Bennett Eckert Wins TFA 2014

TFA

Texas, USA- Congratulations to Greenhill’s Bennet Eckert for defeating Katy Taylor’s Neel Yerneni to win the 2014 TFA tournament.

 

Doubles

Kinkaid NK def. Flower Mound JS (Jalaj Sood) (Wright, Nunley, Boyer)

Travis AS def. Salado IH (Issac Hopkins) (Nunley, Boyer, Tyger)

Greenhill VA def. St. Agnes Academy MR (Mary Ricotta) (McGee, Colling, Emerson)

Marcus LH def. Calhoun Home AC (Adam Calhoun) (Imas, Perry, Melin)

Strake Jesuit JSt def. Hockaday CN (Chloe Naguib) (Cavanaugh, Sims, Johnston)

Strake Jesuit AlTo def. Law Magnet DD (Dino DeLaO) (Cavanaugh, Sims, Johnston)

Northland Christian SH def. Woodlands AC (Abigail Chapman) (Babb, Tripe, Boyd)

Katy Taylor NY def. Kinkaid MS (Michael Sands) (Babb, Tripe, Durrani)

Clements FT def. Klein DT (Delaine Tubbs) (Castillo, Ketkar, Feng)

Northland Christian DL def. Strake Jesuit AnTo (Anthony Tohme) (Wei, Ati, Proffitt)

Strake Jesuit JoSa def. Colleyville Heritage AS (Aabid Shviji) (Butler, Schwartz, Graham)

Clements RG def. Greenhill SW (Samuel Waranch) (Koshak, Lumpee, Dillard)

Greenhill BE def. Cypress Falls KS (Karman Singh) (Gravley, Woods, Ati)

Greenhill MM def. Strake Jesuit RB (Ryan Britton) (Gravley, Woods, Overton)

Cypress Woods XX def. Strake Jesuit SM (Sean McCormick) (Clancy, Sullivan, Joyner)

Kempner AB def. Strake Jesuit JZ (Joe Zaghrini) (Clancy, Sullivan, Joyner)

 

Octos

Travis AS def. Northland Christian SH (Shania Hunt) (Castillo, Imas, *Ketkar)

Greenhill VA def. Kempner AB (Azam Baig) (Durrani, Nunley, Wei)

Kinkaid NK def. Strake Jesuit JSt (JP Stuckert) (Schwartz, Joseph, *Dillard)

Katy Taylor NY def. Northland DL (Davis Labarre) (Emerson, *Boyer, Wright)

Greenhill MM def. Clements FT (Felix Tan) (Johnson, Overton, *Herrera)

Greenhill BE def. Strake Jesuit JoSa (John Sasso) (Babb, Joyner, Woods)

Clements RG def. Marcus LH (Lyndie Ho) (Tyger, Sims, Butler)

Strake Jesuit AlTo def. Cypress Woods XX (Xixiang Xiong) (Sullivan, Melin, Graham)

 

Quarters

Travis AS vs. Clements RG (Boyer, Sims, Imas)

Greenhill VA vs. Katy Taylor NY (Tyger, Dillard, Gravley)

Kinkaid NK vs. Greenhill MM (Nunley, Herrera, Lumpee)

Strake Jesuit AlTo vs. Greenhill BE (Babb, Woods, Joyner)

 

Sems

Katy Taylor NY def. Greenhill MM (Mitali Mathur) (Overton, Wei, Nunley)

Greenhill BE def. Clements RG (Rebecca Gelfer) (Koshak, Joyner, Herrera)

 

Finals

Greenhill BE vs. Katy Taylor NY (Tripe, Emerson, Babb)

  • Jordan Durrani

    Congratulations to Greenhill for a great showing, Neel for going from zero to hero, and all the seniors who saw their Texas careers come to a close at TFA.

    I want to first emphasize that, as the former student in question, I made the mistake of rehashing the rumor mill when confronted about Jared Woods and his affiliaton with Greenhill. I, to the best of my knowledge at the time, relayed the info as I knew it, which was mentioned in passing to me by another debater of Jared’s. I don’t know if the affiliation is there, but that’s not the point of my post. There’s a few other things that I believe merit more discussion.

    First, this situation boils down to me as more of a question of paradigmatic preferences rather than impropriety. Jared’s philosophy on the wiki makes it evident that his views strongly favor policy-style argumentation, something that Greenhill has traditionally held a proclivity for, and Strake Jesuit has had an antipathy against. As someone who, as a debater, was an ACTUAL conflict for Jared as opposed to a purported conflict, I would have tried anything and everything in my power to get Jared away from judging me, because I knew that even as my coach, he simply didn’t share the same views as I did.

    The second point is mutual preference judging. I don’t know what Strake prefs Jared, but since he was placed on 3 Strake panels in outrounds where emphasis is placed on finding mutually beneficial judges, I’d venture to guess that the number is pretty high. The attacks made against Jared seem to reflect a stronger sentiment against him that carries farther than just quarters of TFA State, which seemingly would be a reason for Strake *not* to pref him highly. I believe that MJPs act as an implicit endorsement of a person’s ability to judge a debate round in any circumstance, given that you can’t situationally prefer a judge based on the strengths, weaknesses, or school of your opponent.

    Last is paneled judging in outrounds. The 3 person judge scheme serves to allow a diverse array of debate views in high-level rounds. I believe it’s fallacious to assume that Jared’s ballot was the deciding factor in the round, even though it was a 2-1 for Greenhill. Most debaters can relate to having one judge on a panel of three as not being quite up to their preferences, but the beauty of a majority-rules calculus is that you can still win the other two judges and pick up the W. Since all three judges make decisions independently, it’s unfair to assume that Jared’s was the swaying decision, and there’s no reason why he couldn’t have been “brought along for the ride”.

    To echo Daniel Imas, I wanted to give my perspective as someone who was somewhat involved in the situation.

    • Tabroom Insider

      To begin on the first point, it seems problematic to attribute the problems to Jared’s paradigm when, in the quarters round that started this mess, Babb, who explicitly endorses a policymaking/util perspective, voted against Greenhill. Moreover, just because a judge gravitates to one kind of argument does not mean that they will never vote for another.

      For the second point, Jared seems to be a highly preferred judge. The fact that he judged on so many panels seems to suggest that he was one of the better judges in the pool. Just because he doesn’t always vote for the kind of arguments you claim Strake runs doesn’t mean that he should be preffed low for them. Prefs are comparative.

      Also, I think your second point misunderstands how elim panels work. Because a lot of judges start leaving when their students get knocked out, tab can’t always get every judge to be mutual. Thus, when tabrooms are out of judges, they’ll use mutual ratings and not mutual prefs. For example, Debater A may rank judges 1, 2, and 3 a 1, a 2, and a 3, respectively, but Debater B may rank those same judges 3,1,2. Although the judges don’t share the exact same preferences, they would still be put on the panel because the panel itself would be mutual.

      Now, onto the final point. Sure, the 3 panel system may work rather well, but you have to remember that one judge is enough to sway the round. If two judges have differing paradigms, and your style isn’t necessarily adapted for both of them, it’s probably good to have a neutral judge in the middle. However, having a judge who should be conflicted tips the scales in the favor of one debater, since the other two would be a toss up. Your argument would seem to be valid in the situation of having 5 of 7 judges, but with only three, each judge is still supremely important.

      Despite the problems with all of your individual points, there’s still something key that you’re missing. If a judge is conflicted, that’s still a reason not to judge, whether or not that sways his decision.

      Also, while I haven’t watched any debaters from Strake for a while, it seems wrong to just assume that they have an “antipathy” to the way Jared judges. Those kinds of generalizations are the same kinds of generalizations that lead judges to assume that one debater is better at a certain style than others simply because of the school they go to. If you continue judging, I hope you revise your ideas of how people debate; schools can shake it up sometimes.

  • Tyler Gamble

    Congratulations to Neel for an exceptional climb to the top.

  • Jason FriedRice

    This may come as a shocker, but have any of you guys ranting about Greenhill ever considered that maybe they are good at debate, and did proper preparation and thus deserved Jared’s ballot? I don’t think anybody but Mr. Woods and perhaps the Greenhill debate coaches have the right to make claims about where Jared will be coaching next year. This time could be better spent doing debate work and actually beating Greenhill next time as opposed to making absurd claims that can’t be backed up by real facts

    • Voice of Reason

      Mr. FriedRice,
      1. Nothing in the Danielimas post constitutes a “rant”. The TFA executive council would not listen to a formal protest that was merely a “rant”.
      2. No one said that Greenhill didn’t do work or that they didn’t deserve to win rounds.
      3. The grievance seems to be that Jared should not have been judging Greenhill (something that would not happen under the TOC conflict guidelines as pointed out by Tillman’s post. Jared would be a conflict under those guidelines based upon what he said in his own post) not that greenhill didn’t do sufficient work to win his ballot. Should your coach be able to judge and vote for you as long as you do “proper preparation”? That’s what your “proper preparation” standard would imply.
      4. If two disinterested parties with no incentive to lie say that Jared told them he would be coaching for Greenhill next year no action should be taken just because only Jared and Greenhill have the right to make those claims? That seems unreasonable. At the very least the two independent statements seem like sufficient reason to do an investigation at the tournament. It’s a bit odd that two separate individuals (both of whom are close with Jared) thought Jared was in fact coaching for Greenhill next year. It’s an amazing coincidence that two people independently came to that conclusion based upon a 5 minute conversation that happened months ago.
      5. It’s a kind of rude to imply that anyone that has a grievance is just ranting or needs to go do debate work instead.
      6. Hopefully these facts are all real enough

  • Danielimas

    I also wanted to congratulate Mr. Timmons, Greenhill, and Bennett on this historic achievement. Winning such a competitive tournament as a sophomore is very impressive. Congratulations as well to the other Greenhill students on their performances, especially as underclassmen.

  • Jerry Crist

    I hate to post out of concern that it might lend some legitimacy to the gutless comments made by the anonymous poster. Daniel correctly describes the protest as it happened. The issue was fully investigated in a professional and prompt manner by the TFA and was resolved according to Daniel’s description.

    Big congratulations to Aaron Timmons and Greenhill. I believe that this is Aaron’s 6th state championship. I had the opportunity to watch Bennet in quarterfinals and was very impressed. He is deserves to be the 2014 TFA State Champion because of his impressive advocacy skills. Congratulations!

    Jared – if Greenhill doesn’t hire you send me an email so that Strake Jesuit can put you on the payroll.

  • Concerned Anonymous

    This is not the first time Jared Woods has voted for Greenhill in a debate round where Greenhill clearly lost. In quarters of Colleyville this year, Kempner AB read a Cap K and very clearly won the debate round on the flow, but lost on a 2-1. When giving the RFD, Ben Clancy exclaimed that this was possibly one of the clearest rounds he’d ever adjudicated. Varad, the Greenhill debater, was also pretty confused why he won, as was everyone in the room. When asked what he voted on, Jared claimed to have not understood the K, and even though only DEFENSE was extended by Greenhill in the 2ar, Jared decided to pull the trigger on a “No link to the K” argument(isn’t the fundamental rule of debate to vote on offense, or a risk of offense in some situations?). Moreover, when I confronted Azam about what he thought, I found that Jared had voted Azam up on the SAME K at Churchill in a prelim round, awarding him with 29.5 speaks. Something is very fishy about all of this.

    P.S I am not trying to start a flame war, I merely want people to know what happened and why Azam could not qualify to the TOC at his last tournament because of this affiliation. Strake and other big schools have an easy time calling stuff like this out, but small schools can’t really say much unless they want to make things harder than things actually are. That’s why it’s good Strake is saying something about it, and giving me an opportunity to speak for my good friend.

    • What is Jared’s voting record in recent debates involving Greenhill? Sides and panel split if it was an elim.

      • Rebar Niemi

        Idly curious, my rough count of TFA + Colleyville (last two tourneys they’ve attended together?):

        Greenhill combined 5-0 in prelims in front of Jared.

        At Colleyville one elim, quarters the aforementioned Greenhill v Kempner round. Woods affirms for Greenhill, on top of a 2-1.

        At TFA three elims, two doubles and an octa. Woods affirms twice and negates once for Greenhill, all 3-0 decisions. (He affirmed in octas, voted once on each side in doubles).

        Total record of Greenhill in front of Jared for those two tournaments: 9-0

        Way too small of a sample size to be conclusive. I’m too lazy to keep going, I have no idea what tournaments they each attended.

        • Voice of Reason

          Note that the TFA warm room has changed. It now does not show the broken bracket, and so some of the rounds may be shifted. For instance, Bennett coached over Varad on a 2-1 in quarters. That doesn’t make much sense to me, unless the warm room is wrong

          • Debate

            The pairings on here are right; warm room is not.

    • Jared Woods

      More hyperbole from an anonymous poster. I voted for Greenhill in that debate because I wasn’t able to flow most of Azam’s speeches. It was fast, the cards were dense, and I wasn’t knowledgeable about the literature. Tyler Levy and I shouted clear multiple times to no avail. Ben thought it was a clear decision. He’s entitled to that opinion. Tyler and I didn’t feel like we could vote negative having not understood most of his speeches. I feel like that’s a pretty reasonable explanation for a ballot. In regards to the round at Churchill, I watched Azam in a prelim debate against a debater who did not clear at the tournament. He also did a wonderful job of adapting; his NR was relatively slow, persuasive and explained the K fully. His NC stopped after after each card to explain the argument. I was very impressed and gave him high speaks. However, he didn’t do any of those things in the Colleyville round and my standards for argument clarity and explanation don’t change just because I’ve seen the argument before.

      This will be my final statement on this thread. I have no official or unofficial affiliation with Greenhill. Any claims to the contrary are based on misinformation. This matter was investigated thoroughly by the tab directors, an independent ombudsman, and the TFA executive council. I did nothing wrong per the tournament rules which is why all 3 authorities ruled the way they did. I would prefer if the anonymous he said/she said accusations occurred privately. So far they’ve been unsubstantiated and potentially libelous. I’m not ok with that.

  • Billy Tate

    Speaking of all this, so….. does Greenhill wanna post the TOC 2013 Finals video? Fruit of thought?

    • tlonam

      Besides this post not addressing the issue at hand, I think that its incredibly distasteful to use Billy Tate’s name to make slights at a school on an online forum; he was a respected and revered member of the community and no one should make light of his death.

      • Guest

        Terrence, there’s actually Billy Tate who’s a senior from Texas 😛 I noticed this after browsing through a tab sheet and being somewhat perplexed too.

        • tlonam

          Oh thanks for heads up! So sorry Billy!

    • Guest

      To extrapolate a bit more on this, I think its quite contradicting of Greenhill to push for the disclosure and the wiki, and at the same time masking education by not making the toc finals video public. I went to UNT’s Mean Green Workshops this past summer. We got to watch the finals video except they took up our phones and didnt allow us to flow. They were even walking around to make sure no one was recording or flowing anything.

      • Rebar Niemi

        I cannot understand what on earth. That is seriously one of the most insane things I have ever heard. I will never be able to understand what reason there is for that kind of info control.

      • Truth

        It is awesome when people just make things up. You could flow. If you didn’t that is only your own fault.

        • Guest

          I went there so I’m pretty sure I would know. Ask the other hundreds. If we were allowed to flow, I def would’ve. I have no incentive in fabricating such a tale.

          BUT this still doesn’t answer why Greenhill won’t just post the video.

          • Jared Woods

            I know I said my last post would be my final one on this thread, but I can’t stand blatant lies by anonymous posters.

            1) “Ask the other hundreds.” lolwut? There were approximately 30 kids at week 3 last year which is when we showed the video.

            2) The students weren’t allowed to flow? You must’ve been in another room. The students were 100% allowed to flow. Ask any of the staff who worked there, most of which are not affiliated with Greenhill.

          • Jared, you should post your flow then! 😉

            Seriously, though, the TOC video stuff is a distraction from the issue raised in Daniel and Mr. Crist’s post. At future tournaments, will *you* conflict yourself from Greenhill? (I’m not asking what Greenhill’s position on the matter is. Only yours.)

          • Jared Woods

            I will adhere to the tournament guidelines for conflicts as I have been doing my entire judging career.

          • Salim Damerdji

            Well that clears everything up

          • David Joannides

            policies of conflict rely on perception, not actual wrongdoing. im sure there are many coaches that would drop their own student if they lost, but the point is that people dont see it that way. you are clearly aware that people interpret this in the wrong way, and there are conflict policies of major well respected tournaments (the toc) that would ban you from judging greenhill. why, after all of this, would you still not conflict yourself even if tournament rules didnt require you to? spirit of the law, dude.

          • mcgin029

            Or, as the infamously well-worded preamble to the TOC statement of conflicts puts it:

            “Fair competition requires not merely the absence of impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety.

            A conflict of interest is a relationship that might reasonably be thought to bias a judge toward or against a competitor. Such relationships may themselves be quite innocent, but they could reasonably be thought to compromise a judge’s impartiality. The Lincoln Douglas TOC Advisory Committee has drafted these guidelines to be implemented at this year’s Tournament of Champions.”

  • Danielimas

    A lot of claims have been thrown around, so we just wanted to clear some things up and explain what happened from our perspective. After the quarters round at TFA state between Strake and Greenhill, we heard that Jared Woods (who was on the panel) was going to be coaching for Greenhill next year and this was confirmed by one of his former debaters who said he was told “not to say anything about it.” We went to file an official protest immediately to make sure that the next round did not start without our concerns being taken into account. While filing the protest, we again received confirmation from Jared’s employer that he had talked to him about working for Greenhill next year. Our protest was denied on the basis that the TFA rules do not include conflicts on the basis of future employment, only past or current employment. We understand how hearsay can contribute a lot to these type of discussions, so we wanted to present the perspective of one of the parties actually involved.

    • Tillman Huett-Lassman

      Well it seems that we would want to amend the TFA constitution to have a more comprehensive conflict policy. It seems that the investigation found that the offer for coaching exists just rather that it didn’t violate a TFA rule. Last year, the TOC’s conflict policy would have not permitted this to occur (for good reason). There is always confusion on who to strike and it is time that we create community expectations for impartiality and actually follow them. For those interested, I have posted the relevant part of the TOC’s conflict policy that was published on this site last year below (sorry for the ellipses).

      “1. The judge and the student may be perceived to have a competitive or financial agreement that may bias the judge’s impartial evaluation of the round. Examples include but are not limited to:…c) The judge has received or provided expressed or implied offers to provide future coaching, consulting, or judging to a school or student.”

  • observer

    Can you maybe explain how the true story about how Jared Woods was permitted to judge debate rounds involving Greenhill at TFA State, despite planning to work for them next year, constitutes libel? Do you have any idea what that term means?

    • BenjaminKoh

      Jared privately messaged me concerning the issue. That and his post below seems like sufficient reason for why the continuous posting of the same thing over and over again without alteration is libelous, not legitimate.

      I have about zero sympathy for anonymous posters who use mailerdaemon and guerillamail and all that. If this is a more legitimate issue than what evidence has been provided a) privately message me or another Mod or b) do not post anonymously. I’m unwilling to allow an accusatory discussion if the extent of the warrant of the post is hearsay.

  • Guest

    Greenhill has committed another sin in the debate space. In quarters of TFA Strake Jesuit AlTo vs Greenhill BE, Greenhill failed to conflict Jared Woods who is going to be a paid coach at Greenhill next year. When confronted about this issue after the round Timmons was able to get out of redoing despite the fact that the round was a 2-1. Jared also judged Greenhill six times throughout the tournament and he voted for Greenhill every time. Even though Jared may not have actually intervened for Greenhill, he should not be judging these debate rounds at all. This type of behavior seems to be typical of Greenhill, they don’t directly cheat, but preform actions that are very shady and as close to cheating as you can get. Furthermore, Greenhill has been implicated in so many situations of suspect behavior for these all to be coincidence. I would encourage Aaron Timmons to reflect on whether multiple frivolous theory shells are the real problem destroying his educational activity or is the deliberate allowing of a biased judge on a panel harming debate.

    P.S I would also encourage anyone at the TOC to make sure Jared is not judging you against Greenhill.

    • debateanon3

      I thought that this was a forum through which to discuss different ideas and issues inside of the debate community. However, this post has been deleted 4 times IN THE LAST 3 HOURS by NSDupdate moderators. How can you continue to silence this discussion? This practice is unacceptable in the debate community. I’m curious to see if this post would be deleted if the content concerned any other school but Greenhill…

      • BenjaminKoh

        Do you seriously think that I have affiliations with Greenhill?

      • Sam_Azbel

        http://www.conspire.com/

        here is the link to conspiracy theory website. The deleted post would probably be more appropriate on that site.

      • sjadler

        Yes, the comment was deleted four times IN THE LAST 3 HOURS. That is because it posted in verbatim the same way four times IN THE LAST 3 HOURS. All from the ever-charming “poopmonster@guerillamail.com” (a disposable email service).

        I have read the comment in question; the tone is *way* accusatory and asserts a bunch of things to be true without any real evidence. Asking a clarifying question e.g. “Why is ___ judging ___? I thought he is working for them next year” is way different than going on a tirade without any proof.

        Ben ascertained the facts to the best of his ability, and it sounds to him like there aren’t reasonable grounds to keep this up when parties feel they are being defamed. I trust Ben’s judgment, and I think that you should reflect on why your post was deleted–more for how it approached the problem (defamation, if it’s untrue) vs. legitimately wanting an answer.

    • BenjaminKoh

      Eric Palmer clarifies NSDUpdate’s comment policy.

      The general rule is: if an accusation is potentially libelous, we will not host it. This is not a form of censorship, since no one enjoys a right to make libelous accusations about anyone else (this fact is recognized by virtually every legal system on earth). We have applied this policy in an impartial manner in the past.

      NSDUpdate operates as a discussion of ideas in the LD Community. This, however, does not mean that we will permit libelous commentary. If this is an issue that you have with Jared Woods and/or Greenhill you should bring it up with them or another site, but not this one.

  • debateanon3

    Greenhill has committed another sin in the debate space. In quarters of TFA Strake Jesuit AlTo vs Greenhill BE, Greenhill failed to conflict Jared Woods who is going to be a paid coach at Greenhill next year. When confronted about this issue after the round Timmons was able to get out of redoing despite the fact that the round was a 2-1. Jared also judged Greenhill six times throughout the tournament and he voted for Greenhill every time. Even though Jared may not have actually intervened for Greenhill, he should not be judging these debate rounds at all. This type of behavior seems to be typical of Greenhill, they don’t directly cheat, but preform actions that are very shady and as close to cheating as you can get. Furthermore, Greenhill has been implicated in so many situations of suspect behavior for these all to be coincidence. I would encourage Aaron Timmons to reflect on whether multiple frivolous theory shells are the real problem destroying his educational activity or is the deliberate allowing of a biased judge on a panel harming debate.

    P.S I would also encourage anyone at the TOC to make sure Jared is not judging you against Greenhill.

    P.P.S NSDupdate moderators please stop removing this comment. This is a serious issue and an unacceptable practice that must come to light within the debate community.

  • debateanon3

    Greenhill has committed another sin in the debate space. In quarters of TFA Strake Jesuit AlTo vs Greenhill BE, Greenhill failed to conflict Jared Woods who is going to be a paid coach at Greenhill next year. When confronted about this issue after the round Timmons was able to get out of redoing despite the fact that the round was a 2-1. Jared also judged Greenhill six times throughout the tournament and he voted for Greenhill every time. Even though Jared may not have actually intervened for Greenhill, he should not be judging these debate rounds at all. This type of behavior seems to be typical of Greenhill, they don’t directly cheat, but preform actions that are very shady and as close to cheating as you can get. Furthermore, Greenhill has been implicated in so many situations of suspect behavior for these all to be coincidence. I would encourage Aaron Timmons to reflect on whether multiple frivolous theory shells are the real problem destroying his educational activity or is the deliberate allowing of a biased judge on a panel harming debate.

    P.S I would also encourage anyone at the TOC to make sure Jared is not judging you against Greenhill.

  • DebateAnon2

    Greenhill has committed another sin in the debate space. In quarters of TFA Strake Jesuit AlTo vs Greenhill BE, Greenhill failed to conflict Jared Woods who is going to be a paid coach at Greenhill next year. When confronted about this issue after the round Timmons was able to get out of redoing despite the fact that the round was a 2-1. Jared also judged Greenhill six times throughout the tournament and he voted for Greenhill every time. Even though Jared may not have actually intervened for Greenhill, he should not be judging these debate rounds at all. This type of behavior seems to be typical of Greenhill, they don’t directly cheat, but preform actions that are very shady and as close to cheating as you can get. Furthermore, Greenhill has been implicated in too many situations of suspect behavior for these all to be coincidence. This behavior has become a trend and typical of the Greenhill school. I would encourage Aaron Timmons to reflect on whether multiple frivolous theory shells are the real problem destroying his educational activity or is the deliberate allowing of a biased judge on a panel harming debate.

    P.S I would also encourage anyone at the TOC to make sure Jared is not judging you against Greenhill.