Additionally, I rely pretty much on a determination of what is fair ground and why. Reasonability, then, is negotiated by the two teams in their discussion of the violation. I believe that an affirmative is topical if their interpretation of the resolution provides for legitimate areas of negative argumentation. Essentially, if the interpretation would allow either an affirmative or a negative a fair chance of winning under the interpretation then it seems reasonable. I think the conditions under which the counterplan will go away should be spelled out so that the affirmative has a chance to respond.
Topical counterplans are o.k.
I will not intervene based on this preference. I believe that some Kritiks are not able to be debated in the forum of a debate round, e.g., the critic of being. I will listen to kritiks and evaluate them as best I can. It seems a bit antithetical to argue that we must test our assumptions and then refuse to defend one's own assumptions. Finally, I am a bit troubled by the argumentative inconsistency of teams who run a kritik but then run disads based on the assumptions which are flawed.