I'll start off by saying that my opinion has changed dramatically on this issue during my time debating. Why I feel like commenting I have no idea, but I'm going to throw my 2 cents out there nonetheless.
I guess Wes deleted his post, although I'm not entirely sure why. What he says is 1. factually correct, although that is probably partially due to J-rod's post being after nfl and not wanting to discuss cfl changes. 2. Is pretty accurate on the whole, although I think it could be applied to many more people than just BVW. Instead of scapegoating him, and applying your holier than thou attitudes, it would be better to do something else, or at the very least, not be so condescending about it. I appreciate your genuineness, if that's a word, dude.
Now for the substantive portion of this discussion
Most importantly this^. If you recruit "better" judges there will be pressures exerted on those schools who aren't, so attempting to make people conform will only be easier as you yourself try to improve the judging pool for them. School X won't want to recruit good judges for you if you recruit "shitty" judges for them.
Surprisingly, I agree a lot with sam about this idea of judging reform, specifically where I've noted. For me, the most annoying thing is having three judges with completely different experience levels; removing the ability for this to happen would greatly enhance the ability to adapt, and make the round engaging for all three judges. I think the idea that a judge needing to flow every word you said to know what's going on frankly laughable. Generally, the most open-minded people, as far as judging is concerned, are those who have no experience judging whatsoever. For example, I won a lay round on the spanos empire k my sophomore year, and have won other rounds on similarly counter-intuitive arguments. It can only help the activity if a greater portion of people have positive experiences with debate and are engaged with the activity, in terms of funding etc. I'd rather have this person than n00b debater who participated in open for two years, and hates large portions of arguments. The amount of experience someone has in debate really doesn't matter that much; If you're good at explaining arguments you should be able to convince anyone to vote for it, regardless of experience level. Furthermore, even though I think on average the debate community is pretty smart, there are some real idiots that call themselves "flow" yet may garbage decisions round after round. My point is that intelligence and readiness to vote on what is discussed in the round is the most important feature of judging rather than experience level. And to answer future posts, no, just because they haven't judged before doesn't mean someone will intervene, you once again should just explain why that practice is bad.
So from ^this, it is simple to see that for me, there isn't a huge issue in this aspect.
I'll cosign what Amanda is saying about first year-out judges, I think that distinction is really good when in the context of going to a national tournament and extending your season the stakes are much, much higher, and added perspective gained from not judging seems beneficial.
As far as other judging restrictions, I think it should be the same as other tournaments, can't judge them if you were on the same team, coached them, etc. Changing the weekends of the qualifiers, though, is a pretty good idea, if you want to have the type of desired judges.
I think a lot of you all are saying this because your pissed off because you didn't qualify, and that's fair, I wish you hadn't done it in public, but whatever I guess. Along the same lines, I really wish this discussion had been put off, so that some of the emotions people have from their weekends would dissipate, but unfortunately that's not the case.