I'll judge as well.
I'm pretty straightforward, I love both good K debates and good policy debates. However, I have some specifics about both
Don't forget about your case-you have a 1AC for a reason. On this topic the majority of neg strats are "four off", but this doesn't mean you don't have a case to weigh against whatever the neg throws at you
I usually err aff choice on framework if the debate becomes muddled, but I like the affirmative (if you go for framework) to explain why your framework is best. Obviously the same holds true for the neg.
As a 2NR and 2AR, I don't like new arguments in the 2AR/2NR and will disregard them at my discretion if they come up.
I like link debates better than impact debates on DA's...they are much more real world.
I like K's, CP's and just about any neg advocacy you can think of, especially creative ones. The key thing about the neg is that you HAVE to prove why your philosophical objections to the plan/net benefits outweigh the plan. Do this through framework, impacts, however you want, but if you just say "plan is bad for X reason and should be rejected" it's not going to do much for me in a round.
I generally err condo good, PICs good, and generally have lots of leeway on theory, but I also believe that you have to prove and impact out theory standards or else it is nothing more than a throwaway shell. I also like T debates, and prefer reasonability over competing interps.
Explain your arguments well, especially in the rebuttals. If you are running a K, tell me a story about how the K works within the debate world and the greater implications of it. Same goes for any DA/CP/T etc.
Also don't expect me to extend anything for me, and don't shadow extend. Two personal pet peeves of mine.
Feel free to ask any questions if you have them.