I thought I would post here about some of my views/positions when it comes to the topic creation process.
I feel as if I have a fairly unique position in that I had my formal debate training under the strict policy lens of Jared Anderson , which has afforded me (for lack of a better term) sympathy to the needs of the negative in regards to needs for a stable mechanism , in order for its ground not only to be "predictable" but also diverse i.e I think that as far as topic DA's go it would be nice to move beyond 1-2 that teams occasionally run. Along those same lines there needs to be a way to preserve aff creativity that doesn't stick us with a year of minor repairs affs (please God, not the Energy topic again).
On the flip side I have spent the last year engaging in the full range of critical debate but primarily being an "identity debater" , this situatedness I believe allows me to bring a perspective from both sides of the ideological divide in the community and how critical debaters like myself might view the topic.
I've also participated in writing a topic paper in the past (albeit a fairly small role in that process) , and have familiarity with the amount of research it takes to engage in this process, anyone who knows me can vouch for the robust amounts of research that I can produce.
P.S. Any questions about these views and/or other questions that pertain to the topic process, feel free to ask them to me here, or backchannel me
stanfield.dan@gmail.com 
