Revised protest rules

[Matt Weiner]

These protest rules will be used for CHB and ACF Nationals this year, in accordance with discussions held within ACF and elsewhere about updating the rules.

CHB will not use the written protest sheets; ACF Nationals will.

The opportunity for public feedback remains open between now and ACF Nats (especially in light of how things go at CHB).

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/882 ... otests.pdf

[Ringil]

Just a clarification.

For the example of "this man won the Battle of Panipat" we could say any of the winners at any of the battles of Panipat right? So if that were the hypothetical first clue we could buzz and answer with Raja Sanghar Ali Khan (Wikipedia says he was at one of them apparently) and be ruled correct after protesting?

[setht]

The wording of J.4.1.2 seems self-contradictory to me: if someone buzzes at a point where a tossup is ambiguous, then no answer has been uniquely identified by the clues, right? In the Panipat example, there are multiple "victors of the Battle of Panipat," so no one answer has been uniquely identified. I'm guessing the rule is meant to say something like "all substantive clues up to the point of the player's buzz identify at most 3 (or 6, or whatever) distinct answers," but I'm not sure exactly how you want to phrase that, and setting the dividing line between "yeah, that's a reasonable buzz on those clues and we need to allow a protest" vs. "you have buzzed too quickly and the field of possible answers is too wide" by specifying a critical number of possible answers meant to apply to all questions is perhaps not the best way to handle it. But regardless of what the intent is, I think the current wording needs changing.

-Seth

[Tees-Exe Line]

These protest rules are a recipe for disaster. The conscious objective is to take the onus of making substantive rulings off the tournament director and staff and place it on the editors, to guess in advance the range of answers and to rule on them. If the editors fail to do so, they presumably face the wrath of tournament discussion posts on HSQB once the outcome of the tournament and all its games is determined.

These rules fail at that objective, and quite obviously so.

Under these rules, an answer is incorrect if it is ruled out by any of the clues that were read prior to the buzz. Whether an answer is ruled out by clues is a matter of substance, and the staff and TD are going to be unevenly qualified to assess that. To see where these rules will go horribly wrong, consider this question from Urgent Call for Unity:

Justice Ivan Rand ended one of these events by imposing a “formula” that is now named for him, and during one of these events in Reesor Siding in 1963, hiding farmers shot the participants as they approached a woodpile. Somewhat serendipitously, J.S. Woodsworth led one of these events, which took place in Winnipeg in 1919, and he later became leader of the Ginger Group and eventually chairman of the CCF. One of these events protested the policies of Woodrow Lloyd’s government after he took over from (*) Tommy Douglas as premier of Saskatchewan and began the process of enacting Medicare. Another of these events began at Powell River in 1935 and culminated in the Battle of Ballantyne Pier, in which the Vancouver police and Mounties beat back members of the Waterfront Workers’ Association. For 10 points, name these events, an aforementioned one of which took place took place at a Ford plant in Windsor in 1946 and was led by the UAW.
ANSWER: strikes (accept loose equivalents: “work stoppages,” “industrial action,” etc, including naming industries: “auto workers,” “lumberjacks,” “doctors,” “longshoremen.”)

I happened to read this question in a room that included Matt Bollinger, who (as I recall) buzzed on "Winnipeg" and answered "general strike," presumably because at Chicago Open the day before there had been a question on the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919, which I powered in the room where Bollinger read because I had written this question. According to these rules, "general strike" is not necessarily a correct answer to this question, though I accepted it. The lumberjack strike of 1963 in Reesor Siding was far from being a general strike. So if the other team had known what that clue referred to, they could have protested my acceptance of "general strike" and according to these rules that protest would have been upheld.

A couple of things: if the other team knew what the Reesor Siding lumberjack strike of 1963 was, presumably they would have buzzed on it. Most likely, they would have no idea and if "general strike" was accepted by the moderator, the question would have passed without incident during gameplay. But another moderator in a different room might not accept "general strike," and under these rules a protest of that non-acceptance would be rejected (if the TD/protest committee were curious and thorough enough to find out that the Reesor Siding lumberjack strike was not a general strike). The outcome would be variation between rooms in the acceptability of an identical answer given on the basis of knowledge. In other words, the outcome would depend on substantive judgment by the tournament staff. Furthermore, in my opinion (and perhaps I'm biased), this is a perfectly good question (except perhaps in terms of clue order, especially since the previous day's CO had radically increased knowledge about the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919, which I thought was one of the hardest history answer lines in that tournament). It's specifically good in that it anticipates alternative answers and gives moderators instructions on what to do with them. As such, it is less likely to create problems under these rules, and yet it does.

Finally, I'll get a little meta. I'm informed that these rules were drafted in part to minimize my protest trolling. Instead, they will maximize it. They invite going over any question in which the answer is something more general than a person's name or a title with a fine-toothed comb during tournament play and investigating whether any of the clues rule out the answer given. As has been learned in much more general contexts than quizbowl, writing rules designed to curtail specific actions by specific people does not usually work as planned, and I would encourage those who have a say in the matter to reconsider these rules.

UPDATE: I am informed that Matt Bollinger in fact lost a buzzer race to Eric Mukherjee on the question referred to above.

[vcuEvan]

A couple of things: if the other team knew what the Reesor Siding lumberjack strike of 1963 was, presumably they would have buzzed on it. Most likely, they would have no idea and if "general strike" was accepted by the moderator, the question would have passed without incident during gameplay. But another moderator in a different room might not accept "general strike," and under these rules a protest of that non-acceptance would be rejected (if the TD/protest committee were curious and thorough enough to find out that the Reesor Siding lumberjack strike was not a general strike). The outcome would be variation between rooms in the acceptability of an identical answer given on the basis of knowledge. In other words, the outcome would depend on substantive judgment by the tournament staff.

The variation between rooms you're describing stems from moderators accepting wrong answers, not from the change in the rules.

[Tees-Exe Line]

A couple of things: if the other team knew what the Reesor Siding lumberjack strike of 1963 was, presumably they would have buzzed on it. Most likely, they would have no idea and if "general strike" was accepted by the moderator, the question would have passed without incident during gameplay. But another moderator in a different room might not accept "general strike," and under these rules a protest of that non-acceptance would be rejected (if the TD/protest committee were curious and thorough enough to find out that the Reesor Siding lumberjack strike was not a general strike). The outcome would be variation between rooms in the acceptability of an identical answer given on the basis of knowledge. In other words, the outcome would depend on substantive judgment by the tournament staff.

The variation between rooms you're describing stems from moderators accepting wrong answers under the rules, not from the change in the rules.

On the contrary, these rules are about protests and, in and of themselves, they say nothing about what constitutes a correct answer, though of course these protest rules imply that a correct answer must be consistent with all the clues. Hence, Mike Cheyne's post that common links should, under the rules, accept any answer more specific than the answer line. If these protest rules are put into force and everything else remains as under the status quo, it is ambiguous whether "general strike" is a correct answer to this question. What is not ambiguous is what should happen if its non-acceptance is protested: that protest should be rejected. Hence, these rules are what creates the variation between rooms I referred to.

ELABORATION: The reason that it's ambiguous whether "general strike" is a correct answer is because the answer line says "accept loose equivalents: ...., etc," which is what creates moderator discretion about whether a general strike is a "loose equivalent" of a strike. If the answer line were just "strikes" without anything further (which in my view is a strictly worse way of writing the answer line, whatever the rules about acceptability and correctness, thanks to its obvious lack of empathy), then the answer of "general strike" would be unambiguously wrong.

[Masked Canadian History Bandit]

6.1.1.1. In this case, if the question was a bonus part, then the team will be given the value of the bonus part. If it was a tossup, then the question will be "reset"
to its state when the answer was given, and the team will be given credit for a correct answer (which may entail reversing a -5 and awarding either 10 or 15 points depending on the place of the buzz). If, after the originally given answer was ruled wrong, the opposing team answered the question correctly, then the opposing team's tossup points and any points on the subsequent bonus will be removed. A replacement bonus will be read to the team who protested, if necessary (i.e., if the change in tossup points and removal of opponent bonus points itself did not irrevocably change the outcome of the game, but did put it within the range of the new bonus).

Does this mean that ACF tournaments have to input all bonus conversions manually in SQBS to account for the possibility tossups awarded on protest might not have an associated bonus? I know that SQBS for Mac doesn't allow bonus conversion tracking to be changed midway, but I'm not sure about Windows SQBS.

EDIT:

Justice Ivan Rand ended one of these events by imposing a “formula” that is now named for him, and during one of these events in Reesor Siding in 1963, hiding farmers shot the participants as they approached a woodpile. Somewhat serendipitously, J.S. Woodsworth led one of these events, which took place in Winnipeg in 1919, and he later became leader of the Ginger Group and eventually chairman of the CCF. One of these events protested the policies of Woodrow Lloyd’s government after he took over from (*) Tommy Douglas as premier of Saskatchewan and began the process of enacting Medicare. Another of these events began at Powell River in 1935 and culminated in the Battle of Ballantyne Pier, in which the Vancouver police and Mounties beat back members of the Waterfront Workers’ Association. For 10 points, name these events, an aforementioned one of which took place took place at a Ford plant in Windsor in 1946 and was led by the UAW.
ANSWER: strikes (accept loose equivalents: “work stoppages,” “industrial action,” etc, including naming industries: “auto workers,” “lumberjacks,” “doctors,” “longshoremen.”)

It's unfortunate you can't protest tossups for being bad, because that's what this tossup is.

[Matt Weiner]

The rule that an answer must fit all the clues to be correct has been the practice in every quizbowl format that I am familiar with since rules began to be codified in the 1980s. The only innovations in these rules are the allowance of "should have been prompted" and "shouldn't have needed to give a formal name" protests. The former is something that people have, de facto, been doing for the last several years but had no specific foundation in the rules, the latter is something that the discussions about the rules chose to allow for the first time.

In other words: In no sense does anything in this revision make it more difficult to protest or have your protest upheld; everything in the rules either continues longstanding practice, or makes it MORE possible to protest.

My stated philosophies about what is the editors' job are intended as personal viewpoints on why I believe certain rules are justified, as well as commentary on issues that were not addressed in the prior rules and remain unaddressed in these, such as saying something too specific on a "common link" question. They are, also, my personal stated philosophies, and do not appear in this document unless they happen to match the consensus that was worked out over the last several months of Google Doc revision and live meetings involving multiple members of ACF and PACE.

While I encourage people to continue offering their critiques of the rules, including radical critiques along the lines of "throw out what every form of quizbowl has done for 30 years because I have a compelling argument as to why we should do otherwise" if they are so inclined, I do not think that mischaracterization of either the nature of this document as some sort of drastic shift (as opposed to a revision to codify existing practices), or my role in it, is a productive way to go about the conversation. This thread is an open invitation to share any ideas you may have on, normatively, what the rules should be; please do that rather than positing secret motivations or incorrect histories for what the rules are.

Does this mean that ACF tournaments have to input all bonus conversions manually in SQBS to account for the possibility tossups awarded on protest might not have an associated bonus? I know that SQBS for Mac doesn't allow bonus conversion tracking to be changed midway, but I'm not sure about Windows SQBS.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here -- perhaps the wording in the section you quoted is not as clear as it ought to be. It's simply stating that if your correct tossup answer is removed as the result of your opponent's protest, you lose your tossup points as well as whatever points you gained on the bonus (because the protest has held that you did not, in fact, answer the tossup and should not have played the bonus). This has always been the practice of ACF, NAQT, etc., and the only thing you need to do to locate which bonus is affected is to look at the scoresheet and see what is written in the bonus column for the row of that tossup number. Are you interpreting it to mean something else?

If you're just wondering what happens to stats if a team wins a protest by having a tossup ruling reversed (say, it puts them up by 5) and thus the playing of a new bonus is mooted, the answer is "no, TDs are not obligated to either delay the tournament by reading a bonus that doesn't matter, or to do all their stats in a much more cumbersome way, just to achieve a marginally more accurate bonus conversion number in the final stats." If individual TDs choose to do so, that's up to them, but the rules will not mandate this (and, in fact, all matters of statekeeping are completely outside the purview of the rules).

Finally, I'll get a little meta. I'm informed that these rules were drafted in part to minimize my protest trolling. Instead, they will maximize it. They invite going over any question in which the answer is something more general than a person's name or a title with a fine-toothed comb during tournament play and investigating whether any of the clues rule out the answer given. As has been learned in much more general contexts than quizbowl, writing rules designed to curtail specific actions by specific people does not usually work as planned, and I would encourage those who have a say in the matter to reconsider these rules.

As usual, I have no idea what Marshall is talking about; while the impetus to more accurately codify existing practice regarding all clues needing to apply to an answer was partially derived from the thread about Rhode Island, it was equally derived from every other instance of this issue coming up at ACF or PACE tournaments since the last major rules revision in 2008, and, in fact, a less pointedly stated version of the rule does explicitly appear in the earlier comprehensive rule set promulgated publicly in 2007. In no sense is anything in this document designed to curtail anybody, even admitted trolls. While I may humorously bring up examples of people who will likely run afoul of certain rules, those are not the reason the rules exist, and, again, they are my personal statements and do not dictate anything in this document.

Since it's relevant to the above: The opportunity to participate in this project was extended to all members of ACF and PACE, which is a group of around 60 people depending on how you count ACF emeritus members, as well as to further people suggested by existing members. Those who participated either in the document review or the live meeting were Matt Jackson, Chris Ray, Jerry Vinokurov, John Lawrence, Mike Sorice, Susan Ferrari, Joe Nutter, Max Schindler, Mike Bentley, Andrew Hart, Fred Morlan, Evan Adams, and Will Nediger. While I was the initiator of this project and have taken responsibility for leading the discussion and compiling the results, anyone who knows these people will be confident that nothing got past the group if it didn't have more support of multiple people. I will even add that the major innovation in this document, namely allowing "my descriptive answer should have been accepted/prompted for a question with a proper name answer" to be grounds for a protest, was something I strongly opposed and spoke against throughout the process, but put in because everyone else wanted it there. So, I completely reject any characterization at all that I dominated this process for nefarious anti-Marshall ends, or any other purpose.

[Matt Weiner]

The wording of J.4.1.2 seems self-contradictory to me: if someone buzzes at a point where a tossup is ambiguous, then no answer has been uniquely identified by the clues, right? In the Panipat example, there are multiple "victors of the Battle of Panipat," so no one answer has been uniquely identified. I'm guessing the rule is meant to say something like "all substantive clues up to the point of the player's buzz identify at most 3 (or 6, or whatever) distinct answers," but I'm not sure exactly how you want to phrase that, and setting the dividing line between "yeah, that's a reasonable buzz on those clues and we need to allow a protest" vs. "you have buzzed too quickly and the field of possible answers is too wide" by specifying a critical number of possible answers meant to apply to all questions is perhaps not the best way to handle it. But regardless of what the intent is, I think the current wording needs changing.

-Seth

This is not the intent of the rule, though I would like to hear any suggestions on what a better intent or wording might be.

This rule is designed to address leadins such as the "Sextus Empiricus" question at Nationals last year (or, rather, to continue addressing them in the way that they have always been addressed). A team should be able to buzz on all the clues given to the point of their buzz and answer and be correct without having to guess whether the leadin "would have been used at this level" or similar, within reason. "This philosopher used an analogy about a ladder to advocate discarding his arguments when you are through with them" and "this man won the Battle of Panipat" fall into what are traditionally viewed as "substantive clues" subject to this rule, while "this group had twelve members" or "this person was a woman" do not.

You will receive no argument from any credible person that a question which begins with "this man won the Battle of Panipat," unqualifed, is a good question. It, is, of course, a horrible question. But, as has always been the case, "bad question" is not a grounds for protest, and if a team buzzes and says "Ahmad Shah Durrani" when the answer line was "Babur," they are entitled to protest, and the opposing team should not be able to say "instead of giving them credit for their correct answer, rule them wrong or replace the question because the question was bad."

Again, while the above is how, to my understanding, it has always worked, and the rules presented here merely seek to codify the precedent, this thread is a good opportunity to present alternative suggestions for what the rules ought to change to be.

[Important Bird Area]

Let's keep this thread to substantive discussion of actual protest rules, please.

[jonpin]

Mechanical comments:
The superfluous ".1" in the label of each section irks me.
Resolution C appears to be referring to J.4.1.6

Substantive comments:

6.1.1. Resolution A applies when, as per the ruling on the protest, a player gave the right answer, and the wrong answer was in the packet (J.4.1.1), when a player gave the right answer to a clue contradicted by previous clues (J.4.1.5), when a player gave another potential right answer that was not listed in the packet to a substantive clue or clues (J.4.1.1 or 4.1.2), when a player gave an alternate name for the listed answer (J.4.1.3), or when a player gave an answer that should have been considered sufficient but the answer was over-vigorously underlined (J.4.1.6).
6.1.2. Resolution B applies when, as per the ruling on the protest, a team gave a wrong answer or was unable to attempt an answer due to contradictory clues (J.4.1.5), or when a question was a repeat (J.4.1.8).

These are somewhat contradictory and appear to lead to the following situation.
Moderator: Tossup. The current Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, is from this state.
Team A: [BUZZ] Wisconsin.
Moderator: [looks at answer line that says "Kansas"] -5.
Team A: Protest. By rule J.4.1.5 and J.6.1.1, we deserve points for giving a right answer to a clue contradicted by previous clues.
Tournament Director: So be it. Team A gets points.
Team B: Wait, we couldn't answer because of contradictory clues. By rules J.4.1.5 and J.6.1.2, the question should be thrown out.

[at your pleasure]

The wording of J.4.1.2 seems self-contradictory to me: if someone buzzes at a point where a tossup is ambiguous, then no answer has been uniquely identified by the clues, right? In the Panipat example, there are multiple "victors of the Battle of Panipat," so no one answer has been uniquely identified. I'm guessing the rule is meant to say something like "all substantive clues up to the point of the player's buzz identify at most 3 (or 6, or whatever) distinct answers," but I'm not sure exactly how you want to phrase that, and setting the dividing line between "yeah, that's a reasonable buzz on those clues and we need to allow a protest" vs. "you have buzzed too quickly and the field of possible answers is too wide" by specifying a critical number of possible answers meant to apply to all questions is perhaps not the best way to handle it. But regardless of what the intent is, I think the current wording needs changing.

-Seth

This is not the intent of the rule, though I would like to hear any suggestions on what a better intent or wording might be.

This rule is designed to address leadins such as the "Sextus Empiricus" question at Nationals last year (or, rather, to continue addressing them in the way that they have always been addressed). A team should be able to buzz on all the clues given to the point of their buzz and answer and be correct without having to guess whether the leadin "would have been used at this level" or similar, within reason. "This philosopher used an analogy about a ladder to advocate discarding his arguments when you are through with them" and "this man won the Battle of Panipat" fall into what are traditionally viewed as "substantive clues" subject to this rule, while "this group had twelve members" or "this person was a woman" do not.

You will receive no argument from any credible person that a question which begins with "this man won the Battle of Panipat," unqualifed, is a good question. It, is, of course, a horrible question. But, as has always been the case, "bad question" is not a grounds for protest, and if a team buzzes and says "Ahmad Shah Durrani" when the answer line was "Babur," they are entitled to protest, and the opposing team should not be able to say "instead of giving them credit for their correct answer, rule them wrong or replace the question because the question was bad."

Again, while the above is how, to my understanding, it has always worked, and the rules presented here merely seek to codify the precedent, this thread is a good opportunity to present alternative suggestions for what the rules ought to change to be.

Would "Finite and small number of definite answers to which all clues apply" work better? It's not perfect but it does have a useful fudge factor that doesn't specify the number of possible answers that make it acceptable while still making it clear that ladders to be chucked aside, battles of panipat, and other things of which there are a nonzero number are protestable while 'this class of people in Rome" is not because there are many more 'definable classes of people' in rome than there are battles of Panipat(or insert Example of Your Pleasing).

[jonpin]

Or to be clear... if the answer line is "Kansas", Team A is negged, protests, and gets points. If the answer line is "Wisconsin", Team A gets points, Team B protests, and the question is replaced. I contend the question should be tossed in either case.

[Adventure Temple Trail]

Just to be clear on the most salient addition: "I should have been prompted rather than negged" is grounds for protest under 4.1.4, but "The other team's answer should just have been prompted rather than accepted" is not by 5.1.2?

[Tees-Exe Line]

Not surprisingly, in the one instance of which I have direct knowledge from NHB, these rules did not function as planned, and that protest resolution illustrates the futility of the "no protesting bad questions" paradigm.

I'm speaking of the question on the Roman province of "Greece," which never existed. Specifically, Bollinger answered "Achaea" on clues about the activities of Lucius Mummius Achaicus, and that answer was accepted after a protest despite an earlier clue that referred to "this province" as the location of several battles. I think Philippi and Pharsalus were named, though it may have been just one of them. All the maps that I can find place the northern border of the Roman province of Achaea on a line extending west from the Malian Gulf, and both of those battles were fought north of that border. Therefore, as far as I can tell, these rules allow for one of two possible outcomes, neither of which is consistent with upholding the protest:

1. Since there was no Roman province of Greece, the question has no answer as written and it should be thrown out and replaced, or
2. Since the answer of Achaea is more specific than Greece and is ruled out by an earlier clue, that answer is wrong and should have been ruled incorrect.

Instead, upholding that protest amounts to an ex-post judgment by the editor that this question ought to have been about the province of Achaea, not "Greece." And indeed, it should have been: I didn't buzz because the question claimed that several battles fought in different parts of Greece were fought in "this province."

Since what happened in this case is that an answer from knowledge of the clues was given, the actual outcome of this protest is what would prevail under my preferred protest rules, and the fact that poor cluing meant I didn't buzz earlier is an issue of question quality to be taken up after the tournament. Alternatively, I could see an argument that the question should be thrown out since it didn't have an answer. But what actually happened was not consistent with the rules posted here and in force at this tournament. At the very least, there needs to be a clarification before Nationals.

[If this post needs to go in the NHB thread, please move it there. The intent is not to critique that tournament as much as to update this protest resolution discussion.]

[Mike Bentley]

Another scenario that came up at CHB was the following:

A team buzzed early in the question (still in power) with an answer that I did not accept or prompt on. The other team converted the tossup at the end. The team protested that they should have been prompted, and the protest was upheld. The scenario then was as follows:

1. The team was read a tossup that only they could buzz on.
2. If they got the tossup correct, it's as if they successfully provided the correct answer after a prompt (i.e. they would be awarded a power). The other team gets their tossup and bonus points for the replaced question removed.
3. If they did not answer the tossup successfully, it's as if they negged. The other team's tossup and bonus points for the replaced question still stand (I'm pretty sure).

My problem with this is that, except for very hard tournaments, most teams are going to be able to answer questions at the end. I'd say there's probably an 80% chance that the median team will convert a tossup at the end of the question at a regular difficulty tournament. It's hard to say for sure, but I'd be surprised if the successful prompt rate was that high.

Here are some alternatives. I'm not in love with any of these, but I think this scenario is at least worth thinking about some more.

1. Only the player who should have been prompted gets a chance to answer the replacement tossup.
-This could certainly be unfair if your literature specialist is forced to answer a science tossup.
2. Just throw out the tossup.
-This lowers the conversion odds to under 50%, although this can fluctuate wildly depending on the category of the replacement tossup and the strength of the two teams.
3. Automatically accept the answer that should have been prompted.
-I think this is the old rule. I dislike this for the same reasons I dislike the currently proposed rule.

[Coelacanth]

Another scenario that came up at CHB was the following:

A team buzzed early in the question (still in power) with an answer that I did not accept or prompt on. The other team converted the tossup at the end. The team protested that they should have been prompted, and the protest was upheld. The scenario then was as follows:

1. The team was read a tossup that only they could buzz on.
2. If they got the tossup correct, it's as if they successfully provided the correct answer after a prompt (i.e. they would be awarded a power). The other team gets their tossup and bonus points for the replaced question removed.
3. If they did not answer the tossup successfully, it's as if they negged. The other team's tossup and bonus points for the replaced question still stand (I'm pretty sure).

This seems to be at variance with

6.1.3. Resolution C applies when a team should have received a prompt, including on a descriptive answer (J.4.1.5) (sic)
6.1.3.1. In this case, the protesting team will be read a replacement question. If it is a tossup, then the opposing (non-protesting) team is NOT eligible to play the replacement tossup. If the protesting team does not answer the replacement tossup correctly, then the original scoring will stand (including any points earned by the opposing team on the tossup and subsequent bonus). If the protesting team answers the tossup correctly, then it will take the place of all scoring on the original tossup (including the removal of any original -5 by the protest team and the tossup/bonus points of the other team) and a replacement bonus will be read.

So in your point 2 above, if they got the replacement tossup correct, they would be awarded power or not based on where they answered the replacement tossup.

[jonpin]

Are there any amendments, clarifications, or responses to the above now that ACF Nationals has come and gone?

[Matt Weiner]

Are there any amendments, clarifications, or responses to the above now that ACF Nationals has come and gone?

Let's add revisiting this to the scheduled meeting about answer acceptability.