I'm not going to take the same position as Andrew and say that the tournament was as good as it could be and that things didn't need to be changed. I agree that there were issues with the tournament and I tried to correct some of these for the Maryland mirror. However, I do agree that these issues were mainly pretty minor when put in perspective of usual high school sets.theattachment wrote:I think you missed most of my points, Andrew...theMoMA wrote:Even if we had time to "change" those bonuses, we wouldn't have done it because they were perfectly fine (good, even!) bonuses for the high school level, and rewarded knowledge over lack of knowledge, while maintaining the standards of difficulty that were appropriate. What more could you possibly want?!
For one, I'm saying that for some topics there is a place for that kind of bonus, namely when there are no second parts in the guy's work because only one title and his name are canonical. In the case of the two Dickens works in the tournament, this was far from the case. On Great Expectations, getting Uriah Heap as the third part was like getting a Christmas present. It wasn't a difficult bonus part, and when Dickens himself came up in a bonus that was quite the same it should have been rewritten.
This brings me to another point. You guys did actually have time to "'change' these bonuses." You also had a responsibility to as the head editors. Instead, you wrote one of your packets the night before and left effectively the entire tournament pretty unedited. That's how 3/5ths of the bonuses sounded the same. That's how you had repeats. My issue now isn't the fact that you used that format. I understand that you think it's perfectly fine and that we disagree. What I dislike (and what I've disliked about the non-NAQT sets that I've encountered this year) is that the editors didn't actually edit. They just compiled. Andrew, your comment was rather flippant about the fact that you didn't have time to edit the set. When that's your job, shouldn't you make time to do it?
In regards to editing the tournament, I agree that in an ideal world that questions should be finished well before the night before. However, pretty much all of the writers for this tournament are experienced writers and editors who produce pretty good questions in the first place. Yes, there could have been better copy editing, better checking for repeats and better difficulty checking (especially for the Minnesota tournament and the mirrors held on the same day). But it's not like the questions were being written by novice writers filled with blatant pyramidality or distribution problems. I'd say that the majority of the questions, even when not "edited" by a central editor, were better than the typical high school fare.
Also, complaining about bonuses sounding the same is a really weird complaint. Did this really affect your enjoyment of the tournament?
Anyways, I encourage people to continue commenting about the set or the tournaments.