Andrew Jackson's Compatriot wrote:I personally disagree. I feel that if teams use pseudonyms, and the weren't told they specifically couldn't use the, then the host school should ask the team if it would be alright to post the stats without their pseudonyms present.
BGSO wrote:Andrew Jackson's Compatriot wrote:I personally disagree. I feel that if teams use pseudonyms, and the weren't told they specifically couldn't use the, then the host school should ask the team if it would be alright to post the stats without their pseudonyms present.
Why should permission have to be asked?! Besides a trivial amusement for the affected teams all pseudonyms do is convolute statistics that are meant to be a metric for which the rest of the nation can compare performance.
dtaylor4 wrote:BGSO wrote:Andrew Jackson's Compatriot wrote:I personally disagree. I feel that if teams use pseudonyms, and the weren't told they specifically couldn't use the, then the host school should ask the team if it would be alright to post the stats without their pseudonyms present.
Why should permission have to be asked?! Besides a trivial amusement for the affected teams all pseudonyms do is convolute statistics that are meant to be a metric for which the rest of the nation can compare performance.
Um, some teams have to use pseudonyms to dodge administrative issues? Much as some people may not like it, there is a practical use for them.
I don't mind if teams use pseudonyms, but please keep it consistent, and relatively short. Stats entry folk have enough on their plates with having to decipher scoresheets as is.
Edward Powers wrote:Care to explain why to the larger community? And, care to further elaborate, given your team's exceptional play at UVA---a performance which seems to be the best of any anywhere on this set---why pseudonyms rather than a substantive discussion of the set or your overall experience at UVA was your primary concern?
Kyle wrote:(To combine two recent discussions, incidentally, wouldn't a useful companion stat to PATH not keep track of points scored after the other team has negged, since at that point it's likely that your entire team knows the answer?)
BGSO wrote:Obviously if a team is dodging administration then they should be allowed to use them, but I see absolutely zero reason that "recreational" pseudonyms should be allowed, and if a TD is gracious enough to allow them then use them then it should be changed in the stats undoubtedly.
Crazy Andy Watkins wrote:Well, yes, but then you have so much data--the order in which buzzes occurred means that you probably have a way to keep track of when, absolutely, they occurred--that you can do still more with it.
Kyle wrote:Crazy Andy Watkins wrote:Well, yes, but then you have so much data--the order in which buzzes occurred means that you probably have a way to keep track of when, absolutely, they occurred--that you can do still more with it.
You know how at the end of a football game the players all get really close to each other and then the quarterback kneels down and lets time run out? Since centers are big guys, the quarterback is doing his kneeling at least a yard behind the line of scrimmage. But instead of messing up his personal stats with "quarterback rushes for -1 yards," ESPN GameDay writes "team rush for -1 yards." I think that's a nice thing for them to do, seeing how the quarterback is kneeling so that his team can win the game. Hypothetically, couldn't you just record any tossup correctly answered after the other team has negged as "team +10"? (Not that you should have to, of course)
nalin wrote:BGSO wrote:Obviously if a team is dodging administration then they should be allowed to use them.
This way cooler and obnoxious than having pizza pseudonyms:
Dick Whitman
Sharmon Shah
Jacob
Ramon Estevez
And then all of a sudden in round 4 your team will be:
Donald Draper
Karim Abdul-Jabbar (not Law Alcindor)
Israel
Martin Sheen
Wall of Ham wrote:Frankly, I think the community's nerdrage at pseudonyms is an overreaction
every time i refresh i have a new name wrote:Wall of Ham wrote:Frankly, I think the community's nerdrage at pseudonyms is an overreaction
I think that this is pretty insulting. Several people in this thread have voiced reasonable opposition to pseudonyms, claiming that they interfere with the very legitimate practices of pre-/post-/during- nationals prognostication and are antisocial in general, while you're dismissing this all as unfounded nerdrage.
Kyle wrote:Crazy Andy Watkins wrote:Well, yes, but then you have so much data--the order in which buzzes occurred means that you probably have a way to keep track of when, absolutely, they occurred--that you can do still more with it.
You know how at the end of a football game the players all get really close to each other and then the quarterback kneels down and lets time run out? Since centers are big guys, the quarterback is doing his kneeling at least a yard behind the line of scrimmage. But instead of messing up his personal stats with "quarterback rushes for -1 yards," ESPN GameDay writes "team rush for -1 yards." I think that's a nice thing for them to do, seeing how the quarterback is kneeling so that his team can win the game. Hypothetically, couldn't you just record any tossup correctly answered after the other team has negged as "team +10"? (Not that you should have to, of course)
Zip Zap Rap Pants wrote:Kyle wrote:You know how at the end of a football game the players all get really close to each other and then the quarterback kneels down and lets time run out? Since centers are big guys, the quarterback is doing his kneeling at least a yard behind the line of scrimmage. But instead of messing up his personal stats with "quarterback rushes for -1 yards," ESPN GameDay writes "team rush for -1 yards." I think that's a nice thing for them to do, seeing how the quarterback is kneeling so that his team can win the game. Hypothetically, couldn't you just record any tossup correctly answered after the other team has negged as "team +10"? (Not that you should have to, of course)
Here here, that's one of the better ideas I've heard in a while. All too often someone who's not the best on their team will buzz immediately after a question is done or in the last sentence, thinking they definitely have a chance of boosting their stats, and it turns out they're completely off. If they didn't have the incentive to vulch for stats then this would be less likely.
Crazy Andy Watkins wrote:Coach C. if quizbowl is "still a game," then your opponent equally needs to make it hard for you to prepare for them. If knowing the distribution of buzzes is so useful to you, then teams should definitely use pseudonyms, or if that's banned at a given tournament they should use their real names but rotate them much as they might rotate pseudonyms--after the fact, no one would know! You can't meaningfully say "but I have a right to that information"; at least, I don't see any reason why you have that right--rather, you expect to have that information because you usually have it. If quizbowl had never invented individual stats, you wouldn't be so keen to declare that you have a natural right to know a team's buzz distribution, and teams would be declaring their right to keep that secret.
BGSO wrote:nalin wrote:BGSO wrote:Obviously if a team is dodging administration then they should be allowed to use them.
This way cooler and obnoxious than having pizza pseudonyms:
Dick Whitman
Sharmon Shah
Jacob
Ramon Estevez
And then all of a sudden in round 4 your team will be:
Donald Draper
Karim Abdul-Jabbar (not Law Alcindor)
Israel
Martin Sheen
Zip Zap Rap Pants wrote:Also, this is a game, not a sport, it doesn't have to be super serial guys.
every time i refresh i have a new name wrote:Wall of Ham wrote:Frankly, I think the community's nerdrage at pseudonyms is an overreaction
I think that this is pretty insulting. Several people in this thread have voiced reasonable opposition to pseudonyms, claiming that they interfere with the very legitimate practices of pre-/post-/during- nationals prognostication and are antisocial in general, while you're dismissing this all as unfounded nerdrage.
Barry wrote:Take a look at the first 8 posts of this thread. Of those, I only see two posts that offer any reason as to their opposition. My point was that if you are so opposed to an idea that you respond with "is stupid"/CAPSLOCK/some permutation of the above, and yet give no reasons, that seems like an overreaction to me (especially since pseudonyms have a minimal, if any, effect on your individual playing experience).
1. Eligibility Requirements. Applicable at the College level (I've rarely used pseudonyms in College for this reason), not so much in High School. If you are devious enough to want to escape eligibility requirements, well, banning pseudonyms won't stop you.
2. Seeding. Again, I feel that seeding should be done based only on team results because quizbowl is a team game. The uncertainty of having certain players being replaced within one team affecting the team results is far less than the uncertainty of players not showing up when expected/not playing as well/within the acceptable seeding margin.
Wall of Ham wrote:Take a look at the first 8 posts of this thread. Of those, I only see two posts that offer any reason as to their opposition. My point was that if you are so opposed to an idea that you respond with "is stupid"/CAPSLOCK/some permutation of the above, and yet give no reasons, that seems like an overreaction to me (especially since pseudonyms have a minimal, if any, effect on your individual playing experience).
...
5. Not funny. Umm, pseudonyms aren't suppose to be funny? (Hey guys, my name is "Lac Operon". I expect much guffaws and merriment ensuing the announcement of said epithet.) Plus it's not like people have difference senses of humor, right?
But if they used pseudonyms at previous tournaments whose stats you're using to determine appropriate seeding, so you don't know who played at those tournaments, what good is knowing who will be at your tournament?idrayer wrote:I really don't have any problems with teams using pseudonyms as long as I know as tournament director ahead of time who is coming for the teams so I can seed properly.
jonah wrote:But if they used pseudonyms at previous tournaments whose stats you're using to determine appropriate seeding, so you don't know who played at those tournaments, what good is knowing who will be at your tournament?idrayer wrote:I really don't have any problems with teams using pseudonyms as long as I know as tournament director ahead of time who is coming for the teams so I can seed properly.
Fred wrote:This is a really goofy idea, that is allowed by literally no major competitive major activities. In fact, these activities go out of their way to make it clear who is playing. I'm willing to say that obscuring who's playing is harmful to the game.
theMoMA wrote:Kyle, I think that people should be able to obsess over whatever they feel like obsessing about, and that a TD shouldn't have to submit to allowing the use of pseudonyms to "combat" it.
Andrew Jackson's Compatriot wrote:I dont know about many other players, but when I play teams that I know are definitively better than mine, such as SC, I don't look at each person to know if we need to play more aggressive but more the entire team as a whole. Honestly I cant think of a single instance where I would even do this, besides; the stats only show you the number of questions that each player got: it doesnt even tell you what subjects the questions were so you dont know whether you should be aggressive on a given question. Also last year at Penn Bowl when Charter went up there, all of us in attendance rotated our pseudonyms so that we wouldnt be worried about a neg reflecting on our total points since we wouldnt know who had played as who.
In all I think that pseudonyms arent that big of a deal provided that they arent overtly offensive or a huge disruption to the stats room, but that just me
Return to High school area archives
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests