How is tossup formed?? How answer line get corrected??

[Tees-Exe Line]

I don't think it is unreasonable to establish a transparent way of resolving protests for both ACF Nats, ICT, Regionals, and SCT when national titles and entries into nationals are at stake.

Both ACF and ICT had and followed these last year.

I'm sorry Matt, but nothwithstanding I thought you did a good job TDing Nationals, that is simply not correct. Our answer of "Providence" for the Rhode Island question was uniquely identified by (some of) the clues, and notably the giveaway, which also excluded the stated answer of "Rhode Island." This was protested, it mattered, was decided incorrectly, and resulted in our placing lower at Nationals than we would have had it been decided correctly. The history subject editor stated he never heard the protest and would have accepted it.

[Matt Weiner]

That you disagree with the decisions made on certain protests does not mean that no procedure for resolving protests was in place.

[Tees-Exe Line]

That you disagree with the decisions made on certain protests does not mean that no procedure for resolving protests was in place.

Well, first of all, the decision was objectively incorrect and is not a matter of opinion. But more relevant to future practice is that I'm not alleging there was no procedure; I'm alleging that whatever procedure there was, it was not followed, which you said it was. Did the procedure allow for not consulting the subject editor?

[Matt Weiner]

The procedure was that I as the TD resolved protests based on consultation with reference sources and, when possible and helpful, other people. We spent a bunch of time at the tournament looking things up online, consulting with Jerry or Bruce about things, or calling Mike Sorice on the phone. We even wasted an enormous amount of time on clearly frivolous protests such as the one from your team insisting that the C-T boundary and the K-T boundary are the same thing. To say that we did not attempt to use available resources to get things right is incorrect.

I don't remember the specifics of the Rhode Island thing, but the procedure was never "Bruce rules on history protests," nor was it ever indicated that this would be the case. If a ruling was made then it was based on exterior sources and the ACF rules supporting that ruling, because I can say that nothing was ruled upon based on anyone's memory alone.

Looking at the question now, the leadin is "This colony rejected an application for citizenship from the Jewish merchant Aaron Lopez." Aaron Lopez was not even born for another 78 years after the prior colonies consolidated as Rhode Island. Furthermore, even if we were living in some alternate universe where the independent colonies of Newport, Providence, and Portsmouth were somehow acceptable answers even in the century after they had been subsumed into the colony of Rhode Island, this first clue would still make your answer wrong, as Aaron Lopez lived his entire pre-Revolutionary life in Newport, not Providence, and the body which rejected his citizenship was the Rhode Island Superior Court, not any body specific to Providence or any other city. I don't know where your claims of "objectively wrong" come from besides the unfortunate trend in modern quizbowl of buzzing in, saying something sort of related to the answer, and then getting indignant or protesting when one's wrong answer is ruled wrong.

[Tees-Exe Line]

We even wasted an enormous amount of time on clearly frivolous protests such as the one from your team insisting that the C-T boundary and the K-T boundary are the same thing.

First of all, that was not my team (how do you even know, or think you know, what team it was?), and secondly, the implication of your citing a different protest you overruled is that each team has a certain quota for overruled protests, which I do not believe is found in the ACF rules.

I don't remember the specifics of the Rhode Island thing

The giveaway was "name this colony founded by Roger Williams in 1636" or something very similar to that, which as I said, uniquely identifies Providence and excludes Rhode Island. I think we buzzed before that, for the record, on a different clue about the founding of Providence.

If a ruling was made

If?

then it was based on exterior sources and the ACF rules supporting that ruling.

Well isn't that convenient--the "no true ruling" fallacy.

[grapesmoker]

Well isn't that convenient--the "no true ruling" fallacy.

That's not what that means.

[Tees-Exe Line]

Well isn't that convenient--the "no true ruling" fallacy.

That's not what that means.

Oh no? I made the empirical contention that ACF protest resolution procedures were not followed in one case, and in reply, Matt said that no such case had occurred ("if a ruling was made...") if ACF protest resolution procedures were not followed.

[Matt Weiner]

I don't remember what I did on the Rhode Island protest specifically and I'm not going to lie and claim that I do. I do know that I would never just randomly deny a protest without following the procedure. I also know from looking at the question now that "Rhode Island" is the only correct answer.

"This colony rejected an application for citizenship from the Jewish merchant Aaron Lopez." --happened eighty years after the consolidation of Rhode Island, involving a resident of Newport
"Founders of this colony, such as William Coddington and John Clarke, established an early form of democratic government by signing the Portsmouth Compact." --shockingly, the Portsmouth Compact founded Portsmouth, not Providence. I would feel bad for you if you buzzed with "Portsmouth" halfway through this sentence, though you would still be wrong, and that's not what happened.
"In the years before the American Revolution, this colony was divided into factions led by Stephen Hopkins and Samuel Ward." --clearly indicating what time period we are in, 100 years after Rhode Island was formed and Providence ceased to be its own colony. Hopkins did live there, at least. Ward was from Newport. Both became famous by holding positions in the executive and judicial branches of Rhode Island, another reminder to anyone who recognizes those names what the answer has to be.
"This colony was the location of the Great Swamp Fight, although it initially attempted to stay neutral during King Philip’s War." The Great Swamp Fight took place in South Kingstown, Rhode Island, not in Providence. Once more, Rhode Island is right, Providence is not.
"The initial land that became this colony was provided by the Indian chief Canonicus." Now, eight clues deep, we come to the first piece of information that even applies to Providence at all. But, Providence isn't right, because we're clearly talking about a state-level colony -- we told you it was something that still existed at the time of the American Revolution, just in case you didn't know the specific clues. And, of course, all of the previous clues are absolutely incorrect for "Providence."
"This colony’s Touro Synagogue is the oldest in the United States." The Touro Synagogue is in Newport.
"This colony’s founder wrote the Bloody Tenent of Persecution and allied with the Narrangansett Indians. The For 10 points, name this New England colony founded by Roger Williams." More clues that could apply to either Rhode Island or Providence in a vacuum, but, since we're not in a vacuum, don't make "Providence" the right answer.

I'm sure I went through a similar process to this when resolving the protest because I know how I resolve protests. That I as the TD would do this was what you were promised and what you received.

[Tees-Exe Line]

Looking at the question now, the leadin is "This colony rejected an application for citizenship from the Jewish merchant Aaron Lopez."

I had no idea who Aaron Lopez was, which is why I didn't buzz on the lead-in. Is the new standard for question-writing at ACF Nationals that it's fine if only some of the clues identify the answer? In that case, reduce question length by half by eliminating all the clues that identify a different answer.

[Tees-Exe Line]

I also know from looking at the question now that "Rhode Island" is the only correct answer.

Nope; the giveaway excludes it. Nice try; want to play again?

[Matt Weiner]

I also know from looking at the question now that "Rhode Island" is the only correct answer.

Nope; the giveaway excludes it. Nice try; want to play again?

You clearly don't know how the ACF rules or tossups work if you think this is the case, which it isn't, and it doesn't matter anyway because you already said you buzzed before this clue was read!

You lost a game at ACF Nationals because you don't know what Rhode Island is. This isn't my problem. Please review: http://www.hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewto ... =9&t=14880

[Tees-Exe Line]

I don't remember what I did on the Rhode Island protest specifically and I'm not going to lie and claim that I do. I do know that I would never just randomly deny a protest without following the procedure.

Here's what I suspect you did, which admittedly is based on no evidence whatsoever but in the absence of your testimony what do we have? I think you asked the question's author, the tournament's head editor, and he rejected it without consulting any sources because he knew he'd written a question about the colonial history of Rhode Island and imagined the players ought to know that too. That is not an acceptable protest resolution, as I said in the ACF Nationals discussion.

[Matt Weiner]

I reject the slur on my competence as the TD of a major tournament that suggests I would ever resolve a protest by "asking" some person if it was right rather than consulting external reference sources. Even when other people were consulted, they were done so for their expertise in handling reference material outside of my subject competences and walked through the rules by me step-by-step. Fortunately, even if I had lived up to this ridiculous persona you have constructed and asked the hot dog vendor outside of the building for his opinion and gone with that, the resolution still would have been correct, since, as has been explained in painstaking detail above, the only correct answer to this question is "Rhode Island."

[Tees-Exe Line]

the only correct answer to this question is "Rhode Island."

No, that isn't correct as I've explained in painstaking detail above, thanks to the giveaway uniquely identifying Providence. The fact that we did not have that information when we buzzed is relevant to whether the protest was correctly decided but not to whether the only correct answer is "Rhode Island." HOWEVER, if I remember correctly we buzzed right before "FTP" on the clue "This colony's founder wrote Bloody Tenent of Persecution," which uniquely refers to Roger Williams, who founded Providence, not Rhode Island.

[Matt Weiner]

He is referred to as the founder of both, and you cannot buzz on one clue as if the other clues in the tossup do not exist. You do not know how quizbowl works; please rectify this before trying to speak with the adults in the future.

HOWEVER, if I remember correctly

OH SO ARE YOU SAYING YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE BUZZED ON THIS TOSSUP AT ALL? STOP DODGING THE ISSUE

[Tees-Exe Line]

He is referred to as the founder of both, and you cannot buzz on one clue as if the other clues in the tossup do not exist.

At ACF Nationals 2012, which I believe you also TDed, Charles Tian had a protest upheld on a question about the Black Sea because one of the battles referenced occurred in the Aegean (it may have been the reverse, though I think not). Please, tell me again, how does quizbowl work?

[Matt Weiner]

The clue was wrong, so his protest was upheld. The Roger Williams clue was not wrong, so your protest was not upheld.

Fascinating!

[Tees-Exe Line]

The clue was wrong

So the other clues in the question don't matter after all? I'm confused.

[Cody]

I don't particularly want to wade into this fracas, but I think you should reread the ACF rules on what is protestable, Marshall. Specifically:

The question or answer was ambiguous, so the answer given by the player should be accepted since it fits all the clues given in the entire question text, or all the clues up to a significantly deep point in the question.

Two or more clues within the question uniquely describe different answers, or one clue definitely does not refer to the same answer as the other clues—hence, there is no correct answer to the question. This protest may be lodged by either team at the end of a question converted by neither team or by the team that did not get the question after a question is converted by one team. However, if this situation arises on a tossup that the other team converted before the first clue creating a contradiction was read, there may be no protest because the team that missed the question was not misled.

and then think about how these situations are clearly different.

[grapesmoker]

Well isn't that convenient--the "no true ruling" fallacy.

That's not what that means.

Oh no? I made the empirical contention that ACF protest resolution procedures were not followed in one case, and in reply, Matt said that no such case had occurred ("if a ruling was made...") if ACF protest resolution procedures were not followed.

I wasn't party to the resolution of this particular protest, which I actually didn't even know took place until this thread. What I was party to was consultation on multiple other questions in my areas of expertise. I have no reason to believe that the rules for protest resolution were not followed in this particular case, and I have no way of seeing how you, specifically, would know that.

It is true that it is not logically necessary that if a ruling was made, then the protest resolution procedures were followed. But there's no goalpost-moving going on here: you are claiming that they were not followed, and Matt is saying they were. I don't know on what grounds you are basing your accusation other than the claim that "the history subject editor claims to have never heard the question," but nowhere in the ACF rules does it say that this must happen. I draw your attention to rules H.6 and H.9, which state, respectively:

The tournament director has ultimate authority to rule on all live protests but may delegate this authority to another individual or committee for the duration of the tournament or on a case-by-case basis.

and

Before making a final ruling on a protest, the tournament director or his/her designated officer or committee will make every reasonable effort to consult reliable academic resources in order to help determine the factual accuracy of the complaint. Teams involved in the protest may offer suggestions as to where to find relevant information if this is done in a polite and quick manner.

.

Nowhere in the official rules does it say that the subject editor must be consulted on a protest. It would make sense for Matt to consult myself or Mike Sorice with regard to a physics question, as he himself is not a physicist and wouldn't know which sources to look at. It wouldn't necessarily make sense for him to consult Bruce, since I imagine as a history major himself, Matt has just as much relevant expertise with regard to this question. So to recap: even if the protest was resolved by Matt doing nothing but looking up the sources and rendering a decision, it was resolved in accordance with the ACF rules. Your procedural complaint is unfounded.

[Matt Weiner]

The clue was wrong

So the other clues in the question don't matter after all? I'm confused.

If the clues apply to two different answers, period, then the tossup is unanswerable and may be protested. "Black Sea" was an outright factual error and was handled appropriately.

If the eighth clue in a tossup could apply to two different answers, but the previous clues only apply to one of them, too bad.

The previous clues do matter, a lot, contra your contention that they should be ignored and you should be allowed to buzz on "For 10 points, name this woman--" and say Catherine the Great every time, which is what you are arguing here.

[AKKOLADE]

I look forward to riding the strategy of "saying anything related to the first pronoun of a question, argue that given answer matches the type of pronoun, and win twenty protests a round by citing rules that don't apply to this" to every ACF Nationals championship from here to eternity. I hope you all had fun winning matches before I put together this master plan!

[kayli]

Ah yes, I too enjoy mischaracterizing people's reasonable concerns.

No one's arguing that you should be able to buzz on pronouns. For all intents and purposes, pronouns or designators such as "this woman" aren't clues in any meaningful sense. Marshall's arguing that answers which are not included in the answer line but which are based upon a (substantive) clue should be accepted. A clue which points to Roger Williams as a founder of this colony should accept Providence Plantations because it is a substantive clue and because historically the charter for the thing which Roger Williams founded was called "Providence Plantations."

[Tees-Exe Line]

Oh, by the way, since obviously I'm a total idiot for taking issue with this protest resolution, up to and including a non-consensual change to my HSQB avatar, for the record it was Doug who "doesn't know what Rhode Island is," which led to his obviously totally stupid neg with an answer that was uniquely identified by the clues and which the history subject editor said should have been accepted.

[Matt Weiner]

an answer that was uniquely identified by the clues

...

[Tees-Exe Line]

an answer that was uniquely identified by the clues

...

The point is that an answer based on knowledge (and not something vaguely connected to the clues rather than determined by them) was given and negged, and now you're engaged in a characteristically angry, spite-driven ragefest to clothe your decision with an authority it lacks (and in doing so, further highlighting its flimsiness by doing things like changing my avatar.) Quizbowl is not served by legalistic ex-post justifications for your decisions, as opposed to rewarding people for knowledge about the matter at hand.

[Matt Weiner]

Your team didn't have any knowledge of the matter at hand. You said "Providence" for a tossup where almost none of the clues apply to "Providence" and then attempted to misuse terms ("unique," "correct") and apply a rule that doesn't exist ("any answer that could apply in a vacuum to any clue in the tossup should be accepted") to protest it. You are the one who tried to hijack a thread about "reverse clue lookup" to demonstrate your total lack of understanding about history, the English language, and the rules of quizbowl. In the course of this, you invented a conversation that did not take place in which the promise that "subject editors will resolve protests" was made, accused me of resolving this protest without consulting reference sources, and took an intentionally obtuse reading of what "I don't recall how I resolved this protest" means in order to further accuse me, and also Jerry, of god knows what. You are the one pursuing this non-issue past the point of rationality.

And you can change your own avatar back at any time you want.

[Tees-Exe Line]

You are the one who tried to hijack a thread about "reverse clue lookup" to demonstrate your total lack of understanding about history, the English language, and the rules of quizbowl.

No, YOU are the one who made a false claim in said thread about the efficacy of ACF protest resolution, which I had already said needed to be revised. Apparently that position, which has now generated another dedicated thread STARTED BY YOU, is so ridiculous as to engender fifteen posts of angry mockery.

[Matt Weiner]

My claim that there was a procedure and it was followed is 100% true. The fact that you have decided, five months later, that "subject editors rule on protests" was the procedure does not make it true, and does not make your spraying of accusations about malfeasance behind the scenes at BIG ACF to deny the acceptability of your wrong answer any less paranoid and weird.

[grapesmoker]

No, YOU are the one who made a false claim in said thread about the efficacy of ACF protest resolution, which I had already said needed to be revised. Apparently that position, which has now generated another dedicated thread STARTED BY YOU, is so ridiculous as to engender fifteen posts of angry mockery.

No claims about the "efficacy" of the protest resolution were made. The only claim that was made was that we have established rules and the protest followed them. Notwithstanding the question of whether the protest was resolved correctly (for the record, it was), nothing Matt said was actually false. If you think the process should be different, you're welcome to suggest changes and if we think they make sense, we might adopt them.

[DumbJaques]

Before yesterday I only knew the basic facts of the protest (somebody said Providence, and was negged). Since I think we need rules that in a vacuum would trigger an anti-prompt in this situation, I actually came into this thread on Marshall's side, so to speak. I have since been entirely disabused of that position, mostly by Marshall's own posts, which in addition to being like the 5th time that's happened to me in Marshall v. Matt arguments is particularly annoying because he's dragging rule reforms we can use into some absurd vendetta against Matt/ACF/whoever.

To get the most important issue out of the way first, though:

It is patently absurd that Marshall is impugning Matt (and by extension, all of ACF) based on a "gut feeling" of what might have happened - something for which he readily admits he has absolutely zero evidence. Marshall, you can think someone is a bozo or whatever for getting your protest wrong, but you're flirting with Trgyve Meade territory in spinning this dastardly tale of unprofessionalism/malice. I really do not see how it could reflect well on you, or the Chicago club in general.

I'm also not sure how, as someone who presumably knows Matt a bit, Marshall can possibly believe he'd be so cavalier about resolving the protest. What in his track record of TDing eleventy billion events makes you think he'd do that? You seem to be implying that his attitude in this thread is all the evidence you need. That's nonsense. Hey, just about everyone here has been annoyed by Matt Weiner being cavalier in dismissing their arguments on the internet. Hell, some of the most tenured holders of that position are the very people posting in defense of him this thread (well, the ones whose names don't rhyme with "Shmotorious Shmimbecile Shmay Shmli," anyway).

I've never seen Matt act remotely unprofessional as a TD, certainly not in any way resembling what you're accusing him of. And believe me, I've had more protests denied by Matt Weiner than you have. A lot more.

God, why am I even wasting time defending this point? Once again, you've already said you have exactly zero evidence. Let's just move on to the substantive issues here.*
*"Substantive."

[Tees-Exe Line]

I guess this needs to be reopened then, if by making the same points Chris said he himself made I somehow discredited them.

he's dragging rule reforms we can use into some absurd vendetta against Matt/ACF/whoever.

That is false. It never happened.

you're flirting with Trgyve Meade territory in spinning this dastardly tale of unprofessionalism/malice. I really do not see how it could reflect well on you, or the Chicago club in general.

First of all, this has nothing to do with the Chicago club. I have no idea why you think anything I've written here reflects badly on it.

I certainly never alleged malice. As for unprofessionalism, since the resolution of this protest was at odds with at least some of standard quizbowl practice (prompt/anti-prompt/accept an answer that is more specific than the written one when the clues point to the more specific answer), it's reasonable to question the protest resolution that led there, especially since Matt said he doesn't remember what it was. The whole uproar began when Matt said that proper procedures were followed at ACF Nationals, then said that "if a ruling was made," then proper procedures must have been followed, then said he doesn't remember what procedures were followed in this one case. If, in fact, correct procedures were followed, then it wouldn't matter what he remembers, and if those correct procedures resulted in a ruling that's against whatever the quizbowl community wants to be the outcome for protests of this kind, that is directly relevant to the issue of protest reform.

As for the anger present in this thread separate from the events that sparked it, here's a word of advice to Matt especially but also to you, Fred, Jerry, and whoever sympathizes with what's been written here: if you're absolutely sure that your side of the debate is the correct one and that you've put forward arguments that close the matter in your favor, resorting to absurd mischaracterizations of the opposition and saying that I don't know what Rhode Island is, changing my avatar, saying whatever I've done reflects poorly on Chicago, saying that I convinced you to hold the view opposite to mine despite initial sympathy, etc, MAKES YOU LOOK WORSE. Just sayin'.

[DumbJaques]

he's dragging rule reforms we can use into some absurd vendetta against Matt/ACF/whoever.

That is false. It never happened.

No, I'm saying this is the RESULT of what you're doing. You are making a series of crappy rules arguments in favor of the protest, in the midst of what seems more centrally to be criticism of Matt's personal conduct resolving it. The result of these actions is that discussion of a legitimate rules issue has become dominated unrelated nonsense, including your (again unfounded!) accusations that Matt acted very unprofessionally and lied about it.

First of all, this has nothing to do with the Chicago club. I have no idea why you think anything I've written here reflects badly on it.

One of the leaders of the Chicago team is accusing the TD of a national championship tournament of gross negligence of duty and subsequent dishonesty about it. The initially stated reason for the complaint was that Chicago finished "lower at Nationals than we would have had it been decided correctly." You've done nothing to distance your more outlandish accusations from the club. I apologize if it seemed I was impugning them; I guess I can only say that I'd certainly have a pretty big problem with this if I were your teammate.

I certainly never alleged malice.

You accused Matt of lying and of dismissing your protest capriciously. You might not think this qualifies as malice, but I would and certainly suspect Matt agrees.

As for unprofessionalism, since the resolution of this protest was at odds with at least some of standard quizbowl practice (prompt/anti-prompt/accept an answer that is more specific than the written one when the clues point to the more specific answer), it's reasonable to question the protest resolution that led there, especially since Matt said he doesn't remember what it was.

It's reasonable to question that, but come on man, a lot of your posts in this thread range from barely germane to incomprehensible language games. For instance:

The clue was wrong

So the other clues in the question don't matter after all? I'm confused.

What? How does that even make any sense at all? Charles buzzed in because he heard a clue that was WRONG, and referred to the Aegean; he said "Aegean," which was exclusively the right answer for a clue mistakenly placed in the tossup. This is exactly what protests are for, even in Matt's more conservative view of the quizbowl common law. This has no bearing whatsoever on the issue we're discussing, which I kind of believe you know.

We even wasted an enormous amount of time on clearly frivolous protests such as the one from your team insisting that the C-T boundary and the K-T boundary are the same thing.

First of all, that was not my team (how do you even know, or think you know, what team it was?), and secondly, the implication of your citing a different protest you overruled is that each team has a certain quota for overruled protests, which I do not believe is found in the ACF rules.

Well, it's like 5 months since it would have been even possibly questionable for him to know, so why in the world does it matter? Besides, it looks like he actually DIDN'T know anyway, so what is your point?? This was irrelevant and a bit childish for Matt to bring up, but instead of simply noting that you're casting it as implying some kind of vast Weinerian contempt for the ACF rules. As a non-vested observer, it's hard not to read this as largely driven by a lack of defensible arguments aside from "I just know Matt did it."

I also know from looking at the question now that "Rhode Island" is the only correct answer.

Nope; the giveaway excludes it. Nice try; want to play again?

In addition to being drawn straight from the esteemed rhetorical playbook of 2009-era Greg Peterson posts, this is also utterly irrelevant (assuming you buzzed before the giveaway, as you said). A separate discussion about quizbowl rules in general may make this issue germane, though probably not in your dubious way of framing it. But it has no bearing on Matt's handling of the protest procedure. Perhaps if this post featured more source-based argument and fewer Reddit-quality one-liners, I'd be more sympathetic to your position.

If, in fact, correct procedures were followed, then it wouldn't matter what he remembers, and if those correct procedures resulted in a ruling that's against whatever the quizbowl community wants to be the outcome for protests of this kind, that is directly relevant to the issue of protest reform.

And after Matt explained that the protest procedure didn't have to involve Bruce, you then had no reason to believe those procedures weren't followed (by your own admission). So what should have happened, based on your logic here, is that we all move on to a general rules discussion (which I'd much prefer to be having). Instead, you chose to toss out your unfounded suspicions of Matt's actions, complain about random crap, and further distance us from meaningful discussion about the issue.

As for the anger present in this thread separate from the events that sparked it, here's a word of advice to Matt especially but also to you, Fred, Jerry, and whoever sympathizes with what's been written here: if you're absolutely sure that your side of the debate is the correct one and that you've put forward arguments that close the matter in your favor, resorting to absurd mischaracterizations of the opposition and saying that I don't know what Rhode Island is, changing my avatar, saying whatever I've done reflects poorly on Chicago, saying that I convinced you to hold the view opposite to mine despite initial sympathy, etc, MAKES YOU LOOK WORSE. Just sayin'.

In Marshal-world, when you approach a sympathetic audience and through nothing more than your own arguments convince them you are totally wrong, it makes them look bad.
Not you, though. You're good!

Also I don't think Fred, Jerry, or I are particularly angry here? I'd understand if Matt is. And Fred and Jerry didn't do any of the things you listed here. The only thing they did was disagree with you, and yet they've now been assigned collective responsibility for the actions of other people. Amusingly, this occurs in the exact same post where you criticize me for stating that your actions may not reflect all that well on the Chicago team.

I do not think you are an idiot, nor do I think changing your avatar is anything more than a childish prank. But I think you're pretty wrong about this stuff, Marshall - and this is how I'm interpreting your argument, not how I'm "characterizing" it. If you care about how your arguments are sounding, then it should matter to you that a lot of people are having this reaction. If it's enough for you to know you're right and the whole world is nuts, then you've achieved a greater inner peace than I. But then, one wonders why you would need to make these posts in the first place.

[Tees-Exe Line]

If it's enough for you to know you're right and the whole world is nuts, then you've achieved a greater inner peace than I. But then, one wonders why you would need to make these posts in the first place.

Because after I get buried in a pile of shit and then everything I've said gets incorporated in a larger discussion six months later, I can have the satisfaction of knowing I was right! Inner peace is great--I suggest it without reservation.

[Skepticism and Animal Feed]

My memories of last April are hazy, but I don't recall telling Chicago that I would have ruled the other way on the Rhode Island tossup. I definitely told Chicago I would have ruled the other way on the C-T/K-T question, perhaps they're getting it confused with that.

Regardless, I didn't write the Rhode Island tossup, Jonathan Magin did. If somebody asked me to resolve that protest, I'd first ask Magin. If he were unavailable, I'd run the kind of analysis Weiner did, with the point where they buzzed being very important.

[ThisIsMyUsername]

My memories of last April are hazy, but I don't recall telling Chicago that I would have ruled the other way on the Rhode Island tossup. I definitely told Chicago I would have ruled the other way on the C-T/K-T question, perhaps they're getting it confused with that.

Regardless, I didn't write the Rhode Island tossup, Jonathan Magin did. If somebody asked me to resolve that protest, I'd first ask Magin. If he were unavailable, I'd run the kind of analysis Weiner did, with the point where they buzzed being very important.

They're referring to this, Bruce: http://www.hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewto ... 50#p262119

[AKKOLADE]

As for the anger present in this thread separate from the events that sparked it, here's a word of advice to Matt especially but also to you, Fred, Jerry, and whoever sympathizes with what's been written here: if you're absolutely sure that your side of the debate is the correct one and that you've put forward arguments that close the matter in your favor, resorting to absurd mischaracterizations of the opposition and saying that I don't know what Rhode Island is, changing my avatar, saying whatever I've done reflects poorly on Chicago, saying that I convinced you to hold the view opposite to mine despite initial sympathy, etc, MAKES YOU LOOK WORSE. Just sayin'.

Nah, I don't think any of those things. I'm also not angry.

I do think you did the same thing you seem to have done in a number of other arguments in the past, which is drive down Just Say Stuff Street and turn off onto Indignant Boulevard. And then I mock those actions. The end! No moral.

[grapesmoker]

My memories of last April are hazy, but I don't recall telling Chicago that I would have ruled the other way on the Rhode Island tossup. I definitely told Chicago I would have ruled the other way on the C-T/K-T question, perhaps they're getting it confused with that.

If my memory serves (and in passing I should like to mention that it's quite ridiculous to expect people to remember the uttermost minutia of what they were doing during a busy tournament and then use that memory gap as the basis for allegations of misconduct) I was the one who denied the K/T-C/T protest. I had never heard the term "C/T" used with respect to that, and when I googled it I could find no usage of C/T in any reputable source to refer to the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (which isn't what it's called anymore; it's Cretaceous-Paleogene now). If the full name had been given, I would have obviously accepted it, but that abbreviation is not standard; the K comes from German and is apparently used to distinguish between various other geological eras that start with C.

[grapesmoker]

And now, I'd like to say a few words in my official capacity as ACF Nationals 2014 head editor.

/dons fancy hat

At ACF, we take our work on tournaments extremely seriously. I am not going to lie to you and claim that every question we write is perfectly constructed and flawless; I am going to say that all of us work extremely hard to make every question as good as it can be. Likewise we have worked very hard, and thought a great deal about how to make sure that the tournament itself is optimally fair. The current rules for protest resolution are the result of that discussion.

It's entirely legitimate to disagree with the substance of the TD's judgment with regard to a protest. Hey, it's an emotional game and we're competitive people. Again, notwithstanding this particular protest, disagreeing with a protest resolution decision is something no one is going to get too upset about.

Accusations or insinuations of misconduct against anyone participating in an ACF tournament, whether another team, a staff member, an editor, or the tournament director, are legitimate too, but they come with a much higher standard. If you are making such allegations, you should be prepared to provide affirmative evidence in support of what you're saying. Making accusations or insinuations of impropriety without any actual evidence to back it up is damaging to everyone involved: to the accuser, because it makes them look petty and vindictive, and to us, because it tarnishes our work without any evidence that anyone did anything wrong.

The use of one's position as an ACF member to benefit or harm a participating team is an extremely serious action that, if substantiated, is grounds for expulsion from the organization. So far, we have fortunately not had to take measures to expel anyone, although we have banned particular players known to have cheated at quizbowl tournaments from participating in our events and have an official cheating policy to cover those cases. We are also very scrupulous about following the rules we ourselves have formulated for all of our tournaments, and especially the rules for protest resolution. The protest is blind to the TD by design, and they designate experts as they deem necessary to resolve any questions that the TD cannot resolve; any necessary research is done and after that a decision is rendered. The protest resolution chain has to terminate somewhere, and whether it terminates with the TD's ruling or with the ruling of a special committee doesn't change the structure of the rule.

All of this is not to say that if you have evidence of serious misconduct you shouldn't come forth with it. It is to say that accusations of such misconduct without any supporting evidence are not going to do anyone any good. I would encourage people to not confuse disagreement about some substantive fact regarding a particular question or protest ruling with an instance of procedural malice perpetuated by ACF. That's not what we're about and it's not how we operate.