I think we are definitely running into trouble here - the question as set states that there is only one time this occurs, and yet two entrants have made cases for snake-related incidents which appear to answer the question. I’m not sure that it is right to be able to discount these just because the question setter didn’t think of them.
The
question about the racing driver I recently gave was set in such a way that there was enough definition in it (the number of F1 championships won and the nationality of the driver I was after) that it limited the possibility of someone finding say a Swiss driver mentioned somewhere, or a 2 times winning Aussie; had someone pulled
another three-times winner from Oz out of the hat, I’d have to say that they were as open to being the winner as the answer I thought of. There is an onus on the question-setter to be fair to the participants, as much as there is for the participants to answer correctly, I feel.
Can we have a bit of arbitration here, Ed?