Judge transparency isn't a bad idea because you had one bad experience with TEAM. On the other hand, I'm not suggesting it is needed because of ONE potential bad call. Again, the podcast discussion last night (which centered on Blaine/Zero) led to Chad saying that not all the judges were expected to provide reasoning for votes, something that surprised me and a few others, and now here we are. It's a good thing that one small controversy has led to this discussion; that's how models improve.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to say "I get it, you're pissed at a result, it's a game, move on" when I clearly stated it wasn't about results. Judge transparency doesn't guarantee a good or bad result, but it lets people know that we have competent, critical-minded people reading over all the work people spend time writing. Some might spit up their soda at the thought that I don't automatically vest faith in anybody who signs up to be a judge, especially when most of those people are respected, but it wouldn't matter if me and all my good friends were calling this thing - it's an expectation that should be there in a big tournament like this.
If the goal is to avoid drama, that went out the door as soon as ULTRATITLE was announced. It's a tournament, people are going to be dissatisfied every round because we're picking winners and losers. So what? Let it happen. Let people vent, and when the judges make their reasoning, that's the end of it. If people start attacking judges personally for their subjective views, I dunno, it's a forum - the admins can use their discretion as to what's appropriate like they would do for anything else. This doesn't need to be complicated!
Drama is more likely to result from less openness than more, as has already been the case. It's nice that most of you have chosen to be open, but I really don't think it should be an option. You volunteer to judge, you should be expected to show that you're actually, you know...judging.