TL;DR: mostly standard technical judge with general, but rarely ballot-determining appreciation for good evidence + smart arguments as opposed to sludge. Idiosyncrasies are:

Please don't read IVIs
Content warnings are probably bad
Strong preference against theory
I don't care that fiat is illusory

I graduated in 2021 from Blake. I am now an assistant coach there and also debate in APDA for UChicago. For email chain: alperri@uchicago.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com
APDA paradigm: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbLo_HaKZquPeBJUUac_ZaVW_yTpZi3JKE2FdN3xoms/edit
I am less involved in PF this year, but still think about debate regularly, so I shouldn't need any technical adjustments. I follow topics loosely and have reasonable knowledge of most debate arguments, but don't know in-depth topical nuances; this really shouldn't affect your debates, but it might be worth knowing.
The one thing that is probably different from how I thought about debate last year (if you had me then) is that I increasingly don't care about theory and am less willing to entertain idiotic argumentation. My general predisposition is still one of non-intervention, but winning silly positions is unlikely to be be met with high speaks or even the ballot in extreme cases. Technical proficiency is always impressive, but so is the ability to make a real, intelligent, well-defended series of claims about the world, and I'm less interested in arguments that require a trade-off between the two. This has no implications on my thoughts on speed (go for it), the importance of evidence (still high), or the method through which I evaluate debates (offense-defense).
General
Tech > truth. Dropped arguments are as true as the development initially given to them. Each speech must answer the prior speech (except constructives), so summaries need defense. You cannot read defense on yourself to kick arguments, but you may concede your opponent’s defense to do so. New weighing in 2FF will not be evaluated.
Speed is fine and encouraged inasmuch as it enables you to communicate more ideas in more depth. Going fast for the sake of going fast is not impressive. Debate is an oral activity, I will not flow off your speech doc.
Ask me for other, more specific preference questions should you have them. I will say that I seriously dislike three or four contention cases that are missing several warrants and/or internal links, and will reward debaters who punish them effectively. I'm not going to say, "the more weird your argument, the lower my threshold for response is", because I have no idea what a "threshold for response" means, but reading many shoddy scenarios is neither an impressive demonstration of your technical ability nor particularly strategic.
I think about debate similarly to the other Blake coaches (obviously), but Jeff Miller, Bryce Piotrowski, Chad Meadows, and Maddie Cook also have paradigms and opinions I largely agree with.
Evidence
I think evidence is important and, to that end, consider most practices that improve the diffusion and discussion of evidence to be good (speech docs, disclosure, reading cut cards). In that same vein, debates that center around smart explanations of high-quality, warranted evidence are in my view the most educational and productive rounds possible. I also have a predisposition towards evidenced arguments, though not one that can't be overcome.
Misconstrued evidence leads to an L-25. If you have to "strike your evidence" or otherwise aren't able to find it, you will get an L-25. If you did not read an author name/date, you did not read evidence, and claims to the contrary will decrease your speaker points. I will intervene on evidence ethics if necessary.
Ethics
Oppressive discourse or arguments will get you an L-20. I will not vote on arguments that death/oppression/fascism/climate change is good. Being mean could lose you the debate.
The pursuit of "perceptual dominance" is not going to help you. Please just be kind, or at the very least respectful, to your opponents.
Don't really care if you postround me and would in fact encourage you to ask questions about things you could've done better. If you're rude, it may affect your speaks.
Theory
For whatever reason, people think they should read theory when I am judging. This might be strategic, but you should probably know that I dislike these rounds. I debated two theory rounds in my career (initiating neither of them), and frankly that was already too many. Consequently, I am probably competent, but nothing more, at evaluating these debates.
I am happy to intervene against frivolous theory. This includes full shells, but also procedural claims with a basis in things that are not immediately relevant to the debate, e.g school size, amount of spectators, etc. I have voted for theory arguments that are pretty nitpicky absent strong reasonability pushes but would prefer not doing so. This does not mean I am persuaded by "theory doesn't belong in PF" arguments, I think these are awful and am unlikely to vote on them unless they are functionally dropped.
Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will evaluate these debates technically and am willing to vote in opposition to my beliefs. I suspect, though, that you will have a difficult time persuading me to do so, not because I will intervene (I won't) but because I think that they are very difficult positions to win given their tenuous truth value (and my historical record judging these rounds would agree). Having said that, if you independently introduce cut cards/disclosure bad theory (i.e not in response to theory read on you), I will not flow your argument and you will receive a 26.
My experience in APDA and discussions with coaches have increasingly convinced me that content warnings are bad, but I will not penalize you for providing one. I will be exceptionally suspicious of theory read about a failure to content warn some type of pervasive structural oppression (e.g sexism, racism, etc.), especially when the theory is being advanced by someone who is not of the oppressed group in question. I think there's certainly an argument that graphic or exceptionally sensitive topics should be content warned and I'm willing to follow the community norm on that. Having said that, using the specter of "safety" as a bludgeon to silence important discussions about weighty issues in the debate space and the world at large is really dangerous, and I think a lot of judges and debaters should be more careful about how they approach this question (hint; not wanting to debate a round is NOT GROUNDS for an opt-out...). For more on this, I think Gabe Rusk's paradigm is really well thought-out.
I think most big school/small school interps tend to be terrible, because the definitions are arbitrary, self-serving, and lend themselves to marginal debates which none of the debaters have the tools to execute. I would prefer you take categorical positions, even if they are positions I disagree with, than try to win by saying the interp should apply to everyone but you.
Kritiks
I'm very good for the more policy-esque, topical kritiks (e.g security, capitalism, etc) and at least ok for basically everything else, although PoMo might go over my head. For non-topical kritiks, I'm probably better for you than most judges, but I'm also willing to vote on T if properly executed (and reward it handsomely in speaks). Arguments that the topic is actively bad are pretty unpersuasive, although I will vote for them if dropped or won. I tend to prefer topical K rounds to nontopical ones, all else equal.
I have three primary gripes with critical debate in PF. If you avoid these, your speaks will be higher:

Framing that basically just says "fiat is illusory, we are pre-fiat so we win". Everyone knows the topic doesn't actually happen when you vote Aff. Please go back to the drawing board and make an argument (i.e read warrants why discourse shapes reality, why the model of policymaking is bad, or similar things).
A lack of debate about the alternative. I think a lot of Negative teams are getting away with alts that are just very, very thinly veiled CPs, but I am yet to see an Aff make the argument that such an advocacy is illegitimate. It would need more than just pointing to the NSDA rulebook, but I think it's fairly persuasive and certainly the type of theory debate this activity could use. As a corollary, I think most alts are pretty much word salad and a more decisive press on what they mean would help clarify these rounds.
Kritiks which aren't meaningfully described by the debaters. What I mean by this is critical positions which the debaters do not explain or seem to understand beyond the 3 or 4 lines they regurgitate from their authors. This is a recurring problem in PF because speech times are so short, and it's quite infuriating as a judge. For whatever reason, I think the position that has suffered from this problem the most has been fem IR. I often find myself wondering what a feminist conception of IR actually is, and only understand what it it is not, which is unsatisfying.

Other progressive things
There is almost no circumstance in which you should read an IVI. If your opponent does something bad enough for them to lose the round on it, you should almost always read theory; basically the only thing IVIs can be valuable for is calling attention to particularly harmful language from your opponents. IVIs will be the death of this activity as a rigorous intellectual exercise if they're not reined in, and I will always evaluate them on reasonability. Whoever started this trend in PF needs to be held accountable for the damage they have caused (kidding, but barely).
I also will be pretty willing to grant the RVI against IVIs, especially those which should really be read as theory shells. There are both pragmatic and principled reasons for this. Pragmatically, IVIs become massively overstrategic if there is no downside to them, because they are all potentially round-ending arguments that can be made exceptionally briefly, and so enforcing the RVI is a corrective necessity. Principally, if you present an argument that some small thing is so egregious that you barely even have to explain why your opponent ought to lose the debate on it, the veracity of that claim should be assessed similarly to a cheating accusation.
I will not vote for tricks (ask me before the round if you are worried your strategy fits under that term, although if it comes to that point, I probably won't like the argument anyway to be honest).
Speaks
Average about a 28. Less than 26 indicates ethical issues. Speaking very high (29.5+) requires a combination of excellent technical ability and creative, high-quality argumentation. Whether that is found in a critical or traditional round is of no consequence, although for whatever reason, critical teams seemed to do slightly better on speaks last year with me.