Judge Philosophies
Aaron Ortiz-Moreno - Delta
n/a
Aarush Rana - De Anza
n/a
Alex Mendoza - Ohlone College
n/a
Angelina Nguyen - Delta
n/a
Anju Vriksha - FTC
Judging Philosophy: As a judge, I approach debate as both a competitive activity and an intellectual journey. My philosophy blends the principles of the Tabula Rasa and the Game Player, creating a framework that balances flexibility with structure. The ultimate aim is to foster an environment where both the clash between arguments and the educational value of debate are paramount. 1. Tabula Rasa: A Clean Slate for Each Round I start each round with an open mind, adhering to the principle of Tabula Rasa. I allow the debaters to define the terms and framework of the debate, ensuring that their arguments stand on their own merits. This allows for fresh, unbiased evaluation. While the government side carries the burden of proof, both teams share the responsibility of creating meaningful clash. I expect them to engage directly with each other’s arguments in a way that challenges, tests, and refines the positions being debated. Clash is central to my evaluation—without it, debate loses its depth, and the round becomes less dynamic and intellectually stimulating. 2. Game Player: Structure and Strategy Debate is a structured activity with clear rules, and as a judge, I hold both sides to these standards. The government side must justify their case with sufficient evidence and reasoning, thereby meeting their burden of proof. The opposition is not only tasked with critiquing the government’s position but could also present a well-developed counter plan, pushing the debate forward. Both sides must create strategic clash—through argumentation, evidence, and rhetorical skill—while utilizing their time effectively. The manner in which debaters use their time and structure their arguments speaks to their understanding of the game, and I reward those who demonstrate this skill. 3. Debate as an Educational Activity Beyond the competition, I see debate as an opportunity for intellectual growth and learning. I encourage debaters to treat the round as an opportunity to challenge their own ideas and expand their perspectives. Debate should be a space where ideas are not merely defended but also questioned and tested. Clash is a vital part of this process, as it enables participants to confront different viewpoints and, in doing so, foster intellectual development. The most successful rounds are those that lead debaters to reflect on their arguments and ideas in a meaningful way, both during and after the debate. 4. Personal Preferences: Language and Eloquence As an old-school debater, I have a deep appreciation for the flow and beauty of language. Clear, precise, and eloquent arguments not only convey ideas but elevate the discourse. I value the use of language to both persuade and enhance the round, especially when combined with intellectual rigor. Rhetoric should complement logic, and I reward those who skillfully weave both into their arguments. Eloquence, however, must not overshadow substance. I am most impressed when debaters use language to clarify, sharpen, and advance their case while maintaining focus on engaging with the opposing side. 5. Conclusion: A Balance of Flexibility and Structure In conclusion, my judging philosophy combines the flexibility of a Tabula Rasa with the clear structure of a Game Player. I place a strong emphasis on the importance of clash—debates that lack meaningful engagement fail to provide the intellectual rigor necessary for growth. The government holds the burden of proof, and both sides must contribute to the development of the round through strategic clash and clear, structured argumentation. Ultimately, I believe that debate should challenge participants to think critically, inspire personal growth, and serve as both a contest and a chance for deeper understanding. Through the art of strategic clash and intellectual engagement, debaters will not only compete but also grow as thinkers and communicators.
Aria Kumar - Ohlone College
n/a
Arley Rodriguez - Fresno State
Interp coach with debate experience. Focus on logical arguments over of technical issues.
Casey Snell - SFSU
n/a
Cassandra Vu - SJSU
n/a
Charles Garcia-Spiegel - CCSF
I am mostly a speech/individual events guy, but dabble in judging IPDA pretty consistently. Think of me as a couple steps up from a lay judge, but not fully immersed in all the technical details that you might expect from someone with Parli or LD experience. Please have patience with me (and with each other! and with yourselves!). Take the event seriously, but dont take yourself too seriously.
Please avoid spreading whenever possible. I have an auditory processing disorder and will be unable to hear you properly if you spread. I am much more likely to be persuaded by just a couple of well-supported and well-argued points than a rapid-fire litany of all the reasons you think you should win. You may have the best and most correct arguments in the world, but I will vote against you if I am unable to follow along. Similarly, I want to hear (brief) definitions or explanations of jargon when time allows. Signposting is also important: a poorly organized argument is more annoying to me than no argument at all.
Make it as easy for me to vote for you as possible. Do not make me decide the criteria on my own. I walk into each round with the expectation that you are the experts, both on the topic you are debating and on the structure of the activity itself. I generally assume that the information you tell me in a given round is true, assuming it is supported by some kind of citation or reasoning, but I reserve the right to factor it into my decision if you tell me something I know to be false or outdated. In each round, I trust you to explain to me why your approach to the problem is the correct one, and why it matters. Whoever does a better job of that will get my vote, whether or not I agree with that position in the real world.
Please note: I am unable to flow on paper, but I will be flowing electronically and following along. My use of a laptop does not mean that I am not paying attention. Similarly, my facial expressions are not a reliable indicator of my inner thoughts. Please assume that I am listening and paying attention and genuinely interested in what you have to tell me, no matter what my face or hands look like. If you read this far: I will give a couple extra speaker points to whoever brings me the cutest drawing of your favorite monster when the round starts!
Overall: I prioritize thorough explanation over cramming in one more argument. I am friendlier than I look. I trust you to be the expert. I want you to tell me why I should vote for you, and then earn my vote by demonstrating you know a: a decent amount about the topic and b: how to argue.
Christina Sun - DVC
n/a
Daniela Romo - UC Berkeley
n/a
David Thorwaldson - Butte
n/a
Destiny Riley - CCSF
n/a
Dev Mehra - USFCA
n/a
Doug Fraleigh - Fresno State
JUDGING PHILOSOPHY..DOUG FRALEIGH FRESNO STATE (he/him/his)
Background
Co-Director of Forensics, Fresno State. Co-Director, Fresno State Prison Debate Program. Competed in policy debate for four years for Sacramento State and coached policy at UC Berkeley, Sacramento State, Cornell, and Fresno State. Also coached and judged NPDA, IPDA, LD, and individual events. For the past three years, the Fresno State Barking Bulldogs have competed in IPDA.
Overview about debate genres
My judging philosophy originated as a policy debate paradigm. It applies equally well to LD. Based on the NPDA rounds that I have judged post-COVID, it is my belief that NPDA has evolved into NDT/CEDA debate, but with a new topic every round. And every team had evidence, so it seems that the community has performatively overturned the "no evidence" rule.
I think it would be nifty if IPDA remained an alternative for students who are new to debate or would rather debate in a format where there is less emphasis on speed and the arguments are more real world, especially given that there are plenty of policy-like options for students who would prefer that type of debate. In IPDA rounds (especially novice) I will give more weight to delivery and be less flow-centric than in other genres of debate.
What Should You Know About How I Judge?
- I am not opposed to any genre of argument. In IPDA, there is less time for constructive speeches (and only a single constructive in one-on-one debates), so arguments that require extensive development may not be the best choice. I will judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round, rather than my general familiarity with a position.
- I flow debates and the line-by-line arguments are important. However, I may not be persuaded by a very minimally developed argument (e.g. T is an RVI, fairness), even if it is dropped.
- I am not looking for speed in IPDA. It could benefit you to briefly explain the story of your argument, especially if it is a major position you plan to go for in rebuttals.
- Theory arguments are ok, but I do not look forward to them with the enthusiasm that some of my colleagues do.
What Can You Do to Earn Speaker Points?
- Clash with your opponents arguments is essential. I am very impressed when debaters make on point answers and less impressed when the round looks like competing persuasive speeches. Debaters who extend arguments (explain why their arguments prevail on contested issues) earn top-tier points.
- Although debaters are not supposed to "read evidence" in IPDA, paraphrased evidence from credible sources is very convincing to me.
- Organization is very important. Be very clear and signpost where you are on the flow as you move through the debate. For example, instead of just saying you are on the case or the disad and mashing all your arguments together, identify the specific argument you are rebutting or extending. If I am trying to figure out where you are, I am wasting cognitive resources that could be better spent listening to your argument.
- Good delivery is a plus. It is also a good idea to slow down a bit and emphasize the most essential arguments in final speeches, e.g. when you are advocating for how I should put the round together.
- Be enthusiastic about your arguments, but when interacting with others in the round, err on the side of chill. The chance to travel with your squad, debate with your partner (in some debate formats anyway), and compete against other colleges is a privilege (this is especially true at nationals); have fun and enjoy the journey.
Procedural Considerations
- Tag-team cross-x is all right. When speakers are prompted by their partner, the speaker needs to follow up by making the argument in the next speech and that is what I will flow. I listen carefully to cross-x and promise not to check real or fantasy sports scores until prep time starts.
- I do not want to adjudicate what happened before the round started.
Policy Resolutions
- For me, the round usually comes down to case vs. disads and counterplans. It is often a good negative strategy to refute case (even with analytics), rather than concede a case with massive impacts. However, I rarely give aff a 0% risk of any advantage and am unlikely to vote on presumption alone in the absence of any offense. The same principles apply to disads; it is strategic to minimize the links and impacts, but I rarely give neg 0% risk. I can be persuaded that more probable arguments, such as lives saved or human rights protected, outweigh an infinitesimal risk of nuclear war. I like the debaters to argue for how I should balance the arguments, but in the absence of such arguments (or if the explanation is very limited), then it is up to me to put the round together.
- On T, neg is most likely to win when they do a really good job explaining and defending their standards (blips not helpful here if you are seriously considering going for T in your last rebuttal) and explaining how their definitions meet the standards for T better than policy rounds.
- Counterplans can be a very good strategy, but they should be explained in the same detail as an affirmative plan. (Affirmative permutations also need the same detail, don't string together three or four permutations without analysis or explanation.) Your CP needs to be non-topical and competitive.
Fact and Value Resolutions
- The affirmative should explain why they are classifying the resolution as fact or value and advocate criteria for judging the round.
- The negative is welcome to dispute the affirmatives classification and/or criteria. My default is that non-policy resolutions which contain a subjective term like "best" or "more important" are value resolutions not fact.
- In neither side clearly wins the resolutional analysis issue, my default method for resolving the conflict is which teams vision for the round promotes a more educational and equitable debate.
Ema Fua - Delta
n/a
Eric Chen - Deb@Davis
n/a
Ethan Stern - Deb@Davis
I believe that theory, of all types, is the aPriori issue. I will be voting next on the core argument of the round as it is based on the voters. I believe that it is not necessarily the team that speaks better that should win the round, but the team that has more merit on the issues they are trying for that will win. As a person, I prefer to see debates without huge amounts of theory, that said I will still vote on it as the aPirori issue.
Evan Lingo - UC Berkeley
Introduction/Background
My name is Evan (he/him) and I'm currently a speech coach for the Mountain View Los Altos Speech and Debate team. Im also a college student competing in persuasive and informative speaking. Before college, I competed in parli debate for about 5 years from 2018-2023. Before high school, I did duo interpretation for 3 years (I highly recommend doing duo btw it was probably the most fun I had in speech and debate ever, sorry parli). Ive been outside of debate-land for a while, so I would currently put myself in the washed flay judge category.
I mostly did lay and technical case debate, but I occasionally ran some theory (mostly in response to other theory or Ks).
If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round!
Speech Paradigm:
I'm open to speeches that break with conventions, as long as they abide by the rules of the event. I think it's really cool to see students stretch the boundaries of what's considered possible in a given event, so don't be afraid to try something new!
In general, my rankings and feedback will focus on the content of your speech (in events where you had to prepare the content of your speech yourself), and the delivery of your speech (in all events). I will do my best to let nothing else influence my decision. That being said, I think it's pretty much impossible to judge speech (or debate) objectively. I'll do my best to judge everyone on the same general standards, but with people presenting a variety of unique pieces, Im inevitably comparing apples to oranges. So please dont read into rankings or feedback too much. Its ultimately just my opinion.
As with any opinion, Id ask you to hear it out, but I dont expect you to agree with all of it. Use the parts that are useful and discard the parts that arent! And most importantly, remember to keep up the amazing work, strive to grow into the speaker that you want to be, and never let anyone convince you that youre not capable of greatness, because you are.
Also remember to have fun!! Rankings are just numbers on a computer that you'll forget by the time you leave high school. Skills, friendships, and memories those can last a lifetime. That's what makes speech worth doing (at least in my opinion).
IPDA Paradigm:
Off-time road maps are fine, and competitors timing themselves and each other is encouraged (although I will also have my own timer just in case)! No need to say "thank you"s before every speech, unless you really want to (I won't stop you). I appreciate the sentiment, but it won't affect my decision or speaker points, and I often think just saying "good debate" at the end of the round is enough to show your appreciation for your opponent and the judge.
I will evaluate IPDA rounds in much the same way that I evaluate parli rounds, so see my parli paradigm for more specifics. The gist is that I will do my best to resolve the debate based only on the arguments made in the round and how the debaters leveraged those arguments to prove their points.
In IPDA, though, I will expect speeches to be delivered for a general audience. In general, this means speakers should not go too far above conversational speaking pace and should not rely on debate jargon without explaining it. This also means it will be a lot harder to get me to vote for technical arguments like Ks or theory. Given the event description of IPDA, if you run Ks or theory, I'll expect the argument to be explained in a manner that a lay audience could understand. For Ks in particular, you will have to explain your argument very clearly and very well, and I will be very receptive to commonsense responses from the other team, even if they aren't dressed up in the technical language of normal K debates.
While cross-examination may affect speaker points, I will not allow arguments made in cross-examination to affect my decision unless those arguments are referenced during one of your later speeches. So, if you make a point or got an answer in cross-ex that you want me to consider, please bring it back up in your next speech!
Parli Paradigm:
TL;DR - Be nice and have fun!!! I prefer technical case debate, but I'll do my best to evaluate any arguments you present. I consider myself tech over truth. I'm most persuaded by strategic arguments, good weighing, and leveraging dropped arguments. Theory is cool. I dont like frivolous theory, but I will vote for it if you win it on the flow. Ks are cool too, but I do not feel confident about my ability to properly evaluate them. It's probably best to assume that I'm not familiar with your K lit, and I probably wont vote for an argument I completely don't understand :(
What do I think is a strategic argument
I think a strategic argument is composed of a clear claim, good evidence to support that claim, and a well-explained reason why your claim being true means I should vote for you.
How to win arguments (at least in my book)
In my opinion, the best ways to prove that your argument beats your opponent's argument are:
-
Leveraging dropped arguments! If your opponent doesn't respond to one of your arguments at all, I will consider that argument to be true. Given that, tell me how the dropped argument proves that your opponent's side is wrong in this debate. But remember, (at least in my opinion) an argument consists of a claim, at least one warrant (which can be a cited warrant or a logical warrant), and an implication. Be warned: even if an argument is dropped, I probably won't vote on it if it doesn't have each of those 3 parts!
-
Weighing! Tell me why your warrants (logical or "cited") are better than your opponent's warrants and/or tell me why your argument matters more.
-
Using "even if" scenarios! This means tell me why you're winning "even if" I believe that their argument (or at least some part of their argument) is true. Often, your argument can't win if I believe everything they say is true, but do your best to pick as many parts of their argument as possible and explain why you're winning even if I believe all those parts you picked!
New Arguments in the Last Speeches (LOR and PMR)
I'll do my best to protect the flow (meaning I won't consider new arguments made in these speeches), but calling the POO (Point of Order) is still appreciated!
I count new metaweighing arguments as new arguments in the last two speeches, even if they're technically "just weighing". Otherwise, I think aff would win every round with new metaweighing in the PMR (last aff speech).
Other than metaweighing, I think new impact weighing/comparison is generally fair game in the last two speeches since they're supposed to be summarizing and crystalizing the round.
Theory
I'll default to evaluating theory using competing interpretations. If you can prove that their interpretation is bad I don't really see why you need to read a counter-interpretation though. If you don't read a counter-interpretation, I'll just assume you're defending the debate status quo (which is usually just their interpretation but replace "must" or "must not" with "may or may not"), kind of like I assume the neg is defending the status quo if they don't read a counterplan.
Remember when I said I dont like friv theory. That's probably true in most cases where you don't know your opponents. But, if you do know your opponents and you know everyone in the round will have fun with it, then go for it! I'm not the fun police (I hope). But, if both teams aren't really comfortable with it, I'll be sad.
Kritiks
Ks weren't really my thing in high school, so I don't have too many thoughts on them. I'll probably be more receptive to common sense responses than the average tech judge, even if these common sense arguments don't have the technical jargon commonly used in effective K responses.
Please explain your arguments clearly! Both so your opponents can effectively engage in the round, and so I can do a better job evaluating your arguments. Assume I don't know your K lit because I probably don't!
If you can tell your opponents you'll be reading a K before the round, it would be great if you do. It would be even better if you disclose your advocacy or the thesis of the K you're reading.
That being said, I think disclosure theory debates can get messy since the violation debate is hard to resolve without just taking one team's word for it. If faced with disclosure theory I'll do my best to evaluate it based on the arguments made in the round, but in all honesty, Id probably feel forced to intervene if I had to reach a decision on the theory shell, so I'll do my best to find something else to decide the round.
I do think I'll probably be a little more receptive to TUSfg/Framework T than the average tech judge, (but if you run framework T you'll certainly still have to work for the win).
I consider the ROB (Roll Of the Ballot) the thesis of your framework section. In my view, the arguments you make in the framework section are the evidence supporting your ROB. If your opponents effectively respond to your framework, but they don't explicitly answer your ROB, I won't consider your ROB conceded (because I'd consider the evidence behind the ROB refuted).
Other random thoughts
Please don't respond to an argument by saying, "This claim doesn't have any evidence, so you shouldn't consider it" and then moving on! They may have no evidence that their claim is right, but if you move on I'm also left with no evidence that their claim is wrong! Your evidence doesn't need to be from an online source. In my opinion, especially in parli, logic is considered evidence. So, if you point out their claim doesn't have evidence and then ALSO give me some logical reason that their claim probably isn't true, you're golden!
When it comes to speed, remember that I am washed. I can probably handle a fast conversational pace (maybe 200 words per minute). If you go too far above that, I might miss the content of your warrants, but I'll hopefully catch the main ideas for most of what you're saying. I'll slow or clear you if I really can't keep up, but even if I haven't said anything it's best to slow down if there's anything really important that you want to make sure is on my flow and you've been going fast.
Tag teaming is fine! I'll only flow what the designated/current speaker is saying though (so the current speaker will have to repeat whatever their partner said if they want me to consider it). My definition of tag-teaming is when a person talks during their partner's speech, usually to give them an idea or tell them to respond to some argument.
I won't flow questions asked (or statements made) during POIs or during flex.
Garret Slody - DVC
n/a
Homiya Jones - CCSF
n/a
Ian Kusmiantoro - DVC
n/a
Insiya Neemuchwala - SJSU
n/a
Issa Reinke - Ohlone College
n/a
Jacob Toste - Butte
n/a
Jamie O'Neil - SJSU
n/a
Jerel Villanueva - SFSU
n/a
Jomela Sophia Narciso - CCSF
n/a
Jonah Copeland - FTC
n/a
Julia Irvine - Butte
n/a
Julie Vasquez - Santa Rosa
n/a
Jupjeet Rai - SJSU
n/a
Kirsti Copeland - FTC
n/a
Maeve Kraybill - Santa Rosa
n/a
Mahari Wright - Solano CC
n/a
Matthew Van Slyke - SJSU
n/a
Megan Savage - Solano CC
n/a
Mia Go - Chabot
n/a
Minahil Kizilbash - De Anza
n/a
Natalie Cavallero - Hartnell
Prof of Comm/DoF specializing in argumentation. Please be kind, organized & easy to follow. I like a solid argumentation supported by polished delivery & performance.
Nathan Gonsalves - Deb@Davis
n/a
Nick Dibble - Fresno State
n/a
Nisitha Kakulapati - SJSU
n/a
Nolan Hatcher - Chabot
n/a
Ornaldo Gonzalez - Fresno State
Recently graduated former competitor. Please be kind, ethical, and logical. Please refrain from spreading and using exceedingly technical arguments. Focus on logical arguments over of technical issues.
Pacific Jeremy - Santa Rosa
n/a
Ricardo Cisneros - Contra Costa
n/a
Rob Boller - USFCA
What is your experience with Speech and Debate?
20+ yrs coaching and judging; mostly BP, Civic, and Parli. 25+ yrs teaching argumentation. Former high school debater a loooong time ago. Extensive experience with coaching and judging IEs + lots of performance stuff in my background.
What does your ideal debate round look like?
Well organized. Accessible to an average educated person. If my Dad couldn't follow you, or you'd make little sense in a courtroom or city council meeting, I'm not interested. Debate for debaters only is a silly game. My ideal round avoids spreading and speed at all costs and instead focuses on well fleshed out arguments with solid evidence/examples and warrants. I love good rebuttal and good manners. Finally remind me what your big picture ethical angle is and why you won the round.
Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences?
Avoid debate jargon. Be nice to judges and fellow competitors. Don't be angry when you "lose"...its just the opinion of one person. Think about how you want civil discourse to be in the world and model it in your debates.
Ryan Wenzel - Santa Rosa
I am open to whatever you present. However, I am a newer judge, so make sure I can keep up.
Sabrina Clendenin - MJC
n/a
Serena Tarango - UC Berkeley
n/a
Steve Robertson - Contra Costa
Steve Robertson
Contra Costa College, Director of Forensics
Years competed:1 yr LD (high school), 4.5 years NDT/CEDA (college)
Years coaching: 25+ years (middle school, high school, college - LD, parli, NDT/CEDA, IPDA)
Philosophy - The round is for you to convince me why your side should win the debate. try to be as non-interventionist as I can be. I work off the flow, focusing on your claims, warrants, and evidence. Believability is also a factor. I find it very difficult to vote for arguments that I don't understand how they work or function. So be sure to explain why things are the way they are. Compare impacts, and explain why your impacts/argument outweigh or should be viewed as more important than theirs. The main point is that you need to justify your position to me: what is your argument, why is it legitimate, and why does that matter in light of the other side's arguments. If you can adequately answer those three questions better than the other side, you should win the argument.
I punish non-responsiveness - meaning that if you drop or undercover arguments, they suddenly get much more weight in the round (especially if exploited by the other team). However, if you under-develop your arguments (such as blipping out theory pre-empts without justifying them), it doesn't take much to respond to these arguments.
I also communicate through nonverbals. If you see me nodding, then that means I understand your position (not necessarily agree with it, but I get what you're saying). If you see me cocking my head to the side or scrunching up my face, it means I don't get what you're saying or I don't understand your argument or I don't see why it's relevant. If you see that face, you should either give more explanation (until you see a head nod) or cut your losses and move onto another argument. If you see my hands in the air, that means I don't know where you are on the flow. You should give me a signpost, because I'm currently not flowing you.
Here are some event-specific concerns:
Parli- Debate starts at the highest point of conflict. I will listen to arguments of trichot/type of resolution, though if the tournament identifies it as a particular type of resolution this becomes a bit more difficult.
I don't care about partner to partner communication. However, if it's done during the other team's speech, then mute yourselves from this 8x8 (e.g., chat privately, mute yourselves and talk in another venue, etc.). Don't disrupt the other speaker.
If you want to give your partner advice or arguments, that's fine as well. There are 2 things to be aware of: First, I only listen to what the speaker says. So if you tell your partner something, it doesn't reach my flow until the current speaker says it. Saying "yeah, what she said" will get onto my flow as "yeah, what she said" - not the actual argument. Second, the more you parrot or puppet your partner, the lower your speaker points will become. This is purely subjective on my part, so use at your own peril.
Finally, parli has the Point of Order. I will not protect against new arguments or other rules violations (unless specified to do so in the tournament rules). Use this if applicable. Frivolous use of it, however, will desensitize me to it.
LD- You have the obligation to provide evidence in this debate. Please do so. Referencing evidence that has not been read in the debate will carry the same weight as an assertion for me.
For me, reading the source (publication title and/or authors' last names) and date is sufficient for citations, provided that all additional information is provided on the card's citation itself. If you want to run an official rules violation on this in front of me, I will entertain it, but realize I am disinclined to vote evidence or a debater down if that information is available on the card. Doesn't mean you can't win it, just that it'll be an uphill battle.
Realize that while underlining and highlighting are acceptable ways of modifying evidence for a round, ellipses, unreadable font size, or gaps in text are unacceptable.
IPDA- IPDA is more of a communication event than a debate for me. It is NOT treated the same as parli. I do not flow, but take a very limited amount of notes. Eloquence factors into the decision for me. I think of this as a townhall meeting, closer to interactive persuasion than debate. Avoid debate jargon, extensive line by line analysis, and other more traditional debate tactics. This is about persuasion, not strict argumentation. Think of debating in front of your grandmother, not a debate judge.
Bottom line - make good arguments, offer clash, give impact calculus/comparison, and be civil to one another. Oh...and have fun! :)
Swayam Patel - Deb@Davis
n/a
Victoria Acevedo - Fresno State
n/a
Will Yates - SFSU
n/a
Xochilt Saldivar - Delta
n/a
Zachary Waters - SFSU
n/a