The Quizbowl Resource Center

With the assistance of Aidan Meghan, Daniel Galitsky, and Raynell Cooper, I have composed an FAQ as a reference for teams new to good quizbowl. Comments/feedback would be greatly appreciated.

It looks good. However, it's a little bit on the long side--it might work to just get rid of the part about college Quiz Bowl.

Also, it's quizbowlpackets.com, not .org (page 2, next to last paragraph)

that thing you wrote wrote:Hey, what are all those acryonoms you through around there?

Really? Grammar and spelling much?

Oof. I'll post a revised version once enough people have had a chance to comment.

the first HSNCT in 1997

1999.

could you upload as a .doc? Writer opens .docx files but I'm sure plenty of people use Word 2003. Also what is this about appendices?

Also, I can understand being a little more rhetorical because you want people in your area to play quizbowl, but some of the things you say about "good/modern" quizbowl aren't necessarily facts about what quizbowl is, but more of a specific set of beliefs about what you think quizbowl should be.

Arquette wrote:could you upload as a .doc? Writer opens .docx files but I'm sure plenty of people use Word 2003. Also what is this about appendices?

I believe you can download something that makes those files compatible with older versions of Word.

Nick wrote:Also, I can understand being a little more rhetorical because you want people in your area to play quizbowl, but some of the things you say about "good/modern" quizbowl aren't necessarily facts about what quizbowl is, but more of a specific set of beliefs about what you think quizbowl should be.

Well, I'm pretty sure that this is designed to promote good Quiz Bowl as the circuit believes it is, and everything in the FAQ reflects good Quiz Bowl as more or less everyone considers it, so what exactly do you find controversial in the FAQ?

I'm so tempted to complain about the math computation logic, but I'm just going to say that you should focus more on how good tossups require 7+ clues and how math computation tossups can rarely include 7+ problems on a single ideal and have the question be finished within 3 minutes (which is an ungodly amount of time for one question). Speed to an extent does correlate with knowledge on how to do a problem. If you're basing a majority of your argument on the fact that math speed=/= knowledge, then you might find a lot of dissenting opinions.

"Hey guys, some people believe that bad things are actually good and fake things are actually real, and it's important to cater to those beliefs because--"

FredMorlan wrote:

Arquette wrote:could you upload as a .doc? Writer opens .docx files but I'm sure plenty of people use Word 2003. Also what is this about appendices?

I believe you can download something that makes those files compatible with older versions of Word.

Indeed. Well, it does the converse, but the desired effect is achieved.

Arquette wrote:Also what is this about appendices?

That was if people wanted to use the flowcharts posted by Lily Chen with this.

Matt Weiner wrote:"Hey guys, some people believe that bad things are actually good and fake things are actually real, and it's important to cater to those beliefs because--"

Because they are very set in them and it's going to be difficult to change their minds. Going into it full force and telling them everything they believe is wrong (even if it is) will never convince them that good quizbowl is actually good. It will just make them angry.

Doink the Clown wrote:With the assistance of Aidan Meghan, Daniel Galitsky, and Raynell Cooper, I have composed an FAQ as a reference for teams new to good quizbowl. Comments/feedback would be greatly appreciated.

As for the FAQ, I think it's really good. Would it be OK if I kind of changed it a bit to fit Kentucky-specific problems and hand it out to people? I'll probably print off a copy of it and give it to our head coach, who is in her first year and still doesn't quite understand the difference between good quizbowl and the crap that most schools around us play on. In fact, I'd like to pass it out to coaches at other schools in our area when we play them in aforementioned crappy events.

soaringeagle22 wrote: Because they are very set in them and it's going to be difficult to change their minds. Going into it full force and telling them everything they believe is wrong (even if it is) will never convince them that good quizbowl is actually good. It will just make them angry.

Assuming you're presenting them an articulate argument for real quizbowl, I doubt such people (re: the ones that get angry) would ever realize they're wrong even if you were to passively inform them that they're playing a fake game.

OK, so I skimmed this before going to a tournament yesterday, and only now have time to really comment on it, but here's what I think:

I think that in the form you posted this, it was an overwrought and badly-written introduction to quizbowl which I wouldn't want to hand out to a coach. It used way too many acronyms, got unlfattering and preachy, spent way too long on past quizbowl history, conflated the issue of good bracketing with the entirely separate issue of good question quality, and indulged unfamiliar so-called 'opponents' of pyramidal quizbowl by putting their straw men right in there ("What is ACF format and is it hard?" "Why not just do single-elimination?") instead of just explaining what good practices are.

The easiest way to convince people that pyramidal is more worthwhile is to convince them that it's fun and rewarding, which this paper seemed to lose the point of amidst the alphabet soup and references to things like ACF, college tournaments, and bracketed round-robins - which are all secondary to the point that it's fun and you learn stuff. I decided to try editing this into a much more friendly, recruitment-oriented document, and I'm attaching my version below. It should have Track Changes turned on if you want to see what I did or tinker with it.

That is SO SO much better and it's something i would enjoy sending to Delaware coaches.

This one is quite excellent. Well done. *Golf clap*

Yeah, the revision's about a billion times better. Well done.

Thank you very much.

Minor points:

Under "How does math work in pyramidal questions", the last phrase doesn't make grammatical sense... remove the word "about".

Under "Why not run single elimination", the second sentence says "as I said earlier", but I can't find the earlier reference.

That's really good, but why did you take out Jerry's question-writing guide and put in Berkeley's? I'm pretty sure Jerry's is the currently accepted guide. The tone is less condescending than before, but some better word choice is still necessary in places, like "So there are a bunch of tournaments, and different teams win different days. How do we figure out who’s the best of them all?"

If I were doing this, I'd link to both Jerry's guide and Seth's.

Most of the issues I saw have been already mentioned here and cleared up by Matt Jackson's version. Thanks, Matt.