Overall: You should probably recognize that my background is in policy debate and it largely informs most of my viewpoints on LD debate. That being said I have been judging a large number of LD rounds and will likely continue to do so. Thus we need to have a paradigm for you all.
Friv Theory: if you read a 2 paragraph block that has 6 IVI's in it? I'm only going to flow what I flow I'm not going to go read your 2 paragraphs to figure out if you read the 4th point of the IVI or not. If it's not flowed it didn't happen. If you have a well-warranted and clear shell you have no real worries about if I will vote for theory assuming you win it. I would definitely say I'm truth over tech tho so keep that in mind.
Traditional formats: you can read this but for the most part LD has moved beyond this style. I don't have any issues with this strategy. I however normally think it lacks strategic depth.
Kritikal Formats: these are fine I'm pretty well versed in most critical literature, I prefer debates that clearly articulate the format, focus, and purpose of the round, or debate or the ballot even. I'm probably not the best judge for debaters who like to use buzzwords and pretend they are arguments. If you cannot clearly explain your theory of power, link and alternative I'm a bad judge for you.
LARPing: obviously I understand 99.9% of the strategies you will go for, but also realize that I've judged a tremendous number of K versus larp debates. I don't have a great record for affs versus kritiks in LD, I think this is because of two issues I've seen repeat.
1) You do not clearly identify and defend your stasis point maybe that's humanism, statism, or pragmatism. You let the negative simply attack you on the level of "Antihumanism, or Antistatism"
2) You lose track of your case, you just debate the kritik instead of explaining why your case is comparatively better pedagogy than the kritik, or how you could solve a real problem versus functionally doing nothing.
High Theory/Phil Theory: So I've seen these rounds, and I feel they tend to be strategically unsound and rely on a huge smokescreen of friv theory (see my above about friv theory). I've voted for these things before, it's not unwinnable but do not rely on technical drops especially if there is an obvious way the other flows interact. The idea that I put a blinder on and ignore arguments because of the physical location on the flow seems nonsensical to me.
Overall: This sounds simple but it can be difficult, at the end of the round my ballot should sound like the beginning of the 2AR or the 2NR. I would like you to explicitly implicate your arguments and form for me the basic idea of why I should vote for you. The best debaters tend to do this at the beginning of every 2NR and 2AR.
Disadvantages: I don't like DA's with uniqueness counter-plans, other than that almost any disadvantage is acceptable.
Counter-plans: the legitimacy of counter-plans should always be called into question. why would you just let a team steal most of your offense? I normally don't buy X type of counter-plan is a voter, however, I am more likely to vote for it as a reason to disallow the counter-plan. The burden of proof in those situations is much different, to win it is a voter you have to argue that debate is fundamentally impossible to do when X type of counter-plan is introduced. (an example might be Consult Counter-plans don't test the means or necessity of plan action makes it impossible to garner offense without conceding a DA, makes any choice the aff makes a bad choice.) However with rejecting the argument as the standard, I'd be willing to ask the question "Does this Counter-plan make the debate more or less educational, more or less fair. If it makes debate less educational and less fair then that is a sufficient reason to reject the counter-plan.
Kritiks: Theory wise sees counter-plans. Floating PIKS theory needs a Link. Clear and precise (Link-Impact-AltSolves-Perm doesn't) analysis is the quickest way for me to the pull the trigger on the kritik. If you can explain that full chain and I buy your analysis you're in a good place on the kritik (assuming you're not losing framework/theory/impact weighing. )
Framework: I think it's generally accepted that Affs should read frameworks that let them weigh their impacts against any kritik, also I generally think the aff is right they should be able to defend the fiat of the 1AC i.e. their impact claims shouldn't be wished away. Note to aff teams just because you win framework does not mean that you have answered the various impact framing arguments in the round, I've heard several times "but on the framework they conceded we get to weigh our impacts." my response is then "Sure, but you don't win that we have any Value to Life in that world/that these threats are constructed and not real/that/etc. I don't think this is controversial at all.
Role of the Ballot: so unlike some people, I don't think you have to explicitly state "our Role of the ballot is" while helpful sometimes one could also say "this debate round should be about x" or the "Role of the Judge is X" all of these are competing for claims on how I should approach my ballot how I should vote, what my ballot means etc.
Kritik AFFs: I prefer affs that defend a topical plan for a kritikal reason i.e. we shouldn't surveil African Americans, followed by claims about how surveillance of black bodies is bad. versus just standing up and saying "Black bodies are surveilled that's terrible you have some kind of ethical decision making to vote aff, here's Memimi." This is a preference and doesn't mean I stop listening when an alternative debate style is defended it's just what I find is the best solution to winning in front of me on a kritikal affirmative.
Framework (NEG): Framework can be a viable option for teams debating affs without plan text etc, as long as you answer and deal with the larger education/Fairness claims the aff is inevitably going to lob your way. You could win debate would be awesome with just policy affs but if you concede that this is a form of white settlerism that dominates and erases Native Americans from existence you tend to lose rounds on framework.
Components: need a clear and precise interp that allows you to skirt the offense of the aff, need a clear and precise "topical version of the aff", need to win switch-side debating is in fact good, need to win it's possible for X or Y type of people to enter into the political, do political actions, embrace politics or some other variant of "X type of people can do policy debate", finally need to win an impact. Do those have a solid shot of winning my ballot.