The Quizbowl Resource Center

Hey, people keep asking - are there gonna be power marks in questions at Chi Open?

I could go either way on this one, it doesn't matter much to me. So, vote away or comment or whatever, and at some point I'll decide.

So...the board has spoken-what say you, sir?

In the words of a very wise man:

Obviously, within the limits of modern quizbowl, along with points per bonus, Powers per game is one of the most important stats to indicate the performance of teams. By playing without powermarks, a lot of information about the quality of teams is lost. I believe an effort should be made to include powermarks universally, as there is no good reason for them to be absent. Having power a clue or 2 early or late does not significantly detract from the overall picture given by power stats, because if questions are properly pyramidal,then placing powermarks well is neither crucial nor difficult. Certainly, the marks should be placed in a thought-out way, not just by the physical position in the question, but the effort to produce them should not be so laborious as to preclude housewriters from adding them in. It really can take as little as 30 minutes to powermark a whole set, and having some powermarks,even if imperfect is greatly preferable to none at all. They are important in determining differences in tossup skill between both individuals and teams, and their consistent presence will make the stat easier to compare rankings on different sets across the country. I don't see any reason why there should be any more powermark-free sets when their inclusion is so easy to do and their presence is so beneficial.

Since Jerry's attempt to register nine times, under various Mikhail Bulgakov-inspired pseudonyms, and vote against powers in this tournament has failed to win the day -

And, given the above eloquent and impassioned plea from Mewtwo, who is no less than the fifth best legendary Pokemon according to Wikipedia -

Why, I have no choice but to include powers at Chicago Open.

Will you also provide numbers for each tossup in the packet? E.g., tossup 1, tossup 2, tossup 3, etc.? They read CO 2008 at the Maryland practice I attended tonight and the lack of tossup numbering in Westbrook tournaments was a problem that was commented on.

You could probably get some high schooler to do it for you, if you find numbering tossups after randomization to be a pain.

I enjoy the mystery.

Yeah, I've already numbered the tossups - I remember well your prior indignation at that, Bruce.

And, there is no "randomization" at a Westbrook tournament, I'll have you know - nothing is where it is by chance. I have a plan for all tossups and bonuses.