3.2 Pre–information request procedure

[ARMediting]

Part of 3.2. states:

If the additional information regarding the ruling is provided at the discretion of the QM/AJ and not at the request of the captain, this is not considered an explanation of a ruling, which would invalidate a challenge or protest. If the captain requests additional information regarding the ruling, this is considered an explanation of a ruling and invalidates a challenge or protest. Before replying to a request for an explanation, the QM must ask all teams if they wish to challenge.

The first sentence mentions challenges and protests, but the third sentence only mentions challenges. Prior to giving an explanation, should the QM also ask coaches if they wish to protest (since a protest can be made in some cases prior to a challenge)?

[jswingle]

This rule is horribly messy in practice and very difficult for a QM to consistently follow.

My proposal is that we completely remove the rule from the rulebook. The point of allowing challenges is so that we can make our rulings better and more accurate. If the QM explains their reasoning, and the quizzer thinks their reasoning is faulty and in opposition to the rulebook, then wouldn't that be something we would want the quizzer to challenge?

Of course, in practice the officials are free to divulge as much or as little about their reasoning process as they see fit. I think it's way better for officials to explain themselves fully, but this is tough to codify in a challengeable/protestable rule.

[josiah-leinbach]

I can see no consistent reasons for this rule, unless it is to prohibit quizzers from "probing" for challengeable grounds. Yet even if that were the case, as @jswingle noted, why would we want to prohibit quizzers from examining a the logic a QM uses to arrive at their decision? Plus, there is functionally no distinction, so far as I can see, between information "provided at the discretion of the QM/AJ" and that same information provided at the request of a quizzer, so one situation should not be treated differently than the other. Treating them differently only adds confusion and, on a certain level, makes it feel somewhat taboo to ask for a ruling explanation, a feeling we should discourage for the purposes of transparency.

For these reasons, I propose we strike the following sentences from section 3.2:

If the additional information regarding the ruling is provided at the discretion of the QM/AJ and not at the request of the captain, this is not considered an explanation of a ruling, which would invalidate a challenge or protest.

If the captain requests additional information regarding the ruling, this is considered an explanation of a ruling and invalidates a challenge or protest. Before replying to a request for an explanation, the QM must ask all teams if they wish to challenge.

And also this sentence from 5.3:

Once a team has requested an explanation of a ruling, and that explanation has been given, all teams lose the right to challenge. If an explanation of a ruling is requested, the quizmaster will ask if any team wants to challenge.

These are the only two places that contain this exception clause regarding an "explanation".

[jttower]

I agree with striking these rules.

[ARMediting]

I can see both ways. I do think we'd see more challenges as a result, though I don't know if they'd be better or worse overall. We'd probably get a lot more requests, which could slow the quiz down to a point we wouldn't want. While quizmastering, I've never had a problem enforcing this. If asked for an explanation, I just tell this rule and let them decide.

[JoshJetto]

I am strongly opposed to removing this rule from the rulebook. First, it will greatly increase the number of stoppages between questions without consequence for the team causing the stoppage. Second, I think it's often disrespectful toward the quizmaster when a quizzer interrupts the quiz process to ask why they or their teammate was called incorrect. I also think that if a quizzer asks for an explanation, receives it, and then immediately says, "I'd like to challenge" that such a challenge is probably going to come across as even more disrespectful. Challenging as an official review process as opposed to informal information seeking is an orderly and generally respectful process, especially when there is only one or at the most two more experienced quizzers designated as being able to challenge, and when there are consequences for failed challenges to discourage frivolous or poorly thought-out ones. I think removing this rule would increase the amount of frivolous information seeking - and again, bog down the quiz process. As a quizmaster, I don't like it at all when a quizzer just speaks up questioning my ruling without making an official challenge. I also generally explain my rulings or read the correct answer when I call a quizzer incorrect, so that they have all the information they need to reason out a challenge should they wish to do so. I agree with @ARMediting's initial proposal that the quizmaster ask if any captains or coaches wish to challenge or protest should a quizzer ask for an explanation of a ruling prior to providing one. I think we can trust the quizmasters at the International level to remember to do this. I appreciate that as it stands the request for and the receiving of an explanation of a ruling prior to challenging cancels the ability to challenge afterward because again there is a cost to obtaining that information, so it discourages the frivolous (or curious) requests for information. I would further emphasize that only the captain or co-captain may ask for an explanation of a ruling.

[kclimenhaga]

I am also inclined to keep the rule in place. I agree that a QM should explain the ruling (briefly) or give the correct answer, but if I have already given the correct answer or an explanation like "sorry, we have to take your first answer", and then the quizzers ask for more information than that, they shouldn't be allowed to challenge after the fact, since it would slow down quizzes. I doubt it would be a problem very often, but I also don't think the rule is causing problems.

I don't agree, however, that it should only be the captain or co-captain allowed to ask for an explanation. If I say "we have to take your first answer," and the quizzer I just called incorrect asks what the correct answer was, I don't think it should matter whether that quizzer is the captain or the co-captain. If anything, I would say that only the quizzer who answered the question should be allowed to ask for an explanation.

[levikoral]

I have had quizmasters-- however not many-- not tell the ruling after a question-- a wrong question in most cases. It frustrates me to no end, and I have not once asked for the so-called "explanation." Likewise to avoid a quizzer having doubts about how they were wrong, would it not have been easier for the QM to say why it was incorrect in the first place? That most certainly would have cleared every doubt, and if a quizzer still finds a discrepancy in the agreed upon ruling, they can "appeal"-- as is the new wording. I believe that QMs who do not explain fully what there basis of counting someone wrong is, should be taught how to better explain what is wrong in a quizzer's answer (or maybe what is right). Only then am I inclined to believe that you could change that ruling. I have had to ask for a clarification before from a QM, but I would see it best that the rule be totally dropped, once the QMs are well trained in their duties.