ANNOUNCEMENT: Penn Bowl 2016 (10/22/16)

[Ike]

I doubt anyone is taking a high schooler's claims seriously, but there is a jab at the question quality from someone who doesn't really know anything: while there are certainly variable bonuses in this set (as you can find in any set!), and some of the tossups do have problems, it's certainly not so bad to make 3ppb differences meaningless. You should definitely play this set next week if you are a fan of previous Penn Bowls! Even Joey Goldman, whose amusing snark set this thread off, notes that the set should be fine for people playing it this week.

[Auks Ran Ova]

Relevant posts have been FZed, but I'm going to leave this here.

Cody: When I'm trying to head off a stupid and unproductive argument, please do not try to restart it.

Luke: Do not post "to be irritating".

[vinteuil]

Hey, I said this in the private forum, but I just want to reiterate this publicly: this set is pretty great! Don't get the wrong impression from this thread: the question quality itself is nothing close to meriting Penn-ance.

[UlyssesInvictus]

this set is pretty great! Don't get the wrong impression from this thread: the question quality itself is nothing close to meriting Penn-ance.

[Rococo A Go Go]

Whatever problems plagued the production of this set did not harm it too much: I enjoyed this set a lot (at least the history and CE, which is all I can credibly comment on), perhaps even more than last year's Penn Bowl.