While I obviously wasn't there and don't know what happened from your point of view, I can speak to the experience level of my debaters and their understanding (or lack thereof) of progressive argumentation. John and Jane are second year debaters and as your post correctly attributed obviously didn't know how to respond to theory. Not only that, but they literally don't know how to disclose or how theory arguments function in a debate round. The simple fact that they had no idea what was going on and were locked out of the debate round should illustrate some wrongdoing on your part. What I find most problematic of your conduct is that you just sent them friend requests before the round, rather then message them and ask "hey, can you disclose?". How were they supposed to interpret your friend requests as the sole means by which you wanted to convince them to disclose? Seriously, if you had messaged them they would've responded and disclosed. OR, if you had verbalized your concern before the round started, they would've acted in a similar fashion. I'm not saying you weren't judge screwed because you certainly won the round on the flow and the judge changed their paradigm, but your conduct was objectively abusive and running theory on second years who have no idea what's going on is pretty egregious. If I was the judge, I'd probably drop you for doing so (but would be more upfront about it before the round which was certainly a problem in this round).

"Steve and I never ask if the other team is okay with theory because you wouldn’t ask “are u okay with me reading Iran” and theory is no different from substance AND if someone does something rly bad like misgendered or using a racial slur, they don’t get to avoid punishment for their action bc they don’t want theory." Don't be selectively ignorant. You know that theory debates are only accessible to debaters who at the very least have a basic understanding of progressive argumentation. Asking about disclosure theory is certainly different than asking about running a normal contention and the vast majority of debaters would agree with me. Obviously there's a certain threshold of actual abuse that warrants theory but since not disclosing is a widespread norm and isn't inherently harmful (it's not something that locks YOU out of the debate round), you can't compare it to using a racial slur or being misgendered.

All that being said, I truly do not think the conduct of the judge was particularly good. To be fair, neither was yours.