I have been in law school for the past 2.5 years. I've judged one tournament on this topic, done a few research assignments, and I run a debate web page wit links to the current topic, but I'm not officially affiliated with any one program and don't coach on a regular basis. So I have a general familiarity with the topic, but don't assume that I know what all your acronyms mean. As a default philosophy, I will vote on whatever you tell me to, provided you tell me why and do so more persuasively than the other team. Be prepared to justify your interpretation of where those lines should be, though.
Counterplans are fine.
Perms can be tests of uniqueness or policy options, depending on what you argue. All of these are default assumptions on my part that are open to change if you justify it. With rapt anticipation of deliverance from the doldrums of banality. See history section above. I especially dislike indeterminacy positions-the law is supposed to be indeterminate, it wouldn't work otherwise.