NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Dormant threads from the high school sections are preserved here.
User avatar
Charley Pride
Rikku
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by Charley Pride »

TheDoctor wrote:
Oliver Ellsworth wrote:Already done. Now we're fighting over how the club is paid for. And how we allocate proceeds from stuff we host or win. And how we travel.
Congratulations!
I feel like I'm being congratulated for beating cancer (no disrespect intended).

There really are no interesting details that I know of, so I'm sorry that you were expecting something more exciting. I can make one up for you if you like.
Zahed Haseeb

Auburn High School 2010
University of Chicago 2014

User avatar
Irreligion in Bangladesh
Auron
Posts: 2076
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:18 am
Location: Winnebago, IL

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by Irreligion in Bangladesh »

Oliver Ellsworth wrote:
TheDoctor wrote:
Oliver Ellsworth wrote:Already done. Now we're fighting over how the club is paid for. And how we allocate proceeds from stuff we host or win. And how we travel.
Congratulations!
I feel like I'm being congratulated for beating cancer (no disrespect intended).

There really are no interesting details that I know of, so I'm sorry that you were expecting something more exciting. I can make one up for you if you like.
I suppose here's the big one - if the Scholastic Bowl team doesn't do anything during the year, do you guys go for seeding with 0-0 record?
Brad Fischer
Head Editor, IHSA State Series

Winnebago HS ('06)
Northern Illinois University ('10)
Assistant Coach, IMSA (2010-12)
Coach, Keith Country Day School (2012-16)

User avatar
Charley Pride
Rikku
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by Charley Pride »

styxman wrote:
Oliver Ellsworth wrote:
TheDoctor wrote:
Oliver Ellsworth wrote:Already done. Now we're fighting over how the club is paid for. And how we allocate proceeds from stuff we host or win. And how we travel.
Congratulations!
I feel like I'm being congratulated for beating cancer (no disrespect intended).

There really are no interesting details that I know of, so I'm sorry that you were expecting something more exciting. I can make one up for you if you like.
I suppose here's the big one - if the Scholastic Bowl team doesn't do anything during the year, do you guys go for seeding with 0-0 record?

No, sir. Auburn's HFT mirror, Kickoffs, Winnebago, LoyBurn, NTV, and NIC-10 (farces, oy vey!) are all 5v5 events, allowing them to be sanctioned under IHSA jurisdiction. We haven't done a 4v4 yet. Auburn Quiz Bowl Club becomes a factor once nationals season rolls around. PACE and NAQT obviously aren't going to distinguish between which is which, as far as I know.

EDIT: Completeness.
Last edited by Charley Pride on Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zahed Haseeb

Auburn High School 2010
University of Chicago 2014

David Riley
Auron
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 8:27 am
Location: Morton Grove, IL

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by David Riley »

We've come close. Last year, the only IHSA matches we played were the state series, and New Trier Varsit (which counted bc it was a 5-on-5 tournament. We play three times as many ACF/HSAPQ/NAQT/housewritten tournaments. So, it might be possible some year to go into the state series with a 0-0 record.
David Riley
Coach Emeritus, Loyola Academy, Wilmette, Illinois, 1993-2010
Steering Committee, IHSSBCA, 1996 -
Member, PACE, 2012 -

"This is 1183, of course we're barbarians" -- Eleanor of Aquitaine in "The Lion in Winter"

User avatar
Geringer
Rikku
Posts: 354
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:10 pm

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by Geringer »

This is a really long post, so if it gets to the tl;dr point, just read the end.

For all you out-of-staters, the IHSA has until this point (and hopefully longer) had a policy of salutary neglect and doesn't say "no nationals" or "no good tournaments" like other state organizations do. In the four years I played under IHSA rules, I did not once seen the blurt rule put into effect. I'd even go so far as to say it's never made a difference in a competitive match. So you all can moan about it all you want, but it really makes about as much of a difference as what kind of shirt you wear to a match (pun intended). After moderating turnabout, I've seen that these "raw talent" teams are more than capable of playing these questions. Complain about the neutering of mACF bonuses all you want, but this is still an effective way to introduce this format to a new group of people. Next year, this area will probably drop those rules, as players and more importantly, coaches, will be more familiar with how this works.

It's important that you guys remember that the moderators that run these tournaments are volunteers. Most of the dudes writing your housewritten questions are also volunteers. So while you might be right to complain about how horrible they are or how your favorite category got slighted, you're not the one filling that seat and the majority of the time you're not the one writing questions. If you don't like the fact that your moderators aren't salivating at pyramidal tossups, then find a ton of staffers that do. Oh wait...there was a college tournament this weekend and you can't? I guess it's a wash, then.

Finally, I will return to the purpose of this thread. NAQT has a consistent distribution that includes a lot of trash, geography, and current events. Their amount of the above categories has been pretty consistent recently and I'm pretty sure the fine folks over at NAQT aren't trying to fool you. Furthermore, when Jeff (I think it was Jeff) went back to look at cross-disciplinary giveaways in past IS sets, there actually weren't that many. Most of the ones he found were geography cross-disciplinary giveaways, which isn't all the uncommon for regular packets. I don't think I need to remind you that NAQT, like many other companies, exists to make money. If they felt like their question distribution was hurting their business, they would change it. The folks over there have been running an increasingly successful operation, so apparently people like this format. On top of all that, they've brought legitimate quizbowl to a lot of new teams.

While I personally agree with a lot of what you have the say, Zahed, your comments here are symptomatic of an increasing amount of people who expect every team in the state to roll over and start reading Kant (in German). For crying out loud, Bradley-Bourbannais was eating up every bit of that A set I read last week. Five years ago you would never catch that team within a hundred miles of a power mark. Brad and Kristin need a huge pat on the back for what they've done in their area, and I think we all can learn from their example of hands-on, local improvement of quizbowl. Keep up the good work, everybody.
R. Jeffrey Geringer
Saint Viator '09
Illinois '13, '14

User avatar
Charley Pride
Rikku
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by Charley Pride »

reading Kant (in German)
Only Abid does this.


First off, the original title of this thread was subtitled "Who You [present participle of the not as bad C-word]?". I know NAQT isn't trying to fool anyone; you can blame Evan Silberman for the proper yet slightly misleadng title. Regardless, I'm fully aware that NAQT is simply doing what it does with it's screwy distributions and strange answer selections. What I'm lamenting now is the fact that, in a position to touch an enormous number of quiz bowl teams, NAQT continually chooses to ignore the advice and criticism it receives beyond invidual questions or packets. Yes, I like that packets are retroactively edited to they're improved for future use, and I like that NAQT acknowledges when it makes dumb answer choices. But ultimately, NAQT sets still don't have what it takes to be esteemed at the level of HSAPQ and many housewritten sets. The differences are very obvious. Yes, NAQT is huge and it's growing, but as stated before, people often have no choice but to rely on it, so the numbers are a bit inflated. In fact, NAQT's growth is a simply a more urgent sign that things need to change. NAQT could be the single most powerful proponent of the activity it professes to advance, but instead it continues many of its silly ways. Wasted potential just makes me so sad....
Zahed Haseeb

Auburn High School 2010
University of Chicago 2014

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5589
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by Important Bird Area »

Macho Man for Expediency wrote:when Jeff went back to look at cross-disciplinary giveaways in past IS sets, there actually weren't that many. Most of the ones he found were geography cross-disciplinary giveaways, which isn't all the uncommon for regular packets.
For reference: these two threads concluded that cross-disciplinary giveaways are found in 5-10% of NAQT tossups.
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
Deviant Insider
Auron
Posts: 4672
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Chicagoland
Contact:

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by Deviant Insider »

Much of this thread is very overdramatic. Perhaps you were frustrated with general question quality that was lower than expected and took it out in other areas because you can't directly discuss question quality. NAQT uses different editors for different sets, and some sets are not as good as others. I have not seen this set myself.

The NAQT distribution is not as academic as it should be and is especially lacking in Fine Arts. This has been true for a long time. Also, distributions and subdistributions get skewed because pretty much all tournaments use 20 questions in each match and NAQT provides many more questions in each round. Also, the tournament only used half the rounds.

If there was one leadin that was a hose and one answer that was repeated with the same clues, that's bad, but it's not exactly news.

Also, a moderator in Illinois in favor of the blurt rule and announcing categories? An Illinois tournament only guaranteeing eight rounds? I'm shocked, shocked.

Ties settled on paper and questions by NAQT? The last time I saw that was about 17 hours ago at a tournament that is an example of good quizbowl.

Not allowing protests actually does suck, but teams generally don't protest issues when they're winning by 400 points, and many tournaments only resolve protests that affect winning and losing, so that rule didn't really affect you guys anyways.

I don't doubt that you guys had a bad experience, and I don't doubt that some of the complaints are legitimate. Perhaps it's expecting too much for a post made at the end of a long day to focus on important issues over trivial ones. Personally, though, I'm not convinced at this point that the Winnebago tournament was a bad tournament. I can see some things that I disagree with, which is true of pretty much any tournament, but it seems to me like they gave a number of teams an opportunity to play on better questions than they normally play on.
David Reinstein
PACE VP of Outreach, Head Writer and Editor for Scobol Solo and Masonics (Illinois), TD for New Trier Scobol Solo and New Trier Varsity, Writer for NAQT (2011-2017), IHSSBCA Board Member, IHSSBCA Chair (2004-2014), PACE Member, PACE President (2016-2018), New Trier Coach (1994-2011)

User avatar
Irreligion in Bangladesh
Auron
Posts: 2076
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:18 am
Location: Winnebago, IL

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by Irreligion in Bangladesh »

Shcool wrote:I'm not convinced at this point that the Winnebago tournament was a bad tournament. I can see some things that I disagree with, which is true of pretty much any tournament, but it seems to me like they gave a number of teams an opportunity to play on better questions than they normally play on.
This is a true statement - if it weren't for Auburn attending this tournament, not a soul would have complained (outside of the moderators and myriad coaches who vehemently oppose pyramidality) because their standards for a "good tournament" are significantly different than Auburn's. We're not asking for the Winnebago tournament to be blown up - we're just noting that a whole bunch of rinky dink issues that don't actually serve anyone well could be gotten rid of and the tournament would improve, but that no amount of my talking with the coaches fixed those things prior to the tournament.
Brad Fischer
Head Editor, IHSA State Series

Winnebago HS ('06)
Northern Illinois University ('10)
Assistant Coach, IMSA (2010-12)
Coach, Keith Country Day School (2012-16)

centralhs
Wakka
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:11 pm

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by centralhs »

Pardon my ignorance, and maybe this question is addressed somewhere on this message board, but... what exactly is the "blurt rule"? I am thinking that it might be similar to the "non-responsive" rule used at some tournaments here in Georgia.

Cathy Hirsch
Coach
Central Gwinnett H.S.

User avatar
Irreligion in Bangladesh
Auron
Posts: 2076
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:18 am
Location: Winnebago, IL

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by Irreligion in Bangladesh »

centralhs wrote:Pardon my ignorance, and maybe this question is addressed somewhere on this message board, but... what exactly is the "blurt rule"? I am thinking that it might be similar to the "non-responsive" rule used at some tournaments here in Georgia.

Cathy Hirsch
Coach
Central Gwinnett H.S.
If a player buzzes in, they have to be recognized by the moderator before they can answer. If they give their answer before the moderator notes them (i.e. blurting out the answer), their penalty is receiving only 5 points instead of the usual 10.
Brad Fischer
Head Editor, IHSA State Series

Winnebago HS ('06)
Northern Illinois University ('10)
Assistant Coach, IMSA (2010-12)
Coach, Keith Country Day School (2012-16)

mlaird
Tidus
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:07 am

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by mlaird »

styxman wrote:
centralhs wrote:Pardon my ignorance, and maybe this question is addressed somewhere on this message board, but... what exactly is the "blurt rule"? I am thinking that it might be similar to the "non-responsive" rule used at some tournaments here in Georgia.

Cathy Hirsch
Coach
Central Gwinnett H.S.
If a player buzzes in, they have to be recognized by the moderator before they can answer. If they give their answer before the moderator notes them (i.e. blurting out the answer), their penalty is receiving only 5 points instead of the usual 10.
This came about because in the past (before the blurt rule was passed, about 5 years ago) teams received zero points and were ruled incorrect when a player answered without being recognized. At the time we thought it was an improvement (and I still think it is, but really we shouldn't require recognition at all and just do away with silly rules like this), but now it serves as an annoyance and an example of Illinois' backwards ways that the rest of the country can laugh at.

EDIT: made clearer that teams did not get the bonus either

User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) »

Were there 8 rounds total with not all teams being able to play all of them, or were there 8 rounds offered to every team?
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
Irreligion in Bangladesh
Auron
Posts: 2076
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:18 am
Location: Winnebago, IL

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by Irreligion in Bangladesh »

Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:Were there 8 rounds total with not all teams being able to play all of them, or were there 8 rounds offered to every team?
Every team was offered 8 rounds, so I suppose that's another facet of good quizbowl not usually seen in this area. Good call.
Brad Fischer
Head Editor, IHSA State Series

Winnebago HS ('06)
Northern Illinois University ('10)
Assistant Coach, IMSA (2010-12)
Coach, Keith Country Day School (2012-16)

User avatar
jdeliverer
Rikku
Posts: 296
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:26 pm
Location: Providence

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by jdeliverer »

This year is the first year we have been guaranteed more than 5 years at (just about) any tournaments, so not everyone views 8 guaranteed rounds as terrible. Half the people on even teams interested in good quizbowl are getting tired after 6 or 7, so I think not everything has to be or can be a quick transition.
Robert Volgman
Brown '14
Latin School of Chicago '10

User avatar
Dresden_The_BIG_JERK
Tidus
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:56 am
Location: Lowell, IN
Contact:

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by Dresden_The_BIG_JERK »

I had a post all written up to got a bit of a rant, but the fact is that it's a step in the right direction, albeit a tiny one. Changes have already come in a lot of the Chicagoland tourneys, but for the outliers, this is probably how the changes will happen: bit by bit. Winnebago may not be the bastion of good quizbowl, but they're at least kinda-sorta trying. If ten years from now it's the same, that's an issue, but for now it's a good thing. Also,
Macho Man for Expediency wrote:In the four years I played under IHSA rules, I did not once seen the blurt rule put into effect. I'd even go so far as to say it's never made a difference in a competitive match.
Really? I was playing when they created the blurt rule and I saw it used many times. I can't go as far as to recall whether it ever determined a "competitive match", but it definitely (at least, used) to get called.
BJ Houlding

Winnebago '04
Saint Joseph's College '08
IHSSBCA Certified Moderator

jonah
Auron
Posts: 2322
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:51 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by jonah »

Yeah, I've seen the blurt rule put into effect many times. However, the only times I remember playing under IHSA rules were in league play (which was never competitive), in Masonics (where only the last couple of matches at State were competitive, and I don't remember the blurt rule being applied in those) and in the actual IHSA tournament (same).
Jonah Greenthal
National Academic Quiz Tournaments

David Riley
Auron
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 8:27 am
Location: Morton Grove, IL

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by David Riley »

Ans IIRC, it also began during an era when we had a lot of buzzer happy players who would blurt out answers before the person who buzzed in was recognized.
David Riley
Coach Emeritus, Loyola Academy, Wilmette, Illinois, 1993-2010
Steering Committee, IHSSBCA, 1996 -
Member, PACE, 2012 -

"This is 1183, of course we're barbarians" -- Eleanor of Aquitaine in "The Lion in Winter"

User avatar
Charley Pride
Rikku
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by Charley Pride »

I made my post yesterday when I was in a bad mood, and while I stand by my points, I would agree that I presented them in a somewhat exaggerated manner, and I regret that. I think my frustration was a result of comparing NAQT to HSAPQ; at this point, such a comparison is somewhat invalid. And maybe it was just me, but the set seemed extra-weird. I've played NAQT countless times before, and this was the first time I was so irritated.

And I would agree that Winnebago was not a bad tournament; it was a decent tournament with a few bad aspects, but more importantly, bad undertones. I think (A) I've become spoiled playing only at tournaments where good quiz bowl is wholeheartedly embraced, and (B) any frustration I had with the tournament was exacerbated by frustration with the set.

Additionally, issues we have with administration have been annoying, but they are getting better, albeit at an IHSA match's pace.
Zahed Haseeb

Auburn High School 2010
University of Chicago 2014

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5589
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT: Who You Attempting to Fool?

Post by Important Bird Area »

Oliver Ellsworth wrote:NAQT is simply doing what it does with it's screwy distributions and strange answer selections. What I'm lamenting now is the fact that, in a position to touch an enormous number of quiz bowl teams, NAQT continually chooses to ignore the advice and criticism it receives beyond invidual questions or packets. ... But ultimately, NAQT sets still don't have what it takes to be esteemed at the level of HSAPQ and many housewritten sets. The differences are very obvious. NAQT could be the single most powerful proponent of the activity it professes to advance, but instead it continues many of its silly ways. Wasted potential just makes me so sad....
I'll have much more to say about this sometime later this week (and almost certainly in a new thread).
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

Locked