to federal government website
    Will be hard to link because the natives are very closely related to the federal government
    Net benefit – tribes are different so we should consult the tribal leaders to better fit their cultures
    Standards are good but the assessments are bad – this is in their aff – funding the BIE schools won’t fix this – doesn’t solve
    CRT - link card flows aff so we can’t do this
    Looking up cards on strict scrutiny
    Find cards saying strict scrutiny won’t spill over into abortion laws
    Right to Education - Dash

    (view changes)
    4:30 pm
  2. page KM Lab Notes edited ... - Military Notes 7/18 ... the 1AC a. Put 1AC in dropbox Lab Notes 2. Read ... …
    ...
    - Military
    Notes 7/18
    ...
    the 1AC
    a. Put 1AC in dropbox
    Lab Notes
    2. Read
    ...
    the footnotes/references
    the

    the
    1AC articles
    ...
    the context
    3. What
    ...
    to advantages
    i.

    i.
    1NC frontlines--
    ...
    the 1NC
    1. Argument diversity-- different types of arguments
    2NC extensions
    ...
    Right to Education Affirmative
    1. Version one
    ...
    and whether
    they are constitutional
    Spillover-- we will disagree to this spillover
    ...
    We can say the spill over also happens in another area (ex. military)
    Federalism -- concept of strict scrutiny is bad for federalism
    ...
    we shouldn't
    do anything about strict scrutiny
    1. To win on neg on cp you have to win cp is better than plan, and
    ...
    i. Sending students to schools directly
    Directly contributes to young people going to school
    ...
    like that
    because the things they are taught and influenced by in schools influences the construction themselves making them more likely to behave in ways that will send them to prison\
    b. Reproductive rights 4. Version two -ST lab
    ...
    One alternative to system of incarceration by which we lock people up
    Idea that the people affected should be the center of justice
    ...
    opposed to
    zero tolerance
    Due process/youth rights
    ...
    this aff
    a. T- regulation
    i. What zero tolerance is and is not in a regulation
    ...
    1. CP= Fund N.A.Ed by taxing weed
    CRT?
    ...
    problems with
    their language
    Historical Materialism
    ...
    Federalism DA general notes
    Federalism -- balance of power between central gov and the states
    ...
    education, aff
    disrupts that with the federal gov-- sets a bad model because other countries who copy us will increase strong federal control
    Notes 7/19
    Natives HK 1. Neg
    Lab Notes Case Neg Work
    States
    Funding
    Doesn’t solve
    Consult the native CP
    Criticize language of plan tex
    Cards to find
    States can pay for it
    State funding would resolve issues
    Advantages
    Culture
    Solvency
    Natives TS
    1. Neg
    No evidence that says the states can’t do it
    There is a specific bill the plan says they will solve -- we need to find things that
    are wrong with these bills
    i. Bill wants to encourage school interior facilities
    1. Not topical c. Consult the natives CP
    d. Criticize language of plan text
    2. We need to figure out what the bill does
    Accessibility 1. Neg
    Opting out means you're not taking standardized test which has bad implications
    Giving the people the opportunity to opt out isn't a useful plan
    CP-- different types of tests
    Argue-- testing is key, not letting people opt out
    i. When students opt out its not enjoyable
    1. Good stigma (opt out) “standardized testing”
    People would not choose to opt out
    Google banking model of education
    i. Say its bad
    Cut reasons for veto
    States CP
    T - deregulation
    i. Find card that says this thing is a regulation j. Deschooling K
    2. Banking model of education
    a. The student passively gets knowledge from teacher and then regurgitates it
    3. Opportunity cost
    a. Idea that doing one thing forecloses the possibility of doing another thing
    Foreign language NSLA 1. Neg
    Spending DA
    States CP
    Federalism DA links
    i. Curriculum requirements
    Deschooling K
    Neoliberalism K
    Cut a ton of uniqueness cards that foreign language is up now
    Visas CP
    i. Gives visas to people
    Stem
    1. Neg
    CP-- other countries can do the plan
    States CP
    i. Federalism DA
    c. Case offense- liberal arts key to innovation
    People won't join after school because people are doing other d=things
    Trade-off with afterschool activities
    2. Advantages
    a. Competitiveness
    b. Industries -- pharmaceutical and chemicals
    i. Chemical industry innovation is key to solving extinction
    Right to Education 1. Neg
    a. Specific Links to Generics (except deschooling K) 2. Advantages
    Human Rights
    ?
    Impact Framing
    Decolonization 1. Neg
    CRT
    Neoliberalism K
    T
    2. Solvency mechanism
    a. Black panther party
    b. Black panther movement
    c. Decolonization
    3. Root cause = impact argument
    Zero Tolerance Aff 1. Neg
    Guns in schools are bad
    Zero tolerance for guns is necessary to stop gun violence
    Federalism DA
    i. States like 0 tolerance policy
    Foreign Visas 1. Neg
    Brain Drain
    Politics?
    Trumps tax cut plan
    Trump political capital
    Milliken vs. Bradley 1. Advantage
    a. Educational inequality 2. Neg
    CRT
    Court legitimacy
    i. Congress CP
    3. Aff says right now there are lots of segregated neighborhoods, as a result public schools
    are segregated, court ruled if you can’t prove that was done randomly it’s not segregation, aff says it is and we need to challenge it
    Kritiks
    General
    Disagree with assumptions or premises of affirmatives
    These implicated whether the effect is good, but links often talk about whether the way
    we think about the world is correct
    Epistemology - study of knowledge
    Ontology- study of being
    Structure of Kritik
    1. The aff starts with x set of assumptions
    a. Neoliberalism example - markets are good
    Here is why that assumption is problematic
    Instead of that we should start from a different assumption
    a. The alt
    i. Here is our new way of thinking about the world
    4. The point of competition for Kritiks is at the level assumptions
    Disagree about how we ought to think about these things
    Should the affirmatives assumption be included or not
    i. Not necessarily concerned with plan, but even if it is the plan is not primary question
    5. Make arguments about representation or the way you have chosen to describe something or represent something in a debate
    a. The representation is attached to some knowledge of a thing i. Knowledge or description is problematic
    b. Discourse-- word + meaning
    6. The outcome of the plan is acknowledged by the knowledge of the affirmative
    a. You can never say something is good until you can justify what good is 7. The alternative
    a. An explanation of how else we could assume the world works
    b. Instead How to Respond with Aff
    That’s not the assumption we have made
    Alt no saolves
    Perm
    Defend the assumption
    Framework (it has issues tho)
    a. We shouldn’t have to debate about our assumptions
    Neoliberalism K
    The aff is defending a system that assumes that people are things that produce capitol
    Links to competitiveness
    Link to STEM
    Lots of job opportunities in the workforce
    STEM education is important to produce people who can go into workforce
    (shared link w foreign education)
    Links to Visas
    a. People to come here to help US economy 5. Link Standardized Testing does not link
    a. Link idea-- idea of allowing people to opt out leads to choice 6. Link School-Prison pipeline
    a. Messed up to lock kids who are under 18 up 7. Link: Right to education
    a. Right to education entails need to produce more capital from each individual i. End goal is to have individuals be productive citizens

    (view changes)
    9:56 am

Wednesday, July 19

  1. page Electives edited ... Elective Selection Form {Elective 4 and 5 Sectioning .pdf} Wednesday 7/19 11:00am Electiv…
    ...
    Elective Selection Form
    {Elective 4 and 5 Sectioning .pdf}
    Wednesday 7/19 11:00am
    Elective 3
    The 2AR - Sarah Spring: The 2AR is the best speech in debate. Learn how to take full advantage of speaking last.
    Extending T - Shree Awsare: Learn how to make judges hold the line and tell cheating affirmative teams to go home.
    Impact Comparison - Mikaela Malsin: You are doing it badly. Want to do it better?
    How to Beat Higher Rep Teams - Jason Sigalos: Do you have a round 2 preset against a top 5 team in the country? No problem. Let's have an in depth discussion of judge psychology, asymmetric argumentation, and in round maneuvering to debate the best of the best.
    The Order is the K - Lindsey Shook: If you've ever managed to spread yourself out of your own 2nr in the block while only going for your one K in the 2NC this is the elective for you. I will talk about organization and argument packaging to make going for the K in the 2nc or the 1nr clearer, easier to flow and how to make those things useful for the 2nr. We will also talk about how to integrate smart case debate into the criticism debate in both the block and the 2nr. The days of the 6 min link wall overview or 5 mins answering the perm are over (or at least they should be). So come learn how some reorganizing of your blocks can insure you never hear the dreaded "there is no impact to your K" or "I just didn't think the alt was in the 2NR" decisions ever again.

    Thursday 7/20 10:00am
    Elective 4
    ...
    Conditions Counterplans - Brian Klarman: There are a wide variety of counterplans that say the affirmative is good, but only under certain conditions. Those include consult, conditions, threaten, etc. This discussion will focus on strategically & theoretically debating those arguments
    {conditions elective evidence.docx}
    Wednesday 7/19 11:00am
    Elective 3
    The 2AR - Sarah Spring: The 2AR is the best speech in debate. Learn how to take full advantage of speaking last.
    Extending T - Shree Awsare: Learn how to make judges hold the line and tell cheating affirmative teams to go home.
    Impact Comparison - Mikaela Malsin: You are doing it badly. Want to do it better?
    How to Beat Higher Rep Teams - Jason Sigalos: Do you have a round 2 preset against a top 5 team in the country? No problem. Let's have an in depth discussion of judge psychology, asymmetric argumentation, and in round maneuvering to debate the best of the best.
    The Order is the K - Lindsey Shook: If you've ever managed to spread yourself out of your own 2nr in the block while only going for your one K in the 2NC this is the elective for you. I will talk about organization and argument packaging to make going for the K in the 2nc or the 1nr clearer, easier to flow and how to make those things useful for the 2nr. We will also talk about how to integrate smart case debate into the criticism debate in both the block and the 2nr. The days of the 6 min link wall overview or 5 mins answering the perm are over (or at least they should be). So come learn how some reorganizing of your blocks can insure you never hear the dreaded "there is no impact to your K" or "I just didn't think the alt was in the 2NR" decisions ever again.

    (view changes)
    5:14 pm

More