I judge every round based on these:

The first thing I look to is framework, determining the burdens of the affirmative and negative and how I should judge the round. If this is not brought up in the round thats fine, but then I will simply be be weighing the cases against each other in terms of Value impacts instead of resolution fulfillment - although sometimes they are the same thing (sometimes they aren't).

The second thing is the value debate, if you cannot show that either your value is the best (and you uphold it the best via your value criterion), or that you access the opponents value better than they do, you will likely lose the round. I enjoy it when the opponents link into each other's values via their value criterions or even their opponents value criterions. If your values are the same you should just merge them together and argue elsewhere.

After determining the Value I look to case and where the cases impact into the values, you have to show me that you are upholding the value in the round the best. Tell me how to weigh your impacts and why your impacts are more important than your opponents.

I'm fine with most speed, but keep in mind that if you aren't clear I won't understand you and I won't flow your arguments. Along that same reasoning, speaking quickly is only effective when you are able to actually form coherent sentences, I'm judging the quality of your arguments - not the quantity of them, so if you can argue well and do it fast, thats fine, but if you can't, it probably won't help you.

Feel free to use laptops to flow. You can sit or stand for speeches, I don't mind either - but if you can't speak well sitting then it may adversely affect your speaker points (but wont influence the final decision).

I don't mind spectators as long as they are from your team and you have permission from your opponent as well.