I do not mind off-time road maps.  A clear outline of each point and subpoint during construction is imperative.  Linking each point to your value and criterion helps flow the case for judges and opponents. Definitions can make or break a case.  Be confident in your definitions.  Speak rapidly ONLY if you can also speak clearly. I like to see passion.

I am a policy coach at heart. My favorite debates will not take us down a rabbit hole that has nothing to do with the topic. I can flow spreading but would like the tags and sources made clear. If you point out a card over and over, I will want to see it. In policy I am a blend of both stock issues and policy.

I absolutely cannot judge spreading. My brain does not absorb argument that fast, so slow down for the old folks.

CX

I do not have a great deal of experience with CX so an emphasis on tag lines helps.

I understand better when you explain the harms and solvency of your plan. Same goes for counter-plan.

I appreciate debate on topicality, but please don't waste a great deal of time there...especially on repetitive argument.

LD

I clearly want to see that the debate is concerning a moral issue- not one of policy. Do argue value and criterion. Credibility of sources may outweigh more recent dates. Do not get sucked into your opponents spreading by thinking you have to address every argument he/she brought up...I probably didn't understand them all anyway. You will win more points from me by adhering to my request for reasonable speed.

PF

Convince me.

As for CX, I lean in the traditional direction of favoring well-researched and crafted AFFs that link to the topic, solve genuine harms and produce plausible advantages. NEGs need to produce offense and defense arguments, looking for clear on-case attax and Off-case flows with specific links and significant impacts and CPs that are competitive. T args are usually a waste of time with me unless NEG can prove serious abuse of the topic. I'll vote on the K if I can buy the Alt. I ask to see cards on regularly. As for speed, if it is clear, I can flow it, and if I can flow it I can weigh/judge it. I'll yell "Clear" once, and after that, if the speaker is unintelligible, I put down my G2.

In LD, I flow everything--even CX. I look for good Framework clash/comparison and weighing which V/C will carry the round. Contentions must clearly link to the FW, backed up by solid evidence. I'm looking for debaters who can cover both flows thoroughly and offer a clear, concise pathway to getting my ballot. Try to stay steady and organized. Present good voters and weigh them against your opponent. I will listen to progressive strategies if they make sense to me.

With PF, I flow it all, but I in all honesty, I am looking for the team that can articulate the best scenario, back it up with stellar evidence, speak with authority and avoid making CX a barking fest.