SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Elaborate on the merits of specific tournaments or have general theoretical discussion here.

SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Important Bird Area » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:51 pm

NAQT has made several changes to its policies for Sectional Championship Tournaments (SCTs) and Intercollegiate Championship Tournament (ICT) for the 2017-18 competition year.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Important Bird Area » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:52 pm

2018 SCT host requirements

The biggest change here is:

naqt.com wrote:SCTs must be untimed and must use 11-question halves.


The 2018 ICT will remain timed (with 11-minute halves).
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Important Bird Area » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:55 pm

2018 ICT qualification

This is a substantial set of changes to our ICT qualification system. The centerpiece is a guarantee that the top 20 teams by D-value will get the first 20 invitations to the 2018 ICT.

We expect some minor changes to how D-values are calculated so that the statistic works better within this system; we'll announce those well in advance of the 2018 SCT.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Important Bird Area » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:59 pm

Finally: NAQT has decided to maintain its current policy and continue to not post packets online for any level of play (including college).

Why have we made this decision? In short, we think that revenue from practice question sales is critical to NAQT's survival as a business.

We feel it's important to treat our customers consistently. If we were to provide a significant amount of college-level practice material for free, we expect that many of our middle and high school customers would (justifiably) feel they were being treated unfairly. However, if we were to make high school and middle school practice questions freely available as well, we would need to make up the lost revenue elsewhere in our operations- by raising fees for our national championships and for tournament hosting to levels that would be unsupportable for the quizbowl community.

I know our decision will come as a disappointment to many people reading this forum; however, we believe that the principles outlined above are important to NAQT's continued viability as a business.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Sima Guang Hater » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:01 pm

Important Bird Area wrote:Finally: NAQT has decided to maintain its current policy and continue to not post packets online for any level of play (including college).


And what about allowing people to buy electronic copies of packets? And is it still 2 seconds to answer?
Last edited by Sima Guang Hater on Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eric Mukherjee, MD PhD
Washburn Rural High School, 2005
Brown University, 2009
Medical Scientist Training Program, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 2018
Intern in Internal Medicine, Yale-Waterbury, 2018-9
Dermatology Resident, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2019-

Member Emeritus, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer, NAQT, NHBB, IQBT

"The next generation will always surpass the previous one. It's one of the never-ending cycles in life."
User avatar
Sima Guang Hater
Auron
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Important Bird Area » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:04 pm

We do not plan to make that possible at the present time.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Sima Guang Hater » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:42 pm

Sima Guang Hater wrote:And is it still 2 seconds to answer?
Eric Mukherjee, MD PhD
Washburn Rural High School, 2005
Brown University, 2009
Medical Scientist Training Program, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 2018
Intern in Internal Medicine, Yale-Waterbury, 2018-9
Dermatology Resident, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2019-

Member Emeritus, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer, NAQT, NHBB, IQBT

"The next generation will always surpass the previous one. It's one of the never-ending cycles in life."
User avatar
Sima Guang Hater
Auron
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Important Bird Area » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:43 pm

Sima Guang Hater wrote:
Sima Guang Hater wrote:And is it still 2 seconds to answer?


Yes.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby jonpin » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:11 pm

IMPORTANT: High school players may not staff (or observe) SCTs. (NAQT is expanding the use of the Division II SCT set for spring-semester high school tournaments.)

Just for avoidance of doubt: this also applies to high school coaches, correct?
Jon Pinyan
Coach, Bergen County Academies (NJ); former player for BCA (2000-03) and WUSTL (2003-07)
HSQB forum mod, PACE member
Stat director for: NSC '13-'15; NHBB '13-'15; ACF '14, '17; NASAT '11

"A [...] wizard who controls the weather" - Jerry Vinokurov
User avatar
jonpin
Forums Staff: Moderator
 
Posts: 1967
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: BCA NJ / WUSTL MO / Hackensack NJ

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Periplus of the Erythraean Sea » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:13 pm

This qualification system looks good and is a very welcome change.
Will Alston
Bethesda Chevy Chase HS '12, Dartmouth '16
"...should be treated as the non-stakeholding troll he is" -Matt Weiner
User avatar
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea
Auron
 
Posts: 1590
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:53 pm
Location: Falls Church, VA

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Important Bird Area » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:32 pm

jonpin wrote:
IMPORTANT: High school players may not staff (or observe) SCTs. (NAQT is expanding the use of the Division II SCT set for spring-semester high school tournaments.)

Just for avoidance of doubt: this also applies to high school coaches, correct?


Correct.

(This one isn't a change and applied last year as well. If you have some kind of unusual situation, such as "I am a high school coach who is currently enrolled in college," please contact NAQT directly in advance of the SCT and we will sort out the fairest way to proceed.)
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby High Dependency Unit » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:45 pm

Important Bird Area wrote:
jonpin wrote:
IMPORTANT: High school players may not staff (or observe) SCTs. (NAQT is expanding the use of the Division II SCT set for spring-semester high school tournaments.)

Just for avoidance of doubt: this also applies to high school coaches, correct?


Correct.

(This one isn't a change and applied last year as well. If you have some kind of unusual situation, such as "I am a high school coach who is currently enrolled in college," please contact NAQT directly in advance of the SCT and we will sort out the fairest way to proceed.)


What does NAQT define as a "coach" here? I.e. are individuals who maintain consistent contact and involvement with a high school program a "coach?"
Michael Borecki
Middlesex Middle '13,
Darien (co-captain) '17,
Bowdoin College '21
NHBB Regional Coordinator
www.ctquizbowl.org
High Dependency Unit
Rikku
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Important Bird Area » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:35 pm

2017 in amusement parks wrote:
Important Bird Area wrote:
jonpin wrote:
IMPORTANT: High school players may not staff (or observe) SCTs. (NAQT is expanding the use of the Division II SCT set for spring-semester high school tournaments.)

Just for avoidance of doubt: this also applies to high school coaches, correct?


Correct.

(This one isn't a change and applied last year as well. If you have some kind of unusual situation, such as "I am a high school coach who is currently enrolled in college," please contact NAQT directly in advance of the SCT and we will sort out the fairest way to proceed.)


What does NAQT define as a "coach" here? I.e. are individuals who maintain consistent contact and involvement with a high school program a "coach?"


This will depend on the level of "involvement" we're talking about. In general, start with the basic principle of "do not reveal the content of uncleared packet sets" and let us know if you have any questions about a specific case.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby High Dependency Unit » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:56 pm

Important Bird Area wrote:
2017 in amusement parks wrote:
Important Bird Area wrote:
jonpin wrote:
IMPORTANT: High school players may not staff (or observe) SCTs. (NAQT is expanding the use of the Division II SCT set for spring-semester high school tournaments.)

Just for avoidance of doubt: this also applies to high school coaches, correct?


Correct.

(This one isn't a change and applied last year as well. If you have some kind of unusual situation, such as "I am a high school coach who is currently enrolled in college," please contact NAQT directly in advance of the SCT and we will sort out the fairest way to proceed.)


What does NAQT define as a "coach" here? I.e. are individuals who maintain consistent contact and involvement with a high school program a "coach?"


This will depend on the level of "involvement" we're talking about. In general, start with the basic principle of "do not reveal the content of uncleared packet sets" and let us know if you have any questions about a specific case.


Simple enough, thanks.
Michael Borecki
Middlesex Middle '13,
Darien (co-captain) '17,
Bowdoin College '21
NHBB Regional Coordinator
www.ctquizbowl.org
High Dependency Unit
Rikku
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Benin Rebirth Party » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:55 pm

Hi Jeff,

Last year about two weeks before ICT, you emailed my team asking if our D2 team could attend ICT. Due to the short notice, we declined the invitation, and also due to the short notice, we were informed that the players on the D2 SCT team would not have their D2 eligibility revoked unless we pulled through last minute and sent that team.

In addition, all players from four-year schools on teams that earn their school invitations to the ICT (in either division) will lose their eligibility for future years (even if the school declines the invitation or the school accepts but the player does not attend). This is true whether the team earned one of the 32 initial invitations or receives a later invitation due to another team declining.


Is there a codified rule for when last minute invitations don't count, or is it up to NAQT's discretion?

I am torn over hosts giving preference over SCT winners. In weak regions which normally qualified both a host and a winning team, the automatic qualifier is now given to the host as opposed to on the buzzer. Let's say every single postsecondary institution in Australia suddenly started playing quizbowl, but none of them would be top 20 in D-value. Geographic diversity is good but the one team you take from there is not the best team but the team that can scramble up the best hosting job. At a first glance, this seems counter-intuitive.

EDIT: I made a very meaning changing mistake in the original post.
Last edited by Benin Rebirth Party on Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joe Su
Lisgar 2012, McGill 2015, McGill 20--

FINALIST -- 2017 ILQBM MEME OF THE YEAR
User avatar
Benin Rebirth Party
Tidus
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Farhaven, Ontario

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Aaron's Rod » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:05 pm

Aaron Manby (ironmaster) wrote:Hi Jeff,

Last year about two weeks before ICT, you emailed my team asking if our D2 team could attend ICT. Due to the short notice, we declined the invitation, and also due to the short notice, we were informed that the players on the D2 SCT team would not have their D2 eligibility revoked had we pulled through last minute and sent that team.

In addition, all players from four-year schools on teams that earn their school invitations to the ICT (in either division) will lose their eligibility for future years (even if the school declines the invitation or the school accepts but the player does not attend). This is true whether the team earned one of the 32 initial invitations or receives a later invitation due to another team declining.


Is there a codified rule for when last minute invitations don't count, or is it up to NAQT's discretion?

That's interesting. My team was in the same situation in 2013 (was invited to ICT <36 hours before registration because another team had dropped out) and we attended and did end lose our eligibility. I would also be interested in hearing if there's a policy on this.

Aaron Manby (ironmaster) wrote:I am torn over hosts giving preference over SCT winners. In weak regions which normally qualified both a host and a winning team, the automatic qualifier is now given to the host as opposed to on the buzzer. Let's say every single postsecondary institution in Australia suddenly started playing quizbowl, but none of them would be top 20 in D-value. Geographic diversity is good but the one team you take from there is not the best team but the team that can scramble up the best hosting job. At a first glance, this seems counter-intuitive.

One way to combat this may be by slightly devaluing strength of schedule, if there end up being small changes in D-value anyways.
Alex D.
Lawrence University B.A., B.Mus. '16 // DePaul University M.S. '18
Director of Communications, PACE // Provisional Member, ACF // Writer, NAQT
Professional 4th Scorer, Side Event-Winning Teams

"The Twin Cities are Minneapolis and Chicago." --Rob Carson
User avatar
Aaron's Rod
Sec. of Cursed Images, Chicago SJW Cabal
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:29 pm

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Benin Rebirth Party » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:09 pm

Oh I'm so sorry I didn't type the right thing - the team would lose eligibility if they went, but if they didn't they would keep the eligibility despite having been invited.
Joe Su
Lisgar 2012, McGill 2015, McGill 20--

FINALIST -- 2017 ILQBM MEME OF THE YEAR
User avatar
Benin Rebirth Party
Tidus
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Farhaven, Ontario

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Important Bird Area » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:44 pm

Aaron Manby (ironmaster) wrote:Is there a codified rule for when last minute invitations don't count, or is it up to NAQT's discretion?


This is at our discretion for invitations relatively close to the date of the ICT itself. Note that we are talking about teams who are unable to attend the ICT on short notice; players who actually play the ICT (in either division) do lose their Division II eligibility.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby AKKOLADE » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:42 pm

Important Bird Area wrote:We do not plan to make that possible at the present time.

I really wish you would reconsider. This weekend, I'm going to have to read off a paper packet and use an electronic scoresheet, which is going to be very annoying.
Fred Morlan
PACE Vice President of Outreach, 2017-18
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, PACE member (former President and At Large member of Board), NAQT writer (former subject editor), HSAPQ freelance writer, former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT Tournament Director
User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
 
Posts: 14817
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) » Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:41 pm

Thank you for doing this, it is really fantastic to see that the most important quizbowl organization is willing to listen to community input and be willing to embrace change if they think it's for the better. Thank you for being such a positive force in the world, even if it's just for this niche event, NAQT has really stunned me with its track record of improvement over the last decade.

I am curious about the electronic packets, do you think there is a method of encryption that could make NAQT more comfortable with online distribution? Or do you think that barring some revolutionary paradigm shift in computer science, online quizbowl packet distribution will always be far too great a risk of piracy for you to be willing to take that risk?
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White
User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
 
Posts: 5607
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby AKKOLADE » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:02 am

AKKOLADE wrote:
Important Bird Area wrote:We do not plan to make that possible at the present time.

I really wish you would reconsider. This weekend, I'm going to have to read off a paper packet and use an electronic scoresheet, which is going to be very annoying.

Also, a program that is not plugged into the circuit tried to register last night for this novice mirror. UK wasn't able to accept them because they did not have time to print another set of packets to facilitate the additional room that would be needed.
Fred Morlan
PACE Vice President of Outreach, 2017-18
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, PACE member (former President and At Large member of Board), NAQT writer (former subject editor), HSAPQ freelance writer, former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT Tournament Director
User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
 
Posts: 14817
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Important Bird Area » Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:56 pm

Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) wrote:I am curious about the electronic packets, do you think there is a method of encryption that could make NAQT more comfortable with online distribution? Or do you think that barring some revolutionary paradigm shift in computer science, online quizbowl packet distribution will always be far too great a risk of piracy for you to be willing to take that risk?


I think it's worth separating "online distribution" into two different categories for purposes of this discussion.

Electronic distribution of practice questions is something that we would eventually like to make possible. This isn't going to happen right away, but it's on our agenda as something we would like to build the infrastructure for in future years.

We have no current plans for electronic distribution of tournament questions; as a general policy, we believe that the risks to the security of future tournaments are simply too great.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby CPiGuy » Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:12 pm

Important Bird Area wrote:We have no current plans for electronic distribution of tournament questions; as a general policy, we believe that the risks to the security of future tournaments are simply too great.


What about a system where the packets are hosted electronically on NAQT's website, and NAQT distributes passcodes to tournament directors (with a different one for each tournament) that they can use to access the packets electronically? It seems to me that this would be at least as secure as physically sending copies of the packets, and potentially more so (since leaving an extra packet lying around is a thing that could happen, but TDs / moderators would probably have to intentionally distribute the passcodes)?
Conor Thompson
Bangor HS (Maine) '16
Michigan '20
User avatar
CPiGuy
Rikku
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:19 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby UlyssesInvictus » Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:44 pm

CPiGuy wrote:
Important Bird Area wrote:We have no current plans for electronic distribution of tournament questions; as a general policy, we believe that the risks to the security of future tournaments are simply too great.


What about a system where the packets are hosted electronically on NAQT's website, and NAQT distributes passcodes to tournament directors (with a different one for each tournament) that they can use to access the packets electronically? It seems to me that this would be at least as secure as physically sending copies of the packets, and potentially more so (since leaving an extra packet lying around is a thing that could happen, but TDs / moderators would probably have to intentionally distribute the passcodes)?


Something like this came to my mind too, but someone could always just download the PDF from the client (or, if NAQT tried to just serve raw HTML instead, then you could just download the HTML >.>).

It seems like the things that precisely make paper packets more unwieldy than electronic ones are also the things that make "stealing" paper packets difficult to the point of no one wanting to bother.
Raynor Kuang
quizdb.org
Harvard 2017, TJHSST 2013
Ex-Writer for NAQT
User avatar
UlyssesInvictus
Tidus
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:38 pm

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Cody » Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:48 pm

The problem of secure electronic distribution (or hosting) of PDFs has been solved for a long time (all the online code books, for instance). Sure, they can always be defeated on some level, but it's ridiculously easy to make an online system that's harder to defeat than scanning a set or taking a picture of packets.

There will always be a risk of cheating, even with paper packets.
Cody Voight, VCU ‘14. I write lots of science and am an electrical engineer.
VCU Tournament Director ‘13-‘17. HSAPQ President ‘15-16.
Hero of Socialist Quizbowl Labor (NSC ‘14). “esteemed colleague” of Snap Wexley, ca. 2016. Stats Hero (Nats ‘16).
Quizbowl at VCU
User avatar
Cody
2008-09 Male Athlete of the Year
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:57 am
Location: Richmond

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby jonah » Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:03 pm

While suggested electronic solutions definitely have some advantages over our current procedures, we feel that overall they would end up being worse.

Pros of electronic tournament-question distribution:
  • Reduced environmental impact
  • Improved convenience and reduced cost to many (but not necessarily all) tournament directors

Cons thereof:
  • Significant setup cost and time for any solution involving DRM, watermarking, or any other situation in which different tournaments get different files. Compare with our current setup, in which we make a PDF once (unless and until we find an erratum significant enough that it requires regeneration), carefully check it to make sure it didn't get mangled, then send it to FedEx Office as many times as necessary. The proferred electronic solutions seem to require a large initial investment followed by increased ongoing administrative time on our end.
  • No clear way to ensure that teams who attended (and the host) can keep copies of the questions, but can't pass them on to others. (This is the sort of problem that no DRM I am aware of really does a good job with, and it's generally believed that perfect DRM is impossible.)
  • Similarly, no clear way to ensure that moderators don't have access to the questions after the tournament (unless they're entitled to).
  • Might require that hosts use particular software (such as a specific minimum version of Adobe Reader). Note that many hosts use locked-down school computers such that we can't expect them to have anything but the barest minimum requirements.
  • General brittleness to technological change. Paper is vulnerable to being destroyed or lost by human error, but from a technical perspective, it's an excellent storage medium over the time scales we're talking about. On the other hand, electronic files are vulnerable to advances in technology making it difficult or impossible to open them even just a couple of years later. (Case in point: the SQBS help file.) A plain PDF would probably be fine, but anything fancier — like a PDF with DRM — is risky.
  • Unknown unknowns. We feel we understand the drawbacks of our current system well. A major change would likely introduce anticipated new problems that we might be ill-equipped to deal with.
Last edited by jonah on Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jonah Greenthal
National Academic Quiz Tournaments
jonah
Auron
 
Posts: 2223
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:51 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby cchiego » Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:52 pm

jonah wrote:No clear way to ensure that teams who attended (and the host) can keep copies of the questions, but can't pass them on to others. (This is the sort of problem that no DRM I am aware of really does a good job with, and it's generally believed that perfect DRM is impossible.)

Can it then be the official policy of NAQT that hosts must provide copies of question sets used at the tournament to teams? It seems silly for a team to play on a set at a tournament and then be told they have to pay $35.00 to buy that set if they want to review the questions and use it for practice. This is not a rhetorical question either--it's happening right now.

jonah wrote:General brittleness to technological change. Paper is vulnerable to being destroyed or lost by human error, but from a technical perspective, it's an excellent storage medium over the time scales we're talking about. On the other hand, electronic files are vulnerable to advances in technology making it difficult or impossible to open them even just a couple of years later. (Case in point: the SQBS help file.) A plain PDF would probably be fine, but anything fancier — like a PDF with DRM — is risky.

Gotta disagree here, especially for college programs. A Google Drive or some kind of online access to a NAQT set database would be much more long-lasting than trying to keep track of paper files as most college teams tend to turn over members fairly rapidly and not many have a permanent storage space accessible to all on the team (and if they do, they still might have all their packets thrown out by an over-zealous cleaner, as happened to UGA's archive of packets from 1989 onward in 2006). All it takes is one link in the chain to flake and a team could be left without any paper packets through no fault of the current team members themselves. I would hope that at least in that kind of case NAQT would work with any "revived" team members to help sort out and acquire their licensed packets.
Chris C.
UGA '09, UCSD '12, UPenn '(?)
Greater Pennsylvania QuizBowl
http://gpqb.wordpress.com
User avatar
cchiego
Yuna
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:14 pm

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Sima Guang Hater » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:23 pm

Here's another question; will NAQT have an official policy on employees or contractors who threaten customers?
Eric Mukherjee, MD PhD
Washburn Rural High School, 2005
Brown University, 2009
Medical Scientist Training Program, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 2018
Intern in Internal Medicine, Yale-Waterbury, 2018-9
Dermatology Resident, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2019-

Member Emeritus, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer, NAQT, NHBB, IQBT

"The next generation will always surpass the previous one. It's one of the never-ending cycles in life."
User avatar
Sima Guang Hater
Auron
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Cody » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:28 pm

A secure electronic hosting system run by NAQT is absolutely do-able, and obviates most of the cons. There's no need for DRM, as such, when you host the content in such a way that it is very hard to figure out how to download / copy / etc. Yes, it requires an Internet connection, but it's way better than the current situation!

The one con it doesn't is the cost of setting up such a system -- because NAQT has been foisting the cost of distribution off on hosts even as all other vendors have removed such barriers. Hmmm..
Cody Voight, VCU ‘14. I write lots of science and am an electrical engineer.
VCU Tournament Director ‘13-‘17. HSAPQ President ‘15-16.
Hero of Socialist Quizbowl Labor (NSC ‘14). “esteemed colleague” of Snap Wexley, ca. 2016. Stats Hero (Nats ‘16).
Quizbowl at VCU
User avatar
Cody
2008-09 Male Athlete of the Year
 
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:57 am
Location: Richmond

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Important Bird Area » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:10 pm

Cody wrote:A secure electronic hosting system run by NAQT is absolutely do-able, and obviates most of the cons. There's no need for DRM, as such, when you host the content in such a way that it is very hard to figure out how to download / copy / etc. Yes, it requires an Internet connection, but it's way better than the current situation!

The one con it doesn't is the cost of setting up such a system -- because NAQT has been foisting the cost of distribution off on hosts even as all other vendors have removed such barriers. Hmmm..


One major downside of this plan is that it would require NAQT's hypothetical secure electronic hosting system to be 100% reliable for very long periods of time (lest entire tournaments collapse because hosts and moderators can't access the system). This is simply not viable given our current technical capacity (and not likely to be viable in the near-term future).
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby jonah » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:15 pm

cchiego wrote:
jonah wrote:General brittleness to technological change. Paper is vulnerable to being destroyed or lost by human error, but from a technical perspective, it's an excellent storage medium over the time scales we're talking about. On the other hand, electronic files are vulnerable to advances in technology making it difficult or impossible to open them even just a couple of years later. (Case in point: the SQBS help file.) A plain PDF would probably be fine, but anything fancier — like a PDF with DRM — is risky.

Gotta disagree here, especially for college programs. A Google Drive or some kind of online access to a NAQT set database would be much more long-lasting than trying to keep track of paper files as most college teams tend to turn over members fairly rapidly and not many have a permanent storage space accessible to all on the team (and if they do, they still might have all their packets thrown out by an over-zealous cleaner, as happened to UGA's archive of packets from 1989 onward in 2006). All it takes is one link in the chain to flake and a team could be left without any paper packets through no fault of the current team members themselves. I would hope that at least in that kind of case NAQT would work with any "revived" team members to help sort out and acquire their licensed packets.
Storing files in Google Drive (etc.) doesn't do any good if the software to open them won't run on computers in 2021, or is inordinately difficult to make run, etc. Or NAQT or the DRM provider could go out of business and the authentication servers' unavailability would mean the files would be unusable. This sort of stuff happens all the time with DRM.

It's true that packets can be lost or destroyed, and that sucks. But isolated incidents of that are a different matter from an entire category of files all across the country/world becoming useless.
Jonah Greenthal
National Academic Quiz Tournaments
jonah
Auron
 
Posts: 2223
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:51 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby jonpin » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:54 pm

jonah wrote:While suggested electronic solutions definitely have some advantages over our current procedures, we feel that overall they would end up being worse.

Pros of electronic tournament-question distribution:
  • Improved convenience and reduced cost to many (but not necessarily all) tournament directors

I would argue that it is, in fact all tournament directors. Even those who don't incur cost to copy the packets are paying Fedex/UPS the printing and delivery charge (one could argue that NAQT is paying this; I would argue that TDs are obviously paying this via the licensing fee). And as I've noted, this money leaves the QB economy forever.

Cons thereof:
[*] No clear way to ensure that teams who attended (and the host) can keep copies of the questions, but can't pass them on to others. (This is the sort of problem that no DRM I am aware of really does a good job with, and it's generally believed that perfect DRM is impossible.)

To contrast with paper packets, where it is literally impossible for you to know if a team with a paper copy passes them on. If you say it's harder to pass along paper copies than PDFs, I would counter by saying scanners exist, but more importantly: if you're working on the assumption there are bad actors, it seems silly to assume that bad actors are lazy.

[*] Might require that hosts use particular software (such as a specific minimum version of Adobe Reader). Note that many hosts use locked-down school computers such that we can't expect them to have anything but the barest minimum requirements.
[*] General brittleness to technological change. Paper is vulnerable to being destroyed or lost by human error, but from a technical perspective, it's an excellent storage medium over the time scales we're talking about. On the other hand, electronic files are vulnerable to advances in technology making it difficult or impossible to open them even just a couple of years later. (Case in point: the SQBS help file.) A plain PDF would probably be fine, but anything fancier — like a PDF with DRM — is risky.

But sending a host computerized packets is giving them the choice to run an electronic tournament or a paper tournament. To argue that "PDFs could be obsolete in five years" is a more likely and substantial problem than "entire college teams turn over every four years and packets are not infrequently lost in this process" seems wrongheaded to me.
Jon Pinyan
Coach, Bergen County Academies (NJ); former player for BCA (2000-03) and WUSTL (2003-07)
HSQB forum mod, PACE member
Stat director for: NSC '13-'15; NHBB '13-'15; ACF '14, '17; NASAT '11

"A [...] wizard who controls the weather" - Jerry Vinokurov
User avatar
jonpin
Forums Staff: Moderator
 
Posts: 1967
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: BCA NJ / WUSTL MO / Hackensack NJ

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:30 am

Thank you for your responses Jeff and Jonah.

I think that hearing that NAQT is getting rid of the clock for sectionals mixed with saying that NAQT is looking into a way to electronically distribute packets for previous, but not active, sets is so much positive news that I'm a little surprised to see so much nitpicking about their tournament hosting qualms. I get it, the only major cheating that has ever happened in quizbowl came from vulnerabilities in electronics, not because of paper copies, so my phrasing of the question was entirely to give NAQT the leeway to say "no, this is simply off the table" and answer that question once and for all, which they did and I think we can now move on. Hosting with paper copies is, in my experience, not a huge cost - after all, most high schools seem to have have unlimited copying, and I've never been appalled at a bill from Kinko's or whatever. I also think we're allowing some of the points Jonah raised to distract us a little - it's irrelevant whether a secure format being used actively at a tournament in 2017 can't open in Google docs in a decade, because NAQT is saying that they are working to make electronic distribution of sets possible, so presumably by 2027 it would be distributed in a more standard file format with less risk for obsolescence. Teams with access to an electronic archive that NAQT says it's trying to make available (in a limited form) could presumably choose between whether they want paper or digital files.

I do hope that, once this infrastructure is in place, NAQT would be willing to retroactively go through their statistics and allow schools to have access to sets that they played in the past without having to pay for them. This seems like it would also solve many of the niggling points in the discussion here.
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White
User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
 
Posts: 5607
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:46 am

Of course I don't think this means we shouldn't keep thinking creatively about solutions to this problem - it is, after all, unfortunate that some isolated negative effects occur like UK having to turn a team away. But, it's just a fact that the overwhelming majority of quizbowl tournaments throughout history used paper packets, and in absolute terms that is still the case today when you look at the standard operating procedure of most high school and middle school events. I think it's kind of surprising that so many people (who operate in the rather technologically advanced, and much smaller college circuit) are this hung up on such a standard, obviously defensible, policy that quizbowl has had as a fundamental detail of the game since it was invented.
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White
User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
 
Posts: 5607
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby vinteuil » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:28 am

Just to piggyback off a sentiment Charlie expressed (and one I've seen a lot elsewhere): the timing changes at SCT [EDIT: and the new bid system!!] are extremely positive news, and I'm really happy about them, and what they show about NAQT's commitment to its players. I too would prefer electronic distribution of packets, but I don't want it to feel like the player base is impossible to please when NAQT has already made a big step in the right direction.
Last edited by vinteuil on Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jacob Reed
Yale '17, '19
East Chapel Hill '13
"...distant bayings from the musicological mafia"―Denis Stevens
User avatar
vinteuil
Auron
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:31 pm

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Bensonfan23 » Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:26 pm

I also just wanted to jump in and say thanks for the positive changes regarding ICT qualifying bids, and the untimed SCT rounds. Especially as one of the main people who complained about the bid issues in particular, these are great improvements.
Ryan Humphrey
UT Austin (Cell & Developmental PhD Program, 2018-?)
Duke University (Biology and History, Class of 2018)
George Washington High School (WV) Class of 14
PACE Member.
Bensonfan23
Lulu
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 7:50 pm

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby AKKOLADE » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:16 pm

I certainly don't want to come off as dismissive of the positive aspects of NAQT's announcement. The removal of the clock from SCT sites is a very good move, as is the changes to the number of bids given. These are both clearly positives for the game and I applaud them for making them.

That said, I feel like the usage of electronic vs paper questions is a subject worth discussing further and the negatives of distributing exclusively paper packets is something that came up for me this past weekend. On top of what I previously mentioned, there was a round that was missing half of its bonuses. It appears those questions just weren't sent to the UK team. This is another issue that could have been resolved by NAQT being open to sending an electronic copy of the questions to hosts.
Fred Morlan
PACE Vice President of Outreach, 2017-18
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, PACE member (former President and At Large member of Board), NAQT writer (former subject editor), HSAPQ freelance writer, former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT Tournament Director
User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
 
Posts: 14817
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby ValenciaQBowl » Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:54 am

So will CC SCT also move to untimed, 11-question halves? And will CCCT be timed with 11-minute halves?
Chris Borglum
Valencia College Grand Poobah
User avatar
ValenciaQBowl
Auron
 
Posts: 2272
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby ValenciaQBowl » Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:33 pm

Hmm, did the above question seem rhetorical? Or is the answer obvious, but I missed it?
Chris Borglum
Valencia College Grand Poobah
User avatar
ValenciaQBowl
Auron
 
Posts: 2272
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Important Bird Area » Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:22 pm

Both CC SCT and CCCT will remain timed tournaments for spring 2018. We have not yet decided on the length of halves at the 2018 CCCT.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Important Bird Area » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:42 pm

Important Bird Area wrote:2018 ICT qualification

This is a substantial set of changes to our ICT qualification system. The centerpiece is a guarantee that the top 20 teams by D-value will get the first 20 invitations to the 2018 ICT.

We expect some minor changes to how D-values are calculated so that the statistic works better within this system; we'll announce those well in advance of the 2018 SCT.


This is a quick reminder about these qualification changes. Under the system we are now using, it is possible that the champion of an SCT will not qualify for ICT. Teams should wait for a formal ICT invitation directly from NAQT before booking travel or lodging for the 2018 ICT.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby ValenciaQBowl » Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:11 pm

Both CC SCT and CCCT will remain timed tournaments for spring 2018. We have not yet decided on the length of halves at the 2018 CCCT.


So did y'all ever decide how long halves will be for CCCT considering, you know, it's happening in 12 days?

PS--The correct answer is 11 minutes.
Chris Borglum
Valencia College Grand Poobah
User avatar
ValenciaQBowl
Auron
 
Posts: 2272
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby Important Bird Area » Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:34 pm

ValenciaQBowl wrote:
Both CC SCT and CCCT will remain timed tournaments for spring 2018. We have not yet decided on the length of halves at the 2018 CCCT.


So did y'all ever decide how long halves will be for CCCT considering, you know, it's happening in 12 days?


The 2018 CCCT will use 10-minute halves.

(For the record, the 2018 CCCT will take place March 2-3 at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare, not 12 days from now.)
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
 
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: SCT and ICT policies for 2018

Postby ValenciaQBowl » Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:18 pm

My days last 48 hours, though.

But seriously, you'll get more teams hearing 24 questions with 11-minute halves, and they'd add less than a half hour to the tournament.
Chris Borglum
Valencia College Grand Poobah
User avatar
ValenciaQBowl
Auron
 
Posts: 2272
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Orlando, Florida


Return to Collegiate Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Youngster Joey and 3 guests