As a judge, I consider myself to be a policymaker, acting as a proxy for the relevant arm of the United States government by default. To me, the essence of debate is a good clash about the substance of the topic, so I am predisposed to favoring plans, counterplans, case debate, and topicality. Ideally the preponderance of the discussion will be focused on the merits or lack thereof of US development assistance in the Horn of Africa, and not some arcane musings of a long-deceased philosopher that bear little, if any relation to the meat and potatoes of the topic. For those needing a translation, this means that aspiring performers are better off booking a gig at Carnegie Hall than having me at the back of the room, and those who would prefer to be ironic should try to secure the adjudicative services of O Henry in lieu of yours truly.
Topicality is always a voting issue, never a reverse voter.
It was my weapon of choice as a debater, but having said that, be forewarned that although I welcome topicality debates, I have relatively lofty expectations for the negative. For affirmatives to sustain their prima facie burden, they need to either meet the negative interpretation or offer a counter-interpretation that is superior. Merely whining about the arbitrariness or unfairness of the negative interpretation is completely unpersuasive. In-round abuse is helpful in establishing a reason for me to vote negative and potential abuse is instrumental in determining which interpretation is preferable. I really dislike the use of topicality as a time suck, and a shrewd 2AC will respond effectively by favoring quality over quantity of argumentation.