NAQT Timer Policy
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:45 am
This is not a post about how the clock needs to be destroyed. We can go find that thread when someone else makes it. (feel free to move this into the regular Discussion forum if it doesn't end up mentioning individual questions or other non-blind stuff)
At the Region 15 SCT, one of the Caltech staffers was having problems getting through 20 questions. At some point in the morning rounds, rather than continue to get through 16-18 tossups a match, he decided to instead set the timer to 11-minute halves and give himself a decent chance of hitting 20+ tossups every time.
I thought this was an interesting way of countering a notable problem at SCT (moderators that can't get through 20 questions in the allotted time). It appears to be completely against the NAQT rules, and yet it did not at all detract from the tournament and indeed increased everyone's enjoyment of the tournament relative to yet another 17-tossup game. I am wondering what other community members, and NAQT, think of this rather unorthodox solution of adaptive timekeeping.
On the plus side, it would keep whatever virtues of timed matches exist while solving one of its major problems. On the other hand, it would completely destroy the whole fixed-time-length match structure and almost certainly disorient a few teams not used to such tactics. Also, it would place unfair constraints on the morning rounds of a tournament, unless it's something like HSNCT where most or all of the moderating staff would have the opportunity to calibrate their moderating speed to the clock during the Friday night practice rounds.
At the Region 15 SCT, one of the Caltech staffers was having problems getting through 20 questions. At some point in the morning rounds, rather than continue to get through 16-18 tossups a match, he decided to instead set the timer to 11-minute halves and give himself a decent chance of hitting 20+ tossups every time.
I thought this was an interesting way of countering a notable problem at SCT (moderators that can't get through 20 questions in the allotted time). It appears to be completely against the NAQT rules, and yet it did not at all detract from the tournament and indeed increased everyone's enjoyment of the tournament relative to yet another 17-tossup game. I am wondering what other community members, and NAQT, think of this rather unorthodox solution of adaptive timekeeping.
On the plus side, it would keep whatever virtues of timed matches exist while solving one of its major problems. On the other hand, it would completely destroy the whole fixed-time-length match structure and almost certainly disorient a few teams not used to such tactics. Also, it would place unfair constraints on the morning rounds of a tournament, unless it's something like HSNCT where most or all of the moderating staff would have the opportunity to calibrate their moderating speed to the clock during the Friday night practice rounds.