Flowing is just note-taking, but with a specific purpose: tracking who said what, who responded to what, and what was left standing at the end. Good judges flow well. Bad judges try to write down every word and end up with pages of notes they can't use.
The goal of flowing is not transcription. You're not trying to capture every sentence. You're trying to capture the logical structure of each team's case and the interactions between cases. If you can look at your flow after a round and reconstruct the major arguments and responses from memory, your flow is working.
The layout
Use one page per team. In BP, that's four pages (or four columns on a large sheet). Label each one: OG, OO, CG, CO. Some people prefer rows instead of columns. Do whatever fits on the paper you're using.
Under each team, draw two sections: "Case" and "Responses." In the Case section, write down their arguments. In the Responses section, write down what they said about other teams.
What to write down
For each argument, capture three things in shorthand:
The claim. What are they saying is true? "Cash bail harms poor people." Write: "bail › harm poor."
The mechanism. Why is this true? "Because they can't afford it and sit in jail, lose their jobs, and spiral into debt." Write: "can't pay › jail › lose job › debt spiral."
The impact. Why does this matter? "Perpetuates poverty and violates the principle of equal justice." Write: "poverty cycle, unequal justice."
That's three lines per argument. If a team runs two arguments, that's six lines. You can capture an entire PM speech in half a page.
For responses, write which team's argument is being addressed and what the response is. "OO re: OG's bail arg: bail ensures court appearance, alternative is ankle monitors." Write: "re OG1: bail = court compliance, alt: monitors."
What not to write down
Don't write down examples unless they're doing real work. If a speaker gives a 45-second anecdote about their cousin who was affected by a policy, you don't need to transcribe the story. You need to note what the example proves: "example: cousin lost job during bail period › shows mechanism is real."
Don't write down rhetoric or signposting. "Now I'd like to turn to my second argument" tells you nothing. Wait for the argument.
Don't write down things you already know. If a team defines a term and it's the standard definition everyone uses, you don't need to write it down. If they define it unusually, that matters: write it down.
Tracking responses in real time
This is the hard part. When a speaker responds to an earlier argument, you need to do two things at once: write down the response under the current speaker's page, and mark on the original team's page that their argument has been addressed.
The simplest method: use arrows or symbols. If OO responds to OG's first argument, write the response on OO's page and draw a small "›OG1" next to it. On OG's page, next to their first argument, write "OO ✓" to indicate it's been responded to.
At the end of the round, scan your flow for arguments without checkmarks. Those are uncontested arguments. They're probably winning points for whoever made them, because nobody knocked them down.
Flowing in BP vs. two-team formats
In two-team formats, flowing is simpler. Two columns, two cases, crossfire responses.
BP is harder because you're tracking four teams with eight speakers. The extension speeches (CG and CO) need special attention because the rules require them to add something new. When you flow an extension speech, mark what's genuinely new versus what's a rebuild of the opening team's case. If a closing team just repeats their opening team's arguments, note that: it'll affect your ranking.
Whip speeches are the trickiest to flow because they cover the whole round. For whips, focus on what they weigh and how. A good whip tells you which clashes matter most and why their side wins those clashes. Capture the weighing: "CW: scope + reversibility of our impact > OG's mechanism."
When your flow fails
Sometimes you'll look at your notes and realize you missed something important. This happens to everyone, including experienced judges.
If it happens during the round, don't panic. Focus on what you remember hearing and keep flowing forward. You can fill in gaps from memory during prep time.
If it happens during deliberation, be honest about it. "I don't have a clear note on how OO responded to CG's second argument" is a legitimate thing to say in a panel discussion. Better to admit the gap than to fabricate a memory.
If it happens repeatedly, change your method. You might be writing too much detail on early speeches and running out of steam. Or your layout might not be working. Experiment with different formats until you find one which lets you keep up consistently.