His argument seemed to be that due to the “excessive” length of the tossups of said freelance packet, that it was equally and perhaps more inferior to the worst packets at Technophobia. This was an absolutely absurd notion-no matter what one’s opinion on the difficulty and length of the writer’s questions, to equate it with some of the packets that I heard is ridiculous.
canaanbananarama wrote:freelance packet not being used
grapesmoker wrote:Charles, you weren't here last year, so you didn't play at BLaST II, which I ran. Although there hasn't been any public commentary about it, I'd like to believe that, in the absence of explicit criticism, that tournament could be considered successful. People around the country put a lot of effort into it, and even though we had some logistical problems in the beginning, once we got off the ground we delivered everything we promised.
I remember talking with you quite vividly, and that is most expressly not what I said. On the contrary, I thought they were better packets as well. I didn't say inferior, which would be a fatuous presumption for me to make about a packet by either of those two freelance authors, considering my current positon. What I meant is that I had been hearing complaints from other teams about tossup length, and had no wish to hear them exacerbated. I strove to write decent 8-line tossups and got them thrown back into my face the first round. Admittedly, they were in need of a bit more editing, but the reaction showed what the demand was for.
I went around and asked teams whether they wanted to have playoffs; the vast majority expressed negative deisre, except for USC and obviously you guys. My position was that there should be at least a one round match between the top two teams if the records merited it, which they clearly ended up doing. however, it was not just some Caltech staffers who wanted to get out.
solonqb wrote:I went around and asked teams whether they wanted to have playoffs; the vast majority expressed negative deisre
grapesmoker wrote:Speaking of how to run tournaments, etc., isn't it about time that regional hosts for ACF Fall made their own individual announcements and stuff? Tournament's next weekend, guys. So far only Chicago has any information at all.
Announcements have been sent out. Berkeley's is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quizbowl/message/15789
grapesmoker wrote:Announcements have been sent out. Berkeley's is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quizbowl/message/15789
Oh yeah, there's that other board. I gotta remember to read it sometime.
solonqb wrote:One thing I can assure you all of is that the packets will be undergoing some more editing before we ship them off
recfreq wrote:I think you could just get a copy from Irene.
canaanbananarama wrote:For what it's worth, the UCI packet was submitted not by Willie Chen, rather by the other UCI team. Unless I'm mistaken, the Willie Chen-led UCI team was a late addition to the field and provided no packet; the packet was written by relative novices from the second team.
Charles Meigs
solonqb wrote:Sedna was defienitely gettable from that, and 2004UB313 had been all over the news recently (the whole Spanish astronomy fraud thing), so there were at least 10 easy points on that one. While there was some overzealous underlining that should have been corrected, it wasn't a horrible bonus.
I apologize for the "Paul Kigali" error in the Rwanda tossup in my packet, and using the Greek "Amenhopis" instead of the more correct "Amenhotep" in one bonus. I do not apologize, however, for the bonus lead-in "keeping with the geography-themed literatue," when at that point there had been no questions on geography-themed literature (others came up later in the packet).
solonqb wrote:Sedna was defienitely gettable from that, and 2004UB313 had been all over the news recently (the whole Spanish astronomy fraud thing), so there were at least 10 easy points on that one. While there was some overzealous underlining that should have been corrected, it wasn't a horrible bonus.
zwtipp wrote: "distinguish from his father."
Yunalesca wrote:(4) That said, when CERTAIN PEOPLE don't give me the packets THEY are responsible for until 8:45 AM, it's REALLY hard to have them checked for repeats and format and printed out by 9 AM.
P.S. To the person in question: When I explain just why I'm yelling at you for being late with the packets, and you tell me "well, I don't remember any repeats from the questions I heard at playtesting", may I remind you that you heard only half of the packets that existed. Also? Underlines. Learn to use them. Failing that, allow me enough time to put them in properly.
cvdwightw wrote:Yunalesca wrote:(4) That said, when CERTAIN PEOPLE don't give me the packets THEY are responsible for until 8:45 AM, it's REALLY hard to have them checked for repeats and format and printed out by 9 AM.
P.S. To the person in question: When I explain just why I'm yelling at you for being late with the packets, and you tell me "well, I don't remember any repeats from the questions I heard at playtesting", may I remind you that you heard only half of the packets that existed. Also? Underlines. Learn to use them. Failing that, allow me enough time to put them in properly.
That packet also had the homochirality question, and though I think I should have gotten prompted on chirality, as was initially done (upon further review by the writer of the space objects bonus, I was awarded points), I do think that my answer of l-chirality at the end of that question should have been accepted. Of course, I have no idea whether the rest of the clues other than the amino acids giveaway also imply d-chirality.
recfreq wrote:WTF is homochirality? So there's heterochirality?
Increasing my posts per day avg.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest