Interest in ICT Guerrilla Tournament?

[Mike Bentley]

Would people be interested in a guerrilla tournament (i.e. no editors for those of you not familar to bad quizbowl) at the ICT this year? It would probably take place on Saturday night, although depending on length it's possible we could do a few rounds on Friday night or Friday afternoon.

I've created a poll to solicit the format people would like to see for packet formats. The three options are (although I'm open to other creative ideas):
1. Standard Distribution - i.e. pretty close to an ACF packet, although with your choice of difficulty level.
2. Hybrid - Some combination of academic/trash/meta.
3. Themes - Go crazy and write on niche areas people don't necessarily care about.
4. Dream Packets - Dan Passner's idea of you writing someone else's dream packet. For instance, I might write a Jonathan Magin Dream Packet on William Gaddis, the Balitmore Orioles, items on the menu at Noodles, Tecmo Bowl, etc., while someone else might write a Dan Passner packet on Jews and hot dogs. You'd have to announce your theme ahead of time so we don't have 12 Chris Ray packets or something.

My preference leans greatly towards the fourth option.

To guarantee getting to play in this free tournament you would need to write a packet. People can form teams ahead of time to do question writing, and then there will probably be some sort of additional draft at the actual event. However, if you don't write a packet it's possible you might not end up on a team if the format doesn't work out.

We'd also need a few people to staff unless we had under a certain number of teams.

[Mike Bentley]

In case we end up doing the dream packets, here are the current reservations:
Packet Author - Target
Chris Chiego - Charles Meigs
Mike Bentley - Bruce Arthur

[Cheynem]

I would be interested in playing, although if it is Saturday night, my plane reservation would sadly trump quiz bowl. I don't mind writing a dream packet, although due to my lack of meta knowledge, it would probably have to be on a Minnesota team member.

[cdcarter]

I would be interested in playing, although if it is Saturday night, my plane reservation would sadly trump quiz bowl. I don't mind writing a dream packet, although due to my lack of meta knowledge, it would probably have to be on a Minnesota team member.

Mike, I'd be willing to go in on a Rob Carson packet.

[marnold]

I will contribute a Seth Teitler dream packet (possibly with some assistance from some other Chicago people).

[Auks Ran Ova]

I would be interested in playing, although if it is Saturday night, my plane reservation would sadly trump quiz bowl. I don't mind writing a dream packet, although due to my lack of meta knowledge, it would probably have to be on a Minnesota team member.

Mike, I'd be willing to go in on a Rob Carson packet.

GO ON

[Auroni]

If people want to write an Eric Mukherjee dream packet, I can weigh in

[Skepticism and Animal Feed]

I would love to follow up my Science writing debut at Science Monstrosity with an Andy Watkins dream packet.

[Theory Of The Leisure Flask]

I'm interested, though a) my meta-fu is pretty weak, so I'd need some guidance if we're doing dream packets, and b) my plane gets in too late to be a part of any Friday afternoon rounds.

[Mr. Kwalter]

I'll probably play this if the format isn't "dream packets." Any of the other three would be fine with me (assuming the theme packets were well-executed and otherwise fit the standard or hybrid distribution), but the dream packets thing seems like one of those quizbowl ideas that is fun to talk about and sounds good for a couple hours then fails because really, it's kind of retarded. I've had my share of those...

[Important Bird Area]

the dream packets thing seems like one of those quizbowl ideas that is fun to talk about and sounds good for a couple hours then fails

Second that. I don't harbor the delusion that anyone else on the planet would actually enjoy playing a packet with 10/10 each birdwatching and English Civil War historiography.

[grapesmoker]

I have no interest in "dream packets." Otherwise I'll probably participate.

[Mike Bentley]

In the interest of including more people in this tournament, we can nix the dream packet idea.

How about packets distributed in the following manner:
2/2 History
2/2 Literature
2/2 Science
1.5/1.5 RMP
1.5/1.5 Arts
1/1 SS/Geography/Trash
10/10 Your Choice

The 10/10 Your Choice would be your oppurtunity to go wild and make your packet have 3/3 linguistics, 4/4 American Literature, etc. The rest of the distribution would serve as a counter-balance to add some sort of consistency between packets.

I'm also open to not having bonuses to save on writing and playing time (I don't imagine we'll have all that much time to play this during the period where everyone is at the tournament).

[Frater Taciturnus]

I don't harbor the delusion that anyone else on the planet would actually enjoy playing a packet with 10/10 each birdwatching and English Civil War historiography.

PAGING GREG TITO

[Cheynem]

The distribution seems solid, but I will be honest: If I write a packet for this, it's basically just going to strech the limits of the distribution anyway (i.e., my science ain't gonna be science, folks).

[Mr. Kwalter]

The 10/10 Your Choice would be your oppurtunity to go wild and make your packet have 3/3 linguistics, 4/4 American Literature, etc. The rest of the distribution would serve as a counter-balance to add some sort of consistency between packets.

I really don't see the point of this. Maybe I've grown conservative in my old age, but why do we need to abandon the idea of an ordered standardized distribution (even if that distribution is non-traditional) to have fun? Like Jeff was saying, I don't think most people would want to hear the niche crap each of us would write about if we could write about whatever we wanted. Also, we might want a little sanity after playing ICT.

I'm also open to not having bonuses to save on writing and playing time (I don't imagine we'll have all that much time to play this during the period where everyone is at the tournament).

Sure.

[Mechanical Beasts]

The 10/10 Your Choice would be your oppurtunity to go wild and make your packet have 3/3 linguistics, 4/4 American Literature, etc. The rest of the distribution would serve as a counter-balance to add some sort of consistency between packets.

I really don't see the point of this. Maybe I've grown conservative in my old age, but why do we need to abandon the idea of an ordered standardized distribution (even if that distribution is non-traditional) to have fun? Like Jeff was saying, I don't think most people would want to hear the niche crap each of us would write about if we could write about whatever we wanted. Also, we might want a little sanity after playing ICT.

I'm open to basically anything and will play this in any event. I'd like to note, though that dream packets can still be written with a standard distribution: for example, if you haven't discovered at least one part of each lit subdistribution that I enjoy, you don't know me. Those things would belong in my dream packet.

And so I think that Kwartler's right in that we don't need to break from a distribution to have fun. In fact, these dream packets might be more fun the more strictly we try to adhere to a common form. If the distribution isn't a constraint, then I will tell you right up front that I will enjoy the 3/3 RCM and 2/2 Negishi coupling in my packet, but I will also say that that's kind of less exciting because everyone could predict that hey, Andy Watkins likes orgo. It's more fun to try to make a subtly shaded but obviously Bruce Arthur packet than it is to write 20/20 Hungarian history and say "lol, Bruce likes this."

[Mr. Kwalter]

You're absolutely right, Andy, but now you're just talking about theme packets. If people want to do theme packets with a standard or hybrid distribution, I'd personally be cool with that, even if the theme is based around a person.

[cdcarter]

And so I think that Kwartler's right in that we don't need to break from a distribution to have fun. In fact, these dream packets might be more fun the more strictly we try to adhere to a common form. If the distribution isn't a constraint, then I will tell you right up front that I will enjoy the 3/3 RCM and 2/2 Negishi coupling in my packet, but I will also say that that's kind of less exciting because everyone could predict that hey, Andy Watkins likes orgo. It's more fun to try to make a subtly shaded but obviously Bruce Arthur packet than it is to write 20/20 Hungarian history and say "lol, Bruce likes this."

I kind of assumed this was the idea behind the dream packets. So yea, my vote for dream packets is contingent on distribution being a thing in the theme packets.

[Mechanical Beasts]

You're absolutely right, Andy, but now you're just talking about theme packets. If people want to do theme packets with a standard or hybrid distribution, I'd personally be cool with that, even if the theme is based around a person.

I see. I guess I inferred that the example packet on "Jews and hot dogs" for Dan Passner wouldn't be 5/5 noted cantors and 2/2 frankfurter history, but rather, say, some Jewish authors (I hear there's some dude named Roth, I don't know) or characters (there's one in Malta or something?) and, while of course there could be a trash tossup on hot dogs, you could use puns to get some science out of it (Wiener processes exist).

[Skepticism and Animal Feed]

I agree with Hannah and Andy. The idea of individually themed packets is far too amusing and novel to abandon.

[SepiaOfficinalis]

In the interest of including more people in this tournament, we can nix the dream packet idea.

How about packets distributed in the following manner:
2/2 History
2/2 Literature
2/2 Science
1.5/1.5 RMP
1.5/1.5 Arts
1/1 SS/Geography/Trash
10/10 Your Choice

The 10/10 Your Choice would be your oppurtunity to go wild and make your packet have 3/3 linguistics, 4/4 American Literature, etc. The rest of the distribution would serve as a counter-balance to add some sort of consistency between packets.

I'm also open to not having bonuses to save on writing and playing time (I don't imagine we'll have all that much time to play this during the period where everyone is at the tournament).

[Mike Bentley]

Alright, how about theme packets with a standardish distribution where you can optionally make the theme "So and So's Dream Packet"?

[Cheynem]

I mean it's an informal guerrilla tournament. As long as people don't write totally insane themed/distributed packets, I don't think anyone's going to get too wonked off at a packet that features no classical music or something.

[Rothlover]

I do think the specifics of whatever gimmick need to be fleshed out better. I mean, all Jew with wacky distribution is what HAWKFACE will be for. The event would also be a leisurely thing with like buzzers in people's rooms and such, with liquids involved? Also, for the record, my ideal packet would be mostly non-biblical Jewy works/events/stuff, hardass baseball and a small dose of cheap eats (my percieved specific love of hot dogs has been exaggerated to Rayian proportions.)