As far as LD goes, I have noticed that many other regions had a very strong emphasis on always winning the value, having listed applications that you debate formally throughout the round, all with the concept that you win or lose on this basis. Whereas R4 tends towards more of an abstract resolution-based theory of LD, and those other conventions are more likely to be considered accessory.
To the best of my knowledge, this shift in R4 occurred primarily during the idealsim/pragmatism year. That year literally every one of the top debaters I can recall attended the same debate camp and came away with some similar analysis on "how" to think about LD. There was a lot of disagreement between "old school" and "new school" debaters at the time.
I'm not really sure where other specific regions fall on this - I'm sure there are plenty of other distinctions and differences - I just remember that at national opens or at nationals noticing that other regions approached LD more formally (always win the value and the applications) and less abstract (logical arguments about the resolution).
....and of course all of what everyone is saying here is a generalization. If you are judged by someone from a different part of the country, it's good to think through what different expectations they may have. But I would advise thinking up some questions to help you know how they individually think about the issues, instead of relying on a stereotype of how they "ought" to think based on where they are from.
Region IV AlumnusCog Debate
"But I declare that Carthage must be destroyed."
Cato the Elder