2.2.2.4. Quote/Finish - Abundantly Clear

[FurlanNick]

This past weekend we had a dispute in regards to this Rule. As the QM, I announced that the question as a Finish The Verse question. The quizzed jumped and proceeded to recite the verse.

Within Acts Chapter 2 Verse 6: All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

1st attempt - The quizzer was able to recite the entire verse but with only one error. Instead of "The Holy Spirit", the quizzer said "The Spirit".

2nd attempt - The quizzer said "All of them were filled with the Spirit and began to speak" (Not finishing the verse)

At this point the quizzer had a feeling that there was an issue in the middle area of the verse.

3rd attempt - The quizzer said "The Spirit and began to speak"

4th attempt - The quizzer said "The Holy Spirit".

At this point as the QM, I called the quizzer incorrect, since there wasn't a full rotation and it was solved after many attempts.

The quizzer challenged stating that eventually they were able to solve the verse, and that in the rules a full rotation was no longer needed unless there was only one error.

However from reading the rule, the quizzer needs to make it abundantly clear on the correction, and in most cases quizzers tend to use varying words to figure out what the issue is. And in this case the quizzer was correct with the change, but it seemed like a random shot from my standpoint due to the various attempts.

After not accepting the challenge, the coach proceeded to Protest the ruling. And through the discussion with all the coaches, we were trying to determine what is "Abundantly Clear". Since to me abundantly clear is verbally saying "Instead of X, it should be Y". Whereas just changing a word or adding a word is abundantly clear.

I am just wondering what should the actual ruling be, based on the information and how to deal with this in the future?

[scottpeterson]

It does look like the RB is written poorly and subjectively.

I believe the origin/intent of the rule was for cases where the quizzer, after one full rotation that had an error, immediately went to the spot of the error and corrects it.

And since I imagine a lot of QMs are familiar with that intent/origin, QMs seem to apply it with that intent/origin in mind, and if the quizzer's "first attempt at a fix" is in the exact right spot, then they count it as "abundantly clear."

Since it is very inconsistent to try and infer quizzer intent, 1st guess vs subsequent guess was the tribal proxy for "abundantly clear" or not. And to be clear, that tribal proxy is not defined or spelled out in the current rule, so a QM is not incorrect if they do not use that tribal proxy.

Additionally I don't believe "they know where their mistake was and what the corrected words are" was ever intended to require the quizzer so say "I know my mistake was 'x', and the correction is 'y'" But the currently written rule doesn't make clear what should be required by the quizzer.

I'd make the same ruling you did, since I would use the tribal proxy. Which, to state again, is just one interpretation of the subjectively written rule.

[kclimenhaga]

I have interpreted "abundantly clear" to mean that it needs to be clear where in the verse the correction has been made. So for your example, if the quizzer's fix had been "filled with the Holy Spirit", this is abundantly clear, because the quizzer has given enough information to show where in the verse the fix is intended to go. Just saying "the Holy Spirit" is not abundantly clear, because there are two places in the verse that fix could go. That being said, in your case, because the quizzer's second and third attempt were clearly in the place where the mistake was, it's certainly possible to make the argument that it was clear where in the verse the fix should go.

I probably would have called this quizzer correct, but I don't think you are wrong to have called the quizzer incorrect. No matter how detailed we make the rule book, there will always be some subjectivity involved, and this is definitely one of the subjective rulings.

If there's a way we can clarify "abundantly clear" without making a whole appendix of examples, I'd love to hear it!

[levikoral]

"Abundantly clear" means you state exactly where something needs to be fixed. Like the case at hand that was challenged, I agree with what was decided as it was not at all clear where the quizzer was putting "the Holy Spirit." (To me it sounded as if they were putting it after "began to speak."). "Abundantly clear" should mean in the rule book: "If a quizzer messes up a FTV, they must unmistakably go back and fix the mistake." In any case, that could mean making another whole circuit to fix it, or maybe not, depending on how they go about it.