NAQT's agreement with ACUI

[bt_green_warbler]

I'd like to go ahead and announce that NAQT has signed a partnership agreement with ACUI.

Some of the details are still being negotiated; this thread is a placeholder until we can make those details public. (I hope that will happen in the very near future.)

I'm preparing a draft FAQ document on the subject "what will this agreement mean for circuit quizbowl teams?"

[bt_green_warbler]

In November 2009 NAQT and the Association of College Unions International established a strategic partnership to return quiz bowl to ACUI's portfolio of student activities and to increase participation in NAQT's collegiate tournaments. Both parties want to see more students playing quiz bowl and look forward to working together to help new teams get started, improve themselves, and attend tournaments. Officially, this will be the ACUI-NAQT Quiz Bowl — A Collegiate Academic Challenge Program. Informally, of course, it will continue to be "quiz bowl."

The strategic partnership agreement does not, however, cover every policy detail; most of those are still under discussion, but we hope to come to a final agreement by December 1 so we can let teams and advisers know exactly how this year's championship events will work. The partnership does, however, provide a high-level outline of goals, ideals, and responsibilities.

Under the terms of the agreement, NAQT has the responsibility for developing questions, establishing rules of play, determining qualification criteria, structuring tournaments, and making other decisions that directly affect gameplay. ACUI and NAQT will share the responsibility for establishing eligibility guidelines. ACUI will have the primary responsibility for developing marketing materials and bringing the program to the attention of student activities personnel.

Full announcement

[bt_green_warbler]

I'll take questions in this thread, and I will be in the available in the irc for discussion later tonight.

Would one of the mods mind stickying this thread?

[cornfused]

Region Eight is Chicago metro, Wisconsin, and the UP... so does that mean that Chicago will now automatically host SCT every year?

Also, the four (five?) best teams in Region Eight may actually all go to Chicago...

[bt_green_warbler]

Will this partnership force people to attend SCT only in their ACUI region? If so, there wouldn't be a Canadian tournament

Teams will be able to choose between 1) the sectional in their ACUI region or 2) the sectional geographically closest to their university. Exceptions to the above will be reviewed by a committee to be established by NAQT and ACUI. (We anticipate that we would usually grant exceptions of the form "here is a documented reason why this extra travel would actually save our club money.")

As Brian noted in the other thread, the ACUI regional structure covers Canada, so this will have no effect on the presence or absence of Canadian SCT hosts.

[cornfused]

Minnesota, Chicago, Illinois, and Missouri are all in four different regions, which separates the big Midwest powers (with the exception of Iowa-Minnesota and Ohio State-schools in Michigan) into different qualifying regions. The only real bunching of power schools happens in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, which is really unavoidable without a deliberate gerrymander.

Which is nice. Are we to stay under impression that the S-value will still be in charge and that the only real effect the new regions will have will be on hosting and autobids?

[bt_green_warbler]

Region Eight is Chicago metro, Wisconsin, and the UP... so does that mean that Chicago will now automatically host SCT every year?

We expect that Chicago will certainly host sometimes, but we would also expect additional bids from ACUI hosts in region eight.

Entities, including ACUI Regions, can bid for [SCT] ... like all tournaments, they will be expected to make use of experienced local staff and experienced moderators brought by teams.

[cornfused]

--double post, ignore this--

[bt_green_warbler]

Are we to stay under impression that the S-value will still be in charge and that the only real effect the new regions will have will be on hosting and autobids?

Yes, the S-value will remain:

Sectional policy is anticipated to remain very similar in terms of [other stuff and] the existence of S-values for inviting non-champions

but note that we are (independently) revising the S-value for the 2010 SCT. (This has been on the back burner in part because of the ACUI negotiations, but it will happen before SCT.)

[cornfused]

Region Eight is Chicago metro, Wisconsin, and the UP... so does that mean that Chicago will now automatically host SCT every year?

We expect that Chicago will certainly host sometimes, but we would also expect additional bids from ACUI hosts in region eight.

Entities, including ACUI Regions, can bid for [SCT] ... like all tournaments, they will be expected to make use of experienced local staff and experienced moderators brought by teams.

While I had forgot about Northwestern, who also has SCT-hosting capability, Does that mean that we can expect to see an SCT or two at a school with no quizbowl program but ACUI membership?

[bt_green_warbler]

Does that mean that we can expect to see an SCT or two at a school with no quizbowl program but ACUI membership?

Yes.

[myamphigory]

Is this expected to affect the cost of attending the SCT or the ICT? Also, will funds from hosting SCTs go to the quizbowl program hosting the event or to ACUI/the student union/some other body?

[bt_green_warbler]

Is this expected to affect the cost of attending the SCT or the ICT?

Clearly the cost may change from year to year, but the partnership with ACUI is not changing the cost this year and we have not had discussions about changing it in the future.

Also, will funds from hosting SCTs go to the quizbowl program hosting the event or to ACUI/the student union/some other body?

SCT profits go to whichever entity bids to host it.

I assume that we will start seeing "combined bids" from Unions + Teams at some point; in that case, it's their responsibility to decide how to divide up the money.

[mhayes]

I like the idea of encouraging ACUI schools without quiz bowl clubs to establish them. Are there any incentives for establishing clubs for schools without them?

[Charbroil]

How will this arrangement affect the awarding of autobids to teams hosting SCT? Will those teams still get those bids?

[Morraine Man]

Is there anything in place to discourage student unions from setting up quizbowl clubs at schools that already have an independent circuit team?

[mhayes]

Is there anything in place to discourage student unions from setting up quizbowl clubs at schools that already have an independent circuit team?

Usually schools don't allow this to happen. Two clubs generally can't have duplicate purposes, and the existing club gets priority.

[Morraine Man]

Is there anything in place to discourage student unions from setting up quizbowl clubs at schools that already have an independent circuit team?

Usually schools don't allow this to happen. Two clubs generally can't have duplicate purposes, and the existing club gets priority.

Let's look at two scenarios here:

(1) A group of students at a school don't form an official club, but play quizbowl together under that school's name
(2) A club at a school, duly founded and registered, does not recognize NAQT as legitimate quizbowl and thus does not participate in SCT, ICT, or any other NAQT event. A student union organizes a separate club for the purpose of playing NAQT.

[bt_green_warbler]

How will this arrangement affect the awarding of autobids to teams hosting SCT? Will those teams still get those bids?

Yes.

[Theory Of The Leisure Flask]

How will this arrangement affect the awarding of autobids to teams hosting SCT? Will those teams still get those bids?

Yes.

So, hypothetically, if you had 15 regions, all of which qualified a separate host (taking their bid in Div I), champion, and UG champion, that's 45 teams right there- larger than the entire Div I field before you even begin to think about wildcards.

[mhayes]

Is there anything in place to discourage student unions from setting up quizbowl clubs at schools that already have an independent circuit team?

Usually schools don't allow this to happen. Two clubs generally can't have duplicate purposes, and the existing club gets priority.

Let's look at two scenarios here:

(1) A group of students at a school don't form an official club, but play quizbowl together under that school's name
(2) A club at a school, duly founded and registered, does not recognize NAQT as legitimate quizbowl and thus does not participate in SCT, ICT, or any other NAQT event. A student union organizes a separate club for the purpose of playing NAQT.

When I founded ULL's club in '01, we couldn't even use our school's name at tournaments until we were established as a club, so the students in scenario 1 would have to become official, most likely.

Scenario 2 is a little trickier. I'm interested to hear NAQT's opinion on this.

[bt_green_warbler]

I like the idea of encouraging ACUI schools without quiz bowl clubs to establish them. Are there any incentives for establishing clubs for schools without them?

We have nothing specific in mind, other than the obvious that both NAQT and ACUI believe that playing quizbowl is better than not playing quizbowl.

[bt_green_warbler]

(2) A club at a school, duly founded and registered, does not recognize NAQT as legitimate quizbowl and thus does not participate in SCT, ICT, or any other NAQT event. A student union organizes a separate club for the purpose of playing NAQT.

When I founded ULL's club in '01, we couldn't even use our school's name at tournaments until we were established as a club, so the students in scenario 1 would have to become official, most likely.

Scenario 2 is a little trickier. I'm interested to hear NAQT's opinion on this.

Warning: my opinion, not NAQT's. (I've written to R. asking for clarification on some of this stuff. And a fair amount of this is covered by the sentence "The strategic partnership agreement does not, however, cover every policy detail; most of those are still under discussion, but we hope to come to a final agreement by December 1 so we can let teams and advisers know exactly how this year's championship events will work" in our announcement.)

I think what would happen here is this: you would see two student groups:

1. The student union-organized club would play SCT and ICT

2. The other club would play non-NAQT circuit tournaments

Presumably they wouldn't interfere with each other (and we would hope that, for instance, they could agree to, say, moderate at each other's tournaments!). Perhaps the student union would object to having two quizbowlish clubs at one university? But I think that would be a matter for the administration of each campus and not something NAQT would get involved in.

[bt_green_warbler]

So, hypothetically, if you had 15 regions, all of which qualified a separate host (taking their bid in Div I), champion, and UG champion, that's 45 teams right there- larger than the entire Div I field before you even begin to think about wildcards.

You know, this could have happened already: we had 12 SCTs last year and if they all generated three autobids we would have overrun the 32-team ICT field.

I have no idea what our policy is on this; let me ask R.

[OntarioQuizzer]

I realize that ACUI's regional system covers Canada; however, there are major issues with this - namely, our circuit is split between Regions 2 and 7. The western half of the circuit is in Region 7, and the eastern half is in Region 2.

Additionally, the WHTI makes it significantly more difficult for cross-border travel to take place to quiz bowl events, making it much more difficult for Canadians to participate if we are required to compete in the United States.

Can we get a guarantee from NAQT that a Sectional will take place in Canada, as has happened over the past number of years?

[Theory Of The Leisure Flask]

So, hypothetically, if you had 15 regions, all of which qualified a separate host (taking their bid in Div I), champion, and UG champion, that's 45 teams right there- larger than the entire Div I field before you even begin to think about wildcards.

You know, this could have happened already: we had 12 SCTs last year and if they all generated three autobids we would have overrun the 32-team ICT field.

I have no idea what our policy is on this; let me ask R.

True; it does seem like it will become more likely now, though, especially after a couple of years of non-circuit teams filtering into Div I.

The one thing I would question is, if an SCT is run by ACUI people (without the involvement of a student club), whether it makes sense for that school to receive an autobid.

[bt_green_warbler]

Is there anything in place to discourage student unions from setting up quizbowl clubs at schools that already have an independent circuit team?

R. writes:

"I'm open to the idea that we could have teams from multiple organizations at the same school, but I'd really like to think that quiz bowl is not so divisive that administrators and players at the same school couldn't get on the same page at least far enough to start
a club."

[bt_green_warbler]

So, hypothetically, if you had 15 regions, all of which qualified a separate host (taking their bid in Div I), champion, and UG champion, that's 45 teams right there- larger than the entire Div I field before you even begin to think about wildcards.

R. writes:

"Yes, this has been a hypothetical problem for years; I'm not expecting it to become an actual problem this year due to hosts taking DII bids and some undergraduate titles going unclaimed.

If it does come to pass, we'll suck it up and expand the field."

if an SCT is run by ACUI people (without the involvement of a student club), whether it makes sense for that school to receive an autobid.

This is still under discussion.

[Bentley Like Beckham]

Are timing rules going to be changed for SCTs hosted by ACUI people? I don't have high confidence that some random student union official can read a packet of 24 questions in 20 minutes.

In general this announcement seems pretty good considering what's been the policy in the past with ACUI. My main concern is that in regions with established circuits there is going to be some changes for the worse in how SCTs are run, and there will definitely be changes for the worse in the cost play these tournaments and the amount of money schools hosting these tournaments will make.

[bt_green_warbler]

there will definitely be changes for the worse in the cost play these tournaments and the amount of money schools hosting these tournaments will make.

Like I said above: "the partnership with ACUI is not changing the cost this year and we have not had discussions about changing it in the future."

If your club wants to make money hosting SCT, please bid to host SCT! (Keep in mind that we are going to have more SCTs to host: we don't anticipate that we will see a decline in circuit bids to host sectionals.)

[bt_green_warbler]

I realize that ACUI's regional system covers Canada; however, there are major issues with this - namely, our circuit is split between Regions 2 and 7. The western half of the circuit is in Region 7, and the eastern half is in Region 2.

Additionally, the WHTI makes it significantly more difficult for cross-border travel to take place to quiz bowl events, making it much more difficult for Canadians to participate if we are required to compete in the United States.

Can we get a guarantee from NAQT that a Sectional will take place in Canada, as has happened over the past number of years?

R. writes:

"There will be an (Eastern) Canadian SCT this year; NAQT is aware of this issue and will give it strong consideration during the bidding process in future years."

[bt_green_warbler]

Are timing rules going to be changed for SCTs hosted by ACUI people? I don't have high confidence that some random student union official can read a packet of 24 questions in 20 minutes.

We're not planning on changing the timing rules.

[bsmith]

It is very likely that Ottawa will bid for the 2011 SCT (we didn't bid this year because of staffing and room reservation concerns). Disregarding the debate of whether it would be a "Canadian" or a "Region 2" SCT, what effect would Ottawa's non-membership in ACUI have on things? Would an inexperienced (but ACUI-affiliated) host take preference over an experienced (non-member) host?

[Matt Weiner]

I think what would happen here is this: you would see two student groups:

1. The student union-organized club would play SCT and ICT

2. The other club would play non-NAQT circuit tournaments

Presumably they wouldn't interfere with each other (and we would hope that, for instance, they could agree to, say, moderate at each other's tournaments!). Perhaps the student union would object to having two quizbowlish clubs at one university? But I think that would be a matter for the administration of each campus and not something NAQT would get involved in.

I don't think a club that wants to be the second on-campus club for a particular activity has any chance of surviving against an initiative backed by ACUI and the student union. I'd rather NAQT continue its recent "not competing with independent quizbowl" policy and do what it can to avoid such a scenario as the above.

Also, it would be great if the http://naqt.com/articles/acui-partnership.html page told people about "organizing tournaments" held on actual college questions, and also about the existence of non-NAQT tournaments. This partnership sounds like a potentially fruitful way to recruit hundreds of new teams into collegiate quizbowl, so let's get NAQT and the larger community working together on that goal rather than on creating teams who only play DII Sectionals and high school questions.

Generally, I'm happy that Jeff is answering questions about this promptly, and mostly in a way that eases the obvious concerns that people have with the organization that used to be the right arm of College Bowl. I'm told VCU's club officers are meeting with the campus's ACUI representative soon to talk about the future, and I think an enormous amount of good can come out of this, so there's no reason not to avoid the few potholes that come up.

[mhayes]

let's get NAQT and the larger community working together on that goal rather than on creating teams who only play DII Sectionals and high school questions.

I agree, but this has been a problem for years. I know of clubs/teams that have essentially disappeared since winning DII sectionals. Newer clubs may be especially turned off by questions whose difficulty is on par with ACF Regionals, for example.

[Captain Sinico]

I have a comment rather than a question. I hope that NAQT will leverage its ACUI contracts to get college unions working with circuit teams (especially those that already exist, but also potential new ones.) I say this because during Illinois' union's foray into sanctioning quizbowl, I failed in my very frustrating attempts to effect a satisfactory level of cooperation, in spite of the two organizations clearly having a great deal to offer one another (tournament running and general quizbowl experience on the one hand, financial and other resources on the other.) I believe that this was and is so because unions are, as a tendency, very bureaucratic (and therefore oligarchic) and wary of outsiders on the one hand and because the union's quizbowl sources weren't telling them "these are people who know what they're doing who can help you" on the other (knowing CBI, they were probably saying something along the lines of the opposite of that.)
To given an example of ways this can work immediately, our union owns a couple buzzer systems that were used maybe twice and have probably been in storage since and that we would love to be able use. As a further example, I can't imagine that an ACUI official would be less than delighted to discover that there already exists a cadre of willing, able staffers on their campus and they consequently don't have to worry (much) about recruiting and training staffers to run a tournament.

MaS

[Camelopardalis]

Related to Ben and Andy's comments in regards to Canada, my question for Jeff is:

What sort of impact will this agreement have on southern Ontario, where it appears that only the University of Toronto and Durham College (w/o qb team) are affiliated with ACUI? Since, as mentioned above, there will already be an Eastern Canadian SCT, does that mean that it is required to be held at Toronto, else not at all? Presumably, non-ACUI-affiliated schools may continue to participate in Sectionals, but are ACUI schools the only possible hosts Sectionals?

As others have mentioned above, I find the prospect of multiple new teams participating in quizbowl as a result of this agreement a very positive result, especially in Atlantic Canada, where there is no existing circuit. However, like others, I wonder what sort of fail-safes are in place to ensure that ACUI personnel act with regard to existing quizbowl clubs and listen to their concerns and opinions. Additionally, I have reservations over any potential lack of acknowledgment of the independent circuit among these new teams and among ACUI personnel. There was a mention of HCASC, an independent group, on the ACUI-NAQT announcement on naqt.com - why not of ACF?

[bt_green_warbler]

I believe that this was and is so because unions are, as a tendency, very bureaucratic (and therefore oligarchic) and wary of outsiders on the one hand and because the union's quizbowl sources weren't telling them "these are people who know what they're doing who can help you" on the other

We plan to be a quizbowl source that explicitly promotes cooperation between student unions and circuit clubs in hosting SCT; note that we will be strongly encouraging ACUI-region hosts to work with experienced local moderators and tournament staff.

[Frater Taciturnus]

Related to Ben and Andy's comments in regards to Canada, my question for Jeff is:

What sort of impact will this agreement have on southern Ontario, where it appears that only the University of Toronto and Durham College (w/o qb team) are affiliated with ACUI? Since, as mentioned above, there will already be an Eastern Canadian SCT, does that mean that it is required to be held at Toronto, else not at all? Presumably, non-ACUI-affiliated schools may continue to participate in Sectionals, but are ACUI schools the only possible hosts Sectionals?

Chris,

I thought it was pretty clear from Jeff's posts that while ACUI regions were bidding for their regional sectional, that any interested club or team could still bid as per the normal procedure.

I'm really hoping this drastically increases the size of the circuits across the country, especially in areas like the northwest where only 3 schools come to Boise State's tournaments.

[bt_green_warbler]

What sort of impact will this agreement have on southern Ontario, where it appears that only the University of Toronto and Durham College (w/o qb team) are affiliated with ACUI? Since, as mentioned above, there will already be an Eastern Canadian SCT, does that mean that it is required to be held at Toronto, else not at all? Presumably, non-ACUI-affiliated schools may continue to participate in Sectionals, but are ACUI schools the only possible hosts for Sectionals?

Not at all; we expect that circuit teams, including those whose schools are not ACUI members, will continue to bid for and host a substantial proportion of our SCTs.

Edit: or, what George just said

[MicroEStudent]

R. writes:

"There will be an (Eastern) Canadian SCT this year; NAQT is aware of this issue and will give it strong consideration during the bidding process in future years."

What does this do to the rest of ACUI Region 2? There are only three teams in Upstate New York that even go to things right now (Cornell, Rochester and RIT) and only Cornell consistently goes to things. I know that other schools participated in CBI in Region 2 (Syracuse, SUNY Geneseo and St. Bonaventure among others), but there's a distinct possibility of having just three schools that would attend a Region 2 SCT and possibly less if the Canada SCT is closer (for example, if McMaster were to host, it would be closer for Rochester and RIT to go there than SUNY Binghamton were the ACUI Leisure Weekend is being held this year).

[bt_green_warbler]

Participation numbers and/or geography may lead us to "double up" in regions that require more space or combine two tournaments if the number of registrations is low.

It is entirely possible that upstate New York could experience the latter, with teams directed to Canadian/New England/Mid-Atlantic SCT sites as necessary.

[nobthehobbit]

What happens if an ACUI Region wins the host bid? Specifically:

1. Who decides what school the Sectional is played at? For instance, if ACUI Region 14 wins their bid (over Washington, Gonzaga, Boise State, or even UBC or SFU if those clubs ever restart, or others), could they choose any school in the region as the actual site for Sectionals? What would there be to stop them from putting Sectionals at, say, the University of Saskatchewan, which is an ACUI school, but to my knowledge has no QB to speak of and is not exactly close to any existing (or, for that matter, defunct) QB club in Region 14?

2. Who gets the host autobid in this case?

3. Could NAQT start producing collegiate-level sets other than SCT and ICT?

4. Will there be any formal effort on the part of NAQT to encourage new teams at Sectionals to participate in other events, such as the following year's ACF Fall?

[bt_green_warbler]

What happens if an ACUI Region wins the host bid? Specifically:

1. Who decides what school the Sectional is played at?

Bids from ACUI regions will be bids to host at a specified university; we won't try to evaluate "unknown site somewhere in region 14."

3. Could NAQT start producing collegiate-level sets other than SCT and ICT?

Unlikely, but I guess it's hypothetically possible. I can say that it would require both increased demand from teams and additional commitment from our writers to producing novice-level college questions above and beyond those already used for Division II play.

[MicroEStudent]

Participation numbers and/or geography may lead us to "double up" in regions that require more space or combine two tournaments if the number of registrations is low.

It is entirely possible that upstate New York could experience the latter, with teams directed to Canadian/New England/Mid-Atlantic SCT sites as necessary.

Thanks, I missed that part.

Now this question may need to be discussed in another venue, but if RIT were to participate through ACUI instead of out of pocket as we did last year, our College Activities Board may wish to send a team that contains a deaf or hard of hearing player from NTID that in order to participate would need appropriate accommodations. For CBI, this involved a very convoluted system with a computer, questions on Powerpoint or transparencies, interpreters, clock stoppages and other miscellaneous people and things.

I can get into further detail if necessary, but I plan on talking with the ACUI coordinator at RIT to see what interest they have in SCT and if they want to sponsor a team/teams to go to SCT. If this is the case, we at RIT would need to discuss any participation by deaf or hard of hearing students.

[bt_green_warbler]

I'm referring that to R., since the question clearly has no simple answer!

[nobthehobbit]

What happens if an ACUI Region wins the host bid? Specifically:

1. Who decides what school the Sectional is played at?

Bids from ACUI regions will be bids to host at a specified university; we won't try to evaluate "unknown site somewhere in region 14."

Okay, though that still leaves open the question of who gets the autobid. For instance, if SCT is hosted at a university without a QB club, and a nearby school's club, instead of fielding multiple teams, puts in much of the staff for the event, who would get the autobid? After all,

ACUI Regions chosen to host Sectionals will follow existing host requirements; in addition, like all tournaments, they will be expected to make use of experienced local staff and experienced moderators brought by teams.

And, for that matter, what if a school's QB club puts in a bid to host, and the ACUI Region also bids to host at that school? If the Region wins, would the Region and the club be expected to negotiate the use of the autobid? I could see this being a problem, especially if the club's members staff instead of play.

[Jeremy Gibbs Freesy Does It]

I would hope NAQT has the sense to tell the club and ACUI people if they both submit bids for Sectionals so that they can combine forces.

[bt_green_warbler]

Okay, though that still leaves open the question of who gets the autobid. For instance, if SCT is hosted at a university without a QB club, and a nearby school's club, instead of fielding multiple teams, puts in much of the staff for the event, who would get the autobid?

That question is indeed open; we don't have a final policy on this available. (We want to make sure that whatever policy we end up with appropriately rewards staffing the tournament and doesn't, for instance, give people perverse incentives to avoid moderating.)

And, for that matter, what if a school's QB club puts in a bid to host, and the ACUI Region also bids to host at that school? If the Region wins, would the Region and the club be expected to negotiate the use of the autobid? I could see this being a problem, especially if the club's members staff instead of play.

We've not seriously considered this situation. Obviously, the ideal solution is that they agree in advance of SCT who goes to ICT, then cooperate to run the tournament. Insofar as the question is: what if the entities are unable or unwilling to do that? I'm not sure what we do then; I'll see if R. has any thoughts on the matter.

[MicroEStudent]

I'm referring that to R., since the question clearly has no simple answer!

I appreciate it. It is just a possibility at this point, but I'd rather consider it now rather than later.

I know how complex it was to set up the first year. It took a three hour conference call to hammer it out and it ended up with the most staff I've ever seen for a match.

Since it was CBI, there was the moderator, judge and scorekeeper. Add in two ASL interpreters, a computer operator and a clock operator and you had 7 staff for one room!

What ended up happening is that CBI loaded the questions on to a CD using PowerPoint, but removing any spelling, computational math tossups and bonuses and music tossups, but not bonuses. The moderator would begin reading the question at a very fast pace as the computer operator released the tossup word by word on a computer monitor that only the deaf player could see. When someone would buzz in or if the moderator had finished reading, the operator would blank out the screen. If the other team negged, the operator would restart the question. If the deaf player signaled, he was recognized by pointing instead of the archaic CBI name and school. The clock would run for two seconds, then it would stop as he was signing his answer to the interpreters which could take several seconds if there was any confusion.

If we got a bonus, the computer mechanism would work as before, blanking out between bonus parts. Due to the communication barrier, we got the traditional 5 seconds conferring time, plus 2 untimed seconds (they would stop the clock) for the first answer and 1 additional second for each additional answer. The other team received this additional time as well if they wanted.

So yes, it was not a simple situation at all and it removed any rhythm from the game. Add in incompetent staff and it once took 75 minutes to play one round one year.