A single innovation within a community can elicit completely opposite reactions from members who, in good faith, are all working toward the same goal. If this assumption is true--if one person's solution has the potential to be another person's problem--then how does one determine whose interests prevail? As members of National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), the authors look to the Statement of Principles of Good Practice (SPGP) for guidance, but even this is problematic. The SPGP, for all the guidance and protections it affords, is, at 15 pages, an unwieldy document. Its multiple sections--each of which serves an important purpose--can be intimidating and confusing to colleagues who do not interact with it regularly. However, the individual practices are the proverbial trees within an otherwise elegant forest. The overarching themes of the SPGP rest on the association's six Core Values: (1) Professionalism; (2) Education; (3) Fairness and Equity; (4) Social Responsibility; (5) Collaboration; and (6) Trust. This article has two goals. First, the authors aim to suggest a practical and objective framework for evaluating difficult issues that is based on the Core Values. Second, the authors seek to reinforce that these clearly-defined Core Values are precisely what allow the profession to evolve in a thoughtful, deliberative manner. Three controversial issues from the profession's past and present as seen through the lens of the Core Values are discussed.