I'm a parent judge. Please go slowly (conversational speed) when reading case and refutations. Stick to contentions and don't bring in any circuit arguments. Only pref me for a lay round.

Policy Paradigm:
I want to say that I am Tabs, but my experience has made me realize that no one is actually Tabs. Every judge has his/her own preferences, and every judge has a slightly different way of evaluating rounds.I have listed a few of my specific preferences below.

I have been both a K debater and a traditional policy debater. However, throughout my debate career, I tended to go for the K, the Cap K in particular, more often than not.

T- I default to evaluating based on reasonability if no frame of evaluation is presented. However, if one team argues for competing interpretations, the other team must explain why reasonability would be a better way to evaluate the round. Blippy Ts aren't enough to win a round in front of me. In general, there must be proven abuse and an extremely well fleshed out T argument that is specific to the affirmative case.

Theory- I most likely will not vote for a team on just theory alone unless there has been proven abuse. Also, if you're trying to win on theory, please go all out on theory in your last speech.

Ks- If you're running a K, please know what you are talking about. You must be able to explain the K without having to look at your cards, and you must contextualize your K according to the affirmative. I love Ks, but I hate Ks that are terribly run. 

CP- I absolutely despise conditions CPs. They are plan-plus and usually just become a muddled mess. Advantage CPs with specific net benefits are great. Agent CPs are fine as long they are warranted. 

DAs- Do your thing. Know all parts of a DA. That is all. I love a well carved out politics DA. 

Parent judge. Speak in a slow, clear and organized manner. I am not familiar with technical arguments, so refrain from reading these.

LD: If you are a typical circuit debater, do us both a favor and strike me. If, however, you run cogent, warranted, impacted, and meaningful arguments that you understand, I'm your judge. I can flow/understand relatively fast debate, so that's not an issue as long as your diction is clear. Theory arguments should be a rare exception in rounds and only if one side does something so egregious (like having a standard that the other side has no way of accessing) that the debate can't logically proceed in a fair manner. I will not vote on offensive theory and if your opponent runs an education voter against you if you do, I'll vote for your opponent. I'm not a solely "traditional" judge in the sense that I'm fine with Ks and alternative debating, and I believe that the value/criterion structure muddles more rounds than it clears up but I'm OK with it and most of the rounds I judge have V/Cs in them.

Congress: I was a legislative staffer in the US House of Representatives and believe that Congressional Debate should be a good training ground for future public servants. Thus, I take the event seriously and consider it more of a debate than a speech event. I flow and I look for clash, and both analytical and empirical warrants. It's about quality of presentation over quantity for me, so don't feel obligated to get in the maximum number of speeches unless they're good. Decorum, integrity, and leadership are important to your gaining high ranking on my ballot.

I have decent experience judging PF and LD.

I am okay with speed, but make sure you have clarity in your arguments. It’s not about how fast you go, but how good your arguments are.

I give more weight to cross-examination while evaluating the round.

I will flow the round, but I may not consider arguments that you do not extend throughout all of your speeches. Emphasize the arguments you want me to prioritize.

I prefer an evidence-based debate. Include strong warranting in each of your arguments and emphasize the impacts. The more specific your cards, the better.

Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun debating!

Good luck!

have been judging LD, some PF, and the odd Policy round for the past nine years or so.

Have been coaching mainly PF (lay) for three years.

The main gist:

Show be a good debate: clash, clarity, and respect, and we'll be good.

More details below:

-Not speed friendly. that being said, if you're brisk but clear, we're good. If you see my pen go down, what was being said doesn't go down on my flow.

-(LD) Value Debate:

I won't judge you poorly if you accept your opponent's value as long as you argue why your way and argument still achieves that value.

-(All) Other notes
-I get that you're debating but that is no reason to be excessively rude or obnoxious.

-Don't expect me to make connections between arguments. Tell me where there's cross-application and what that implies.What I mean by this specifically is that if you're going to use evidence to argue something, read the evidence, then make the analysis to follow(2022 update, upon further reflection I'm like, 80% sure I'm saying give me warrants)

I have a strong preference for debating down the flow.

TL;DR for all forms of debate:

I'm somewhere between a lay judge and a technical judge--I can handle a brisk pace but don't spread, and that means don't baby spread either. (2024 update: I have been in tab at tournaments on a more regular basis for 2 years now, my judging is very rusty. Please be kind, don't speak quickly).

I drop points for rudeness.

I believe spreading in debate has no educational value so I am extremely prejudiced against it.