E.T. Chuck wrote:It's hard to conclude that "the majority want change" when a lot of the answers regarding distribution were clearly "status quo". Which categories require change according to the survey?
Chris Frankel wrote:E.T. Chuck wrote:It's hard to conclude that "the majority want change" when a lot of the answers regarding distribution were clearly "status quo". Which categories require change according to the survey?
In the every case of category but GK (which baffled me that a noticeable amount of people seem to want more), the big 3 categories (history, lit, science), and foreign language (whatever that is), the sum of people who want change in one direction (e.g. more + lots more for social science) is greater than the number of people voting for the status quo.
vig180 wrote:EDIT but there are a few questions (i.e. the two-part bonus, the list bonus) that generated a firm majority.
yoda4554 wrote:Not that I'm sure what this indicates, but it's interesting that the only noticeable complaints on difficulty were that 25%-30% of people thought the pop culture and sports were too easy (in contrast to complaints on this board that such questions are markedly more difficult than the rest of the questions), and that there's a fairly signicant disagreement on whether the science skews too easy or too hard (20%-25% on each side).
yoda4554 wrote:Not that I'm sure what this indicates, but it's interesting that the only noticeable complaints on difficulty were that 25%-30% of people thought the pop culture and sports were too easy (in contrast to complaints on this board that such questions are markedly more difficult than the rest of the questions), and that there's a fairly signicant disagreement on whether the science skews too easy or too hard (20%-25% on each side).
Matt Weiner wrote:Would anyone who cast a vote on the difficulty of the "foreign language" questions (which was at least 15 people and possibly quite a few more, judging from the results) please give some examples of questions you used to make your decision?
fleurdelivre wrote:When clues in foreign languages are given, I feel they offer a competitive edge to those who speak those languages but still tend to be basic enough that other players will figure them out--especially in tossups with plenty of other clues.
E.T. Chuck wrote:Do people really care about the tiebreaking procedure, or whether graduate students should be banned from competing...
ValenciaQBowl wrote:Tom, I'd be interested to know who this "captive customer pool" is. NAQT-run tournaments, like any tournament, are not mandatory for anyone, are they? Perhaps, however, you mean that NAQT is only polling customers; I'm just curious if I'm interpreting your comment correctly.
ValenciaQBowl wrote:I've argued here before that the most powerful weapon that those who have problems with NAQT wield is their own attendance. If large numbers of folks who are dissatisfied with their product stop showing up, then NAQT will have to decide whether to address their concerns or accept lower turnouts.
ValenciaQBowl wrote:In the past I've said this as "If you don't like it, don't come," which has been interpreted by others as saying, "NAQT shouldn't have to change anything, and you are wrong to suggest they should." This is not what I mean. People in the community have every right to suggest changes, but they should also understand that NAQT is not likely anytime to go to longer, ACF-style questions; to greatly reduce the number of trash/current events questions (or the use of those clues as part of academic questions); or even to get rid of the "cuties." These are part of their identity, I think, and though a vocal number of folks here dislike these aspects of their game, many indeed enjoy the NAQT style (whether this is a "silent majority" or not I don't know, so I won't guess). I do know that a number of my own Valencia players (though indeed not all) prefer NAQT to mACF/ACF, and I'm sure others exist out there who feel similarly.
Thus, if one is truly frustrated by NAQT's current product and feels that they are not sincere in their attempts to survey the community for changes, then it seems to me that one is best off showing NAQT one's displeasure by not playing their tournaments and giving them money. I, however, believe that they are trying to accommodate the concerns raised here while maintaining a style that has become their signature.
grapesmoker wrote:E.T. Chuck wrote:Do people really care about the tiebreaking procedure, or whether graduate students should be banned from competing...
People certainly do care about tiebreaking procedure. Personally, I find the half-packet playoff a poor way of deciding ties. For example, imagine the unlikely scenario that Berkeley and I were tied for something: at the half of the match I played against them, I led them. Had that been a "decider", it would result in me being ranked ahead of an obviously better team (they went on to answer most of the questions in the second half to win).
Romero wrote:I am a fan of the brand of quizbowl preferred by Weiner and Jerry. I am also a critic of certain aspects of NAQT. However I am starting to turn against the claims of this group of outspoken opponents. The tone of NAQT's surveys could have been improved, but that tone is befitting of the tone of the criticism. NAQT has begun to answer the criticism and these jackasses reply with more criticism.
Jerry objects to the use of the half-match as a tiebreaker. Quiz Bowl, by its nature as a game, is arbitrary. The fact that they use the half-match instead of head-to-head is a better than any other format. No matter the situation or circumstance, there exists an isolated case which can and will be used to attack NAQT. It is a double standard cause no one chooses to point out these type circumstances with ACF.
Guys, back off, will you! Let's let this survey process finish and see what changes are made as a result. I know that we do not always agree with NAQT. However it is not their mission to screw you over. I trust that they are putting forth an honest effort to do the best they can. And though you would rather not believe this, their viewpoints are much closer to popular opinion than yours. If yours were closer, ACF would be much more popular.
Romero wrote:Jerry, you are correct NAQT has not engaged us in a dialogue. Though, how productive would talking be? A small fraction of their audience is represented here. Hypothetically, they could make all the changes that we might want and alienate the other 9/10 of their customers.
I think their choice to refrain from dialogue until they can do a survey is a wise move. Even if they are just affirming what they believe to be true, it is probably a good reality check.
If everyone hates timed games or powers, maybe they will get rid of them. If everyone loves timed games or powers, maybe ACF should adopt those game aspects. Why is NAQT so popular and ACF not? I would love to see an ACF nationals with more than 30 teams.
As you mentioned NAQT has done a lot for High school and currently are planning to host what may be the largest day of quizbowl EVER (like 640 matches in a single location on a single day). I think this undertaking is an additional reason to give them some additional response time. The reason I called you jackasses is that I feel that your criticism is impatient and too harsh (for now). If there is still silence when August 1st rolls around, then I will probably join your warranted criticism.
I think a lot of things....
I consider powers and time essential aspects of the NAQT game; I think ACF should adopt powers but not time.
I think that adding one line to each tossup and 1 minute to each half is a great idea for NAQT. I think that ACF subtrating one line from each tossup is a great idea.
I think total points is the worst possible tiebreaker; I think points-per-bonus is the better than points-per-tossup by not as good as a half match or a whole match.
I wish ACF would settle ties with a half-match or a whole match.
I think quizbowl in general is too graduate student centric. Personally I am inclined to say NAQT should eliminate all graduate students.
I think we should be investigating every possible way in which to get new people involved in quizbowl, rather than making changes which are in our self-interest and may serve to lessen wide-spread appeal.
Let this be a lesson in why democracy doesn't work. What is the interest of the 90% of teams who have no realistic chance of winning any tournament where the best teams in the country compete on good packets and rules? It's to make the tournament less fair by making questions speed-based and hose-filled, stuffing as much trash in as possible, not letting better teams protest obvious factual errors, et cetera. It would be even better for them if the idea of a fair tournament was dissolved completely, and anyone who asked for any change was denounced and told not to bother coming back. Then Minnesota could win NAQT every year too!
grapesmoker wrote:Because ACF suffers from an "ACF is so hard" perception which, whatever justification may have existed for it in bygone times, is just no longer true. Matt's done some good work comparing the ACF Fall statistics to the SCT, and ACF Fall has repeatedly been shown to be more accessible, not to mention better written. Yes, ACF Nationals is a hard tournament, harder than ICT. Maybe not having 3/3 geography and trash in each packet is a turnoff for some people? Maybe ACF doesn't give out fancy trophies to a bunch of people in every category imaginable? I don't know, but if there's anyone on this board who didn't go to ACF Nationals and would care to say why they didn't go and what would make them more likely to do so in the future, let's hear it.
Matt Weiner wrote:Let this be a lesson in why democracy doesn't work. What is the interest of the 90% of teams who have no realistic chance of winning any tournament where the best teams in the country compete on good packets and rules? It's to make the tournament less fair by making questions speed-based and hose-filled, stuffing as much trash in as possible, not letting better teams protest obvious factual errors, et cetera. It would be even better for them if the idea of a fair tournament was dissolved completely, and anyone who asked for any change was denounced and told not to bother coming back. Then Minnesota could win NAQT every year too!
Me, I don't believe in getting what I want through childish threats. I'm almost certainly going to play NAQT next year and it would be dishonest to say otherwise. I don't wish to engage in the melodramatic "do what I say or I'm taking my ball and going home" bullshit. I wish to engage in this process like an adult--i.e., present some fair, not-very-radical, compromise-oriented suggestions to NAQT and have them adopted because it's the right thing to do.
And by the way, I don't really care about the physical trophy, I care about NAQT ceasing the charade on their website that indicates Stanford beat VCU in Round 5, and that VCU thus finished somewhere other than third in the tournament. The reality is that we won that game, and until NAQT does anything to stop the ongoing screw-over that is the continued presence of a false game result on the official statistics, I will have a hard time believing that it is "not their mission to screw [us] over."
cvdwightw wrote: I don't currently plan on going to ACF Nationals next year, precisely because it is too hard for my taste (although I do want to go to Fall and Regionals). I think this is by design, and shouldn't be changed. ACF Nationals is supposed to be an elitist tournament, and without any sort of qualification system, the difficulty is exactly what keeps mediocre teams from coming out. I'll be the first to say that UCLA will be nothing short of mediocre next year at ACF Nationals level questions, and I'm not going to buy the "dilute the talent level" argument, because nationals should be about the most talented teams. Maybe if Ray can convince me otherwise, I might show up.
The difference I see with ICT is that NAQT already makes their cuts for the tournament with their S-Value ratings, so they don't need to up the difficulty to keep mediocre teams out (although arguably this has not worked so well with the bottom few teams over the years). They just need to make the tournament difficult enough that it can and will differentiate the top teams from the rest of the field and each other. Now, you can make an argument that this does or doesn't actually happen, but either way, I see a fundamentally different procedure to "weed out" the teams that wouldn't do well, and this in turn sets the difficulty level at either a more or less accessible level. As for the geography/trash content, I have no opinion as long as it's consistent with the rest of the tournament difficulty.
grapesmoker wrote:Because ACF suffers from an "ACF is so hard" perception which, whatever justification may have existed for it in bygone times, is just no longer true. Matt's done some good work comparing the ACF Fall statistics to the SCT, and ACF Fall has repeatedly been shown to be more accessible, not to mention better written. Yes, ACF Nationals is a hard tournament, harder than ICT. Maybe not having 3/3 geography and trash in each packet is a turnoff for some people? Maybe ACF doesn't give out fancy trophies to a bunch of people in every category imaginable? I don't know, but if there's anyone on this board who didn't go to ACF Nationals and would care to say why they didn't go and what would make them more likely to do so in the future, let's hear it. I know for a fact that the people involved in next year's Nationals read this board regularly and take this commentary seriously; I'm sure they'd not only read but respond too.
NoahMinkCHS wrote:(As an aside, I think the methodology of comparing ACF Fall to SCT isn't really fair; wouldn't the logical comparison be ACF Regionals?)
NoahMinkCHS wrote:I believe I qualify to answer this. I can tell you that the perception you mentioned is certainly a big issue, or has been in the past... but, to be fair, I don't base my opinion of ACF solely on these half-heard remarks. Some of my teammates and I have looked over some recent Nats, Regs, and Fall packets, and at least for Nationals, have come to the same conclusion cvdwightw did -- it's "too hard" for our tastes. We like to think of ourselves as an up and coming team with good, improving players, and we feel our decent (though not great) finish in NAQT D-II is indicative of that. Even so, we haven't -- and most likely won't -- put in the hours upon hours of prep work needed to succeed at ACF Nationals questions, and I know I wouldn't have nearly as much fun at a tournament where I didn't expect to at least be competitive. Hell, even when my team was "competitive" at our Yale BoB mirror, the questions were so inaccessible to me that I just didn't enjoy the experience.
Bruce wrote:The way to cure that is not to skip higher-level tournaments, but to attend every one of them that you can. Higher-level quizbowl especially is very cannonical; after you've heard your nth tossup or bonus on something, it will no longer seem inaccessible at all.
grapesmoker wrote:With all respect, Dwight, I just don't understand this view. ACF Nationals isn't some sort of elitist competition to which only top members of the secret cabal are invited. Keep in mind that Michigan's team that took A&M down to the last tossup in the final had two undergrads on it who had only started playing quizbowl recently and acquitted themselves superbly. With the exception of a very few teams, you come to a tournament like that not to win the whole thing but to hear some really well-written questions on some interesting stuff, and learn a little something along the way. This whole "nationals should be about the most talented teams" business is total nonsense; nationals is obviously a tournament that has a winner, but it's also a really great quizbowl event. No one dilutes the talent pool by showing up.
Higher-level quizbowl especially is very canonical; after you've heard your nth tossup or bonus on something, it will no longer seem inaccessible at all.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests