General: I am an experienced debater and can understand most anything you run, however, I will always pref the traditional styles over progressive debate (especially in LD; policy I give more leeway) mainly because of the effects the progressive style has on debate. Speaking too fast or having unrealistic arguments hurts the accessibility of debate, making the barrier of entry too high for many people and giving an unfair advantage to those who have the financial stability to attend all the camps that are generally required exceed in that style. If you talk too fast for your opponent or I to understand what you are saying, you deservedly will lose on those arguments, debate is about communication and persuasion, not who says more. In most cases, trashing on comms or "mom" judges just tells me you aren't adaptable or aren't focusing enough on communication and explanations. Comms will also be a part of my decision process, though I am mainly looking at the debate. Remember that my paradigm is absolutely part of the round, just as every judge's will be, so don't fight against it or expect for it to change. Adaptation is part of debate, so have a multi-use case or multiple cases for at least two judge types (comms and progressive). If you are being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or perpetuate any variation of harmful rhetoric along those lines, you will lose. Humans have value, I will not buy arguments that say we should commit mass genocide of the human race. Don't attack your opponents and don't say they are being problematic as a ploy to win, I will see any issues important enough to deserve a loss, do not point them out to me unless you feel you are being targeted and need separate yourself from the issue. Ableism in debate is a real problem that needs to be addressed, if you have a hearing problem or any other condition or disorder that makes fast speech or any other aspect of debate difficult, let me know before round and I will ask your opponent to be mindful.
LD: This event is my pride and joy, so I will be in depth on what I like to see. Value and criterion are the most important aspects of this event, if you ignore or neglect them, it will reflect on the ballot. Often I see the "value debate" being treated like a separate category in the round, this is not how its supposed to be. Your value and criterion tell me how to weigh arguments in the round, every contention, card, and line of logic should flow through your value and criterion, so make them link. Especially don't neglect the criterion, that is your weighing mechanism, values come in conflict with each other and themselves all the time, which is why we have the criterion help our decision process. Don't run a value as a criterion or a criterion as a value, they are different and so are their uses. I am a traditional judge, though if you must, I do understand progressive arguments. Running any plans in LD is just adding extra restrictions upon yourself in most cases, I will still be voting on the topic. If you run a K, you better have a good reason to call it one because LD already allows for and encourages the discussion of most philosophy. On this, I am a philosophy nerd, mainly with a focus on ethics and existentialism, though I am fairly well versed in other forms. I love to see its use in round and will buy more into your side if you use it well. In LD, I pref logic over evidence, but I still see evidence as an extension of logic. Having a card does not inherently prove your point, and you can disprove a card with reason. Still, if you make a claim, back it up. Framework is important, but I will ignore ones that are abusive even if they are dropped by the opponent. So unless your opponent agrees to it, you will get nothing out of running an abusive framework, just make yours reasonable for both sides and actually debate.
Policy: Read my general statement. Unless you and your opponent both agree on speed, try to avoid it. Again, I see it as generally inaccessible, ableist, and an underhanded attempt at winning by overwhelming your opponent. If both teams want to go super progressive, go for it, but if one team does and the other doesn't, I will pref the one that doesn't. I will ignore stupid or harmful arguments that have no bearing in reality, like saying something mundane will lead to nuclear extinction. Make evidence shares fast, feel free to share cases amongst yourselves but I am not judging your writing, in most scenarios I will not accept cases, I am judging you on verbal communication. K's are fine if they are reasonable, I love philosophy, but you will still have to show practical impacts.
Public Forum: Look at my general statement, I don't have a lot to add here other than I look mainly at teamwork and reasoning in this event. Always have evidence and tell a coherent story as a team. Public forum has a lot of underlying strategy that I love to see utilized, a case that was written with a plan in mind will score highly with me.