diff --git a/_posts/2024-04-01-reviewing-workload-requirement.md b/_posts/2024-04-01-reviewing-workload-requirement.md
index 9239f6fa7..c1f456616 100644
--- a/_posts/2024-04-01-reviewing-workload-requirement.md
+++ b/_posts/2024-04-01-reviewing-workload-requirement.md
@@ -30,9 +30,9 @@ Authors can indicate another reason to request an exception that will then be re
 Unless the paper falls under categories 1-3 above, or there is another valid reason to request an exception, the paper will be subject to desk rejection if authors fail to comply with the reviewing workload. This means we will verify that we have a complete OR profile and that those authors identified as reviewers have fulfilled their max load and expertise task. 
 In the past, as per our CFP, all authors qualifying to review were automatically added to the reviewing pool. But we faced challenges with many of these authors, they either: (1) did not have a complete OR profile, and thus we were unable to assign them papers, or (2) never answered our email requests to specify max load/expertise.
 
-This new policy may seem too harsh to some or even a tit-for-tat transaction. 
+This new policy may seem too harsh to some. 
 We would like  to point out that helping out to cover reviewing for three papers is a low bar that doesn’t really cover the workload of having a paper complete a full review cycle. 
-A full review cycle includes effort from the Senior Area Chair to check that the reviewing assignments are sensible, an Area Chair (AC) that will help monitor reviewers' progress, as well as help to engage them during author rebuttal. Then, the AC needs to review the paper, digest the reviews, the authors' response, and the reviewers' reply, if any, in order to then write a meta-review. Finally, there is another set of people who may engage with the paper during commitment. This can’t be considered a tit-for-tat. Our goal is that the review process is a bit less stressful by securing some fraction of the reviewing capacity needed during the submission process. Furthermore, the more people are in the reviewing pool, the better paper-reviewer matches can be secured, which means a better experience for reviewers and higher-quality feedback for the authors. 
+A full review cycle includes effort from the Senior Area Chair to check that the reviewing assignments are sensible, an Area Chair (AC) that will help monitor reviewers' progress, as well as help to engage them during author rebuttal. Then, the AC needs to review the paper, digest the reviews, the authors' response, and the reviewers' reply, if any, in order to then write a meta-review. Finally, there is another set of people who may engage with the paper during commitment. Our goal is that the review process is a bit less stressful by securing some fraction of the reviewing capacity needed during the submission process. Furthermore, the more people are in the reviewing pool, the better paper-reviewer matches can be secured, which means a better experience for reviewers and higher-quality feedback for the authors. 
 
 As always, we welcome your feedback, send an email to editors@aclrollingreview.org. 
 We will continue to review our processes with the goal of improving the overall reviewing experience for everyone, and increasing trust in the community.