Judging philospohy and preferences:
1) Speed: I am about middle aged now, so I prefer moderate speed to blazing speed. I'm not one to want to read every card after the round to know what the card said, so please be clear not only onthe tags, but in delivery.
2) Argumentative preferences: I am about as close to a true Tabs judge as I can be. There are very few arguments that I'm not willing to listen to, but I'm not so sure that I'd be up for any performance debates any time soon. Other than that, I like Kritiks as long as the team running them has a good intellectual understanding of the Kritik. Counterplans and theory arguments are also fine.
3) Conduct: I do not like rudeness or sardonic behavior in a round, and at this point in my life, I guess I'm stubborn enough on this to actually drop a team for being ultra-rude even if it is clear that they won the round. Consider it a performative act of my ballot telling you that Debaters should win with class.
4) I am very unlikely to vote for a negative team that does not boil down to one argument in the final rebuttal.
5) Theory: I like theory ARGUMENTS, but when 20 point blippy blocks are read, I do not consider that to be an argument.
6) Topicality: I think those who have had me for a judge would say that I'm a fan of T on the negative. I do not automatically vote on T, but I will say that I've seen many teams run it and not go for it when it seemed like the better option.

So, when you have me for a judge, you do need to slow down a bit and focus on clear argumentation. Your opponent will not gain any afvantage by trying to outpace you.

Joe Klopotek
Stevens Point Area Senior HighSchool (SPASH)