My goal as a judge: To be as tab as possible.
I have a policy of non-intervention but if I have to, I will. You should really spend a lot of time in the speeches following the A/NC comparing arguments on competing claims.

I don't foresee judging a lot of these types of debates, but: I don't prefer to judge debates predicated upon pre-fiat arguments because I want substantive debate. I'll be most receptive to T and decent justifications for claims of abuse. I guess you can run a plan, but that comes down to theory again. I'll reward you for engaging their advocacy, but just know that if you think you can get around answering a CP then do it. It's all about debating the way you're most comfortable with.

Be careful with speed, I might just stop flowing and doodle on my paper. I flow cites and tags so it really wouldn't kill you to slow tf down when you're reading those if you choose to spread. If I don't hear it the first time, I'm not extending it later on. Also don't try to misrepresent a card because I'm not dumb, I will rewrite your tag and I will very likely miss upcoming arguments.

Speaks based on how responsible and strategic you are.