2009 NAQT HSNCT

[jonah]

On a somewhat unrelated point- I had made a post earlier this morning to which Tom Egan responded, asking that that part of the discussion be moved into a separate thread. The posts are out of this thread, but I can't find the separate thread. Can somebody point me to where it is? Thanks!

Here.

[pblessman]

Ahhh... that's why I didn't find it... I was looking just in the high school part of the board... Thanks!

[Stained Diviner]

I think the protest was resolved correctly. If somebody answers in a language relevant to the question, then you accept the answer.

Rules on acceptability should not have exceptions, because it should not be the students' jobs to learn exceptions. Sorry for taking this farther afield, but Invisible Man should be a correct answer for both the Wells and the Ellison works, just like Washington is a correct answer for the first US President and the star of Training Day. The Invisible Man novels have as much in common as the Washington people, and, much more importantly, the information is as identifying as most quizbowl answers and correct.

[dtaylor4]

I think the protest was resolved correctly. If somebody answers in a language relevant to the question, then you accept the answer.

Rules on acceptability should not have exceptions, because it should not be the students' jobs to learn exceptions. Sorry for taking this farther afield, but Invisible Man should be a correct answer for both the Wells and the Ellison works, just like Washington is a correct answer for the first US President and the star of Training Day. The Invisible Man novels have as much in common as the Washington people, and, much more importantly, the information is as identifying as most quizbowl answers and correct.

Really? Seriously?

Students should be able to differentiate between similar concepts. It's part of actually knowing things.

Also, that Washingon analogy? *Insert Johnny Mac rant*

[AKKOLADE]

Rules on acceptability should not have exceptions, because it should not be the students' jobs to learn exceptions. Sorry for taking this farther afield, but Invisible Man should be a correct answer for both the Wells and the Ellison works, just like Washington is a correct answer for the first US President and the star of Training Day. The Invisible Man novels have as much in common as the Washington people, and, much more importantly, the information is as identifying as most quizbowl answers and correct.

Really, I find this argument to be absolutely incorrect. The reason there's this issue with Invisible Man vs. The Invisible Man is because they are both works of literature that have some level of academic value. When answering a question about a novel, it should be expected that the player differentiates between these two works and shows clear knowledge. This is also a situation where a prompt does not help; if you prompt on Invisible Man, it quickly becomes clear that they want The placed in front of it, and vice versa. Due to this unique circumstance, it is necessary to say that there is an issue between these two answers.

On the other hand, George Washington is a very important figure in history, while Denzel Washington has appeared in movies. There is no connection between these two people as far as being from the same general academic subject. Now, if you wanted to say that people should be prompted on questions about George Washington and Booker T. Washington, that's fine - but we have a way to do this. If someone were to buzz in with Washington, they could be asked for more information without basically being told what information is needed. This is totally different from Invisible Man vs. The Invisible Man.

The most similar situation I can think of off the top of my head is John Adams and John Quincy Adams, which should be handled similar to The Invisible Man/Invisible Man: if someone buzzes in with Quincy Adams, it's clear which one is being given. If someone buzzes in with Adams, it's similarly clear, because it's so common place for Quincy Adams to be differentiated.

[jonah]

The most similar situation I can think of off the top of my head is John Adams and John Quincy Adams, which should be handled similar to The Invisible Man/Invisible Man: if someone buzzes in with Quincy Adams, it's clear which one is being given. If someone buzzes in with Adams, it's similarly clear, because it's so common place for Quincy Adams to be differentiated.

I was about to make a post with the same example. However, I thought (and I may be totally wrong on this) that protocol for Adams/Quincy Adams was as follows:
If the player says "Adams", he is prompted regardless of whether John Adams or John Quincy Adams is the answer; on the response to the prompt, then the next two things are applied.
If the player says "John Adams" (I guess or "J. Adams" or something) when the answer is "John Quincy Adams", he is wrong; when the answer is "John Adams", he is right.
If the player says "John Quincy Adams" when the answer is "John Adams", he is wrong; when the answer is "John Quincy Adams", he is right.

Is that not how it's usually done?

[AKKOLADE]

The most similar situation I can think of off the top of my head is John Adams and John Quincy Adams, which should be handled similar to The Invisible Man/Invisible Man: if someone buzzes in with Quincy Adams, it's clear which one is being given. If someone buzzes in with Adams, it's similarly clear, because it's so common place for Quincy Adams to be differentiated.

I was about to make a post with the same example. However, I thought (and I may be totally wrong on this) that protocol for Adams/Quincy Adams was as follows:
If the player says "Adams", he is prompted regardless of whether John Adams or John Quincy Adams is the answer; on the response to the prompt, then the next two things are applied.
If the player says "John Adams" (I guess or "J. Adams" or something) when the answer is "John Quincy Adams", he is wrong; when the answer is "John Adams", he is right.
If the player says "John Quincy Adams" when the answer is "John Adams", he is wrong; when the answer is "John Quincy Adams", he is right.

Is that not how it's usually done?

Yeah, this is the correct procedure. I was trying to type that post while fighting with a laptop and managed to screw at least one of them up.

[jonah]

The most similar situation I can think of off the top of my head is John Adams and John Quincy Adams, which should be handled similar to The Invisible Man/Invisible Man: if someone buzzes in with Quincy Adams, it's clear which one is being given. If someone buzzes in with Adams, it's similarly clear, because it's so common place for Quincy Adams to be differentiated.

I was about to make a post with the same example. However, I thought (and I may be totally wrong on this) that protocol for Adams/Quincy Adams was as follows:
If the player says "Adams", he is prompted regardless of whether John Adams or John Quincy Adams is the answer; on the response to the prompt, then the next two things are applied.
If the player says "John Adams" (I guess or "J. Adams" or something) when the answer is "John Quincy Adams", he is wrong; when the answer is "John Adams", he is right.
If the player says "John Quincy Adams" when the answer is "John Adams", he is wrong; when the answer is "John Quincy Adams", he is right.

Is that not how it's usually done?

Yeah, this is the correct procedure. I was trying to type that post while fighting with a laptop and managed to screw at least one of them up.

Actually, I just thought of a question on this. The answer would seem to be fairly common sense, but I wanted to make sure. What if the question's answer is "John Quincy Adams" and, either upon buzzing or after a prompt on "Adams", the player says "Quincy Adams"? Is it sufficient even though Quincy is the middle name and not the first name? If so, is giving an answer of "middle-name last-name" always acceptable if unambiguous, such as "David Salinger" for J.D. Salinger?

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

The most similar situation I can think of off the top of my head is John Adams and John Quincy Adams, which should be handled similar to The Invisible Man/Invisible Man: if someone buzzes in with Quincy Adams, it's clear which one is being given. If someone buzzes in with Adams, it's similarly clear, because it's so common place for Quincy Adams to be differentiated.

I was about to make a post with the same example. However, I thought (and I may be totally wrong on this) that protocol for Adams/Quincy Adams was as follows:
If the player says "Adams", he is prompted regardless of whether John Adams or John Quincy Adams is the answer; on the response to the prompt, then the next two things are applied.
If the player says "John Adams" (I guess or "J. Adams" or something) when the answer is "John Quincy Adams", he is wrong; when the answer is "John Adams", he is right.
If the player says "John Quincy Adams" when the answer is "John Adams", he is wrong; when the answer is "John Quincy Adams", he is right.

Is that not how it's usually done?

Yeah, this is the correct procedure. I was trying to type that post while fighting with a laptop and managed to screw at least one of them up.

Actually, I just thought of a question on this. The answer would seem to be fairly common sense, but I wanted to make sure. What if the question's answer is "John Quincy Adams" and, either upon buzzing or after a prompt on "Adams", the player says "Quincy Adams"? Is it sufficient even though Quincy is the middle name and not the first name? If so, is giving an answer of "middle-name last-name" always acceptable if unambiguous, such as "David Salinger" for J.D. Salinger?

In the case of Adams/Quincy Adams, I've always accepted even the slightest shred of extra info that indicated which one it was - John Adams = Adams, second POTUS = Adams the elder = Papa Adams and the like. Similar thing with the Bush presidents, for example. I don't know if that "smallest extra bit of extra info" necessarily applies to middle names of unambiguous people, but I would expect the answer to be no.

[jonah]

The most similar situation I can think of off the top of my head is John Adams and John Quincy Adams, which should be handled similar to The Invisible Man/Invisible Man: if someone buzzes in with Quincy Adams, it's clear which one is being given. If someone buzzes in with Adams, it's similarly clear, because it's so common place for Quincy Adams to be differentiated.

I was about to make a post with the same example. However, I thought (and I may be totally wrong on this) that protocol for Adams/Quincy Adams was as follows:
If the player says "Adams", he is prompted regardless of whether John Adams or John Quincy Adams is the answer; on the response to the prompt, then the next two things are applied.
If the player says "John Adams" (I guess or "J. Adams" or something) when the answer is "John Quincy Adams", he is wrong; when the answer is "John Adams", he is right.
If the player says "John Quincy Adams" when the answer is "John Adams", he is wrong; when the answer is "John Quincy Adams", he is right.

Is that not how it's usually done?

Yeah, this is the correct procedure. I was trying to type that post while fighting with a laptop and managed to screw at least one of them up.

Actually, I just thought of a question on this. The answer would seem to be fairly common sense, but I wanted to make sure. What if the question's answer is "John Quincy Adams" and, either upon buzzing or after a prompt on "Adams", the player says "Quincy Adams"? Is it sufficient even though Quincy is the middle name and not the first name? If so, is giving an answer of "middle-name last-name" always acceptable if unambiguous, such as "David Salinger" for J.D. Salinger?

In the case of Adams/Quincy Adams, I've always accepted even the slightest shred of extra info that indicated which one it was - John Adams = Adams, second POTUS = Adams the elder = Papa Adams and the like. Similar thing with the Bush presidents, for example. I don't know if that "smallest extra bit of extra info" necessarily applies to middle names of unambiguous people, but I would expect the answer to be no.

This is getting fairly tangential, but for JQA I don't feel that "the younger Adams" is really sufficient. Maybe what you said is standard practice, which is what I want to know. But the thing is, saying "the younger Adams" seems like it's on the slippery slope to accepting "the novel with Mersault by Camus" without actually naming The Stranger: knowing people's and things' actual names is important.

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

The most similar situation I can think of off the top of my head is John Adams and John Quincy Adams, which should be handled similar to The Invisible Man/Invisible Man: if someone buzzes in with Quincy Adams, it's clear which one is being given. If someone buzzes in with Adams, it's similarly clear, because it's so common place for Quincy Adams to be differentiated.

I was about to make a post with the same example. However, I thought (and I may be totally wrong on this) that protocol for Adams/Quincy Adams was as follows:
If the player says "Adams", he is prompted regardless of whether John Adams or John Quincy Adams is the answer; on the response to the prompt, then the next two things are applied.
If the player says "John Adams" (I guess or "J. Adams" or something) when the answer is "John Quincy Adams", he is wrong; when the answer is "John Adams", he is right.
If the player says "John Quincy Adams" when the answer is "John Adams", he is wrong; when the answer is "John Quincy Adams", he is right.

Is that not how it's usually done?

Yeah, this is the correct procedure. I was trying to type that post while fighting with a laptop and managed to screw at least one of them up.

Actually, I just thought of a question on this. The answer would seem to be fairly common sense, but I wanted to make sure. What if the question's answer is "John Quincy Adams" and, either upon buzzing or after a prompt on "Adams", the player says "Quincy Adams"? Is it sufficient even though Quincy is the middle name and not the first name? If so, is giving an answer of "middle-name last-name" always acceptable if unambiguous, such as "David Salinger" for J.D. Salinger?

In the case of Adams/Quincy Adams, I've always accepted even the slightest shred of extra info that indicated which one it was - John Adams = Adams, second POTUS = Adams the elder = Papa Adams and the like. Similar thing with the Bush presidents, for example. I don't know if that "smallest extra bit of extra info" necessarily applies to middle names of unambiguous people, but I would expect the answer to be no.

This is getting fairly tangential, but for JQA I don't feel that "the younger Adams" is really sufficient. Maybe what you said is standard practice, which is what I want to know. But the thing is, saying "the younger Adams" seems like it's on the slippery slope to accepting "the novel with Mersault by Camus" without actually naming The Stranger: knowing people's and things' actual names is important.

Yeah - I believe that the standard practice is that this is OK simply because the prompt puts you at 2 and only 2 different options. I don't think anyone would say something like "Papa Adams" straight off the buzz. Might be mistaken as to how commonplace this is though.

[jonpin]

The most similar situation I can think of off the top of my head is John Adams and John Quincy Adams, which should be handled similar to The Invisible Man/Invisible Man: if someone buzzes in with Quincy Adams, it's clear which one is being given. If someone buzzes in with Adams, it's similarly clear, because it's so common place for Quincy Adams to be differentiated.

I was about to make a post with the same example. However, I thought (and I may be totally wrong on this) that protocol for Adams/Quincy Adams was as follows:
If the player says "Adams", he is prompted regardless of whether John Adams or John Quincy Adams is the answer; on the response to the prompt, then the next two things are applied.
If the player says "John Adams" (I guess or "J. Adams" or something) when the answer is "John Quincy Adams", he is wrong; when the answer is "John Adams", he is right.
If the player says "John Quincy Adams" when the answer is "John Adams", he is wrong; when the answer is "John Quincy Adams", he is right.

Is that not how it's usually done?

Protocol on that differs on paper. I don't know about in practice.

Directly relevant to this thread is NAQT's rule stating "In rare cases, an otherwise acceptable answer may be ruled incorrect when it creates ambiguity with another plausible answer." As such, I would think this answer should not be accepted as it creates clear ambiguity.

[Mechanical Beasts]

Directly relevant to this thread is NAQT's rule stating "In rare cases, an otherwise acceptable answer may be ruled incorrect when it creates ambiguity with another plausible answer." As such, I would think this answer should not be accepted as it creates clear ambiguity.

And ain't that exactly what happened! Good thing this rule was consulted during the protest arbitration. Oh--wait--it must not have been.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

I just wanted to chime in to mention that the Farewell symphony clue there is actually quite stock (which is fine for this bonus), so this isn't actually an example of that phenomenon of using bonus parts to introduce new clues.

[Auroni]

you're in the right thread dude

[millionwaves]

On a somewhat unrelated point- I had made a post earlier this morning to which Tom Egan responded, asking that that part of the discussion be moved into a separate thread. The posts are out of this thread, but I can't find the separate thread. Can somebody point me to where it is? Thanks!

It's right over here:

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7906

[Dresden_The_BIG_JERK]

Rules on acceptability should not have exceptions, because it should not be the students' jobs to learn exceptions. Sorry for taking this farther afield, but Invisible Man should be a correct answer for both the Wells and the Ellison works, just like Washington is a correct answer for the first US President and the star of Training Day. The Invisible Man novels have as much in common as the Washington people, and, much more importantly, the information is as identifying as most quizbowl answers and correct.

Within reason I think I'd have to agree here, particularly re: Invisible Man. Apart from both being canonical lit answers, I think you'd be very hard pressed to create a tossup environment where either is a possible answer. One is a science fiction tale where the man is literally invisible, while the other is a tragic tale of society and ethnicity. Hardly related. It's not quite the same as father/son early 19th century POTUS.

[Cheynem]

Well, yeah, I see how they're very different works, but the point of the rule is to stress broad knowledge to know to give the exact title because it is in this case necessary. While it sucks if you have insanely deep knowledge of Invisible Man and screw up and say "The Invisible Man" and get negged, to me, it's just a slightly more extreme form of having insanely deep knowledge of any book and screwing up the title (i.e., just saying "Gatsby" for "The Great Gatsby" or "The Man and The Golden Arm" for "The Man With the Golden Arm"). The titles are important and, yeah, you the player needs to know that and give the correct title.

[jonpin]

Given that the overriding idea of the rules of QB is to reward clear knowledge, and that the purpose of the exception to the general rule is to avoid ambiguity, if someone buzzed in and said "Invisible Man by Wells", should it be accepted?

[Beastman]

I'd just like to chime in on the 2 seconds after buzzing issue. It seemed like this was never an issue for my team, or probably any team from Kentucky for that matter. In Kentucky, at most events, you have to answer immediately after being recognized, and recognition is a lot more strict. For example, if you answer before they specifically call your name, it can be called as an infraction and even if you had the right answer, you get no points. I'm not saying NAQT should adopt this policy of strict recognition and immediate answers, but it seems like using that system throughout the season definitely helped my team, and probably other Kentucky teams, to avoid some negs and hesitations.

[closesesame]

About this Brahma and Brahman thing again - since when has Brahma ever been the spoken Sanskrit version of Brahman? I have never heard Brahman referred to as Brahma, or even Brahma with a long a at the end. Before someone says "no one has spoken Sanskrit for thousands of years, so how would you know?", a highly-structured, metered form of spoken Sanskrit is an integral part of every Hindu puja. And yes, the distinct words Brahma and Brahman do come up.

Sanskrit is a very precise language; you pronounce the sounds essentially as they are written and rarely make them (especially nasal sounds) silent. There is a reason Brahman has been transliterated as Brahman. You actually hear an "n" sound at the end of that word. Heck, that precision was more or less the entire point of Panini's reforms of Sanskrit way back when.

Accepting Brahma for Brahman is like saying that "Crist" is acceptable for "Christ," when one clearly refers to the governor of Florida and the other to Jesus.

[JGittings]

Graham - just for the record here -- Ms Gittings would have been all for the Laser Tag - she wishes she were independently wealthy and could have funded the transportation and the fees to play... jg

[cchiego]

FYI complete stats are now up here: http://www.naqt.com/stats/tournament-te ... nt_id=2750

[Kechara]

I just wanted to chime in to mention that the Farewell symphony clue there is actually quite stock (which is fine for this bonus), so this isn't actually an example of that phenomenon of using bonus parts to introduce new clues.

I've heard the part about the candles a bunch of times, what I had not heard before as a clue was that it was because they wanted to see more of their family.

[matt979]

No matter what the result was, the protest resolution was insane. The committee was unknown to all of us, whether or not they were blind to the teams (which they should be) was unknown, and whether or not they even knew what the protests were about (which I was not convinced of, based on Matt Bruce's handling of the resolution announcement) was also unclear.

Obviously I knew which two teams were involved, and I did learn from the scorekeeper the consequence of each protest (despite subsequently vapor-locking and announcing the actually-inconsequential resolution first), but not which team was on which end.

As you know (or would know if my explanation had been more coherent), the key decisions NAQT made in protest resolution were to trust Britannica on the religious literature bonus part, and to uphold the non-prompt of a mathematician's name on a question about something always known by a particular adjectival form of that mathematician's name. I gave no input on either decision (of course I would have been duty-bound to object, had either decision struck me as shockingly unjust) but I did just enough web surfing to

1) verify that Britannica did indeed say what it says
2) (on the part that actually didn't matter) try to preempt any claim that the implied answer had common usage (the relevant Google search comparison is 20,900 to 370, where the top results of the latter are generally people seeking answers from discussion fora)

At the time I was somewhat surprised to have had the honor of announcing the protest resolutions (as opposed to, for example, watching R. do the announcement), though of course such announcements come with the territory of running a control room. (And I'd made a few of them Saturday without freezing up.)

However, apart from this interesting failure, and the questions that could at times elicit actual laughter or shock from the teams and spectators, this tournament (at least the championship flight) was run with remarkable skill and dedication. You cannot say that NAQT isn't working amazingly hard to put on the tournament they want to put on/believe is what quizbowl should be, and that they aren't doing a fine job at it, and at spreading a very close relative to very good quizbowl to less than enlightened teams.

The kudos here are deeply appreciated, but all the more reason to be angry (at ourselves) when we don't execute the way we should. With a berth in the final on the line, State College and Dorman deserved something a lot more articulate than the announcement I gave.

Some of the harshest criticisms in this thread are well-deserved, though I fervently hope that the critical mass is still people who believe in the HSNCT and want to work hard on improving it (paraphrasing something Andy* wrote somewhere in the thread).

*- Since this is an evening of contrite posts, Andy and Hannah I apologize to the two of you for costing you a playoff game assignment by not clearly communicating to Joel how I'd set up a particular "double-booking" situation. The short version is that for every Saturday card that could have finished either 7-3 or 6-4, there were a pair of Sunday first-round playoff matches (one among cards 1-40 i.e. the 7-3 or better, one among cards 41-88 i.e. the 6-4 teams) that, it was guaranteed, couldn't *both* exist. Joel saw that particular games would not actually exist, and mistakenly inferred that the rooms previously assigned those (non)games would thus be bereft of first-round playoff action.

[Pilgrim]

2) (on the part that actually didn't matter) try to preempt any claim that the implied answer had common usage (the relevant Google search comparison is 20,900 to 370, where the top results of the latter are generally people seeking answers from discussion fora)

What exactly does common usage have to do with correctness of an answer? A quick google search would show that at least one quite reputable source disagrees with you, which should be enough - if an answer is academically equivalent, it should be treated as equivalent.

[grapesmoker]

As you know (or would know if my explanation had been more coherent), the key decisions NAQT made in protest resolution were to trust Britannica on the religious literature bonus part, and to uphold the non-prompt of a mathematician's name on a question about something always known by a particular adjectival form of that mathematician's name.

Naren has already explained as much of the Brahma/Brahman thing as I think needs to be explained, but I'd also like to disagree with your second resolution as well. Lots of things are known as "Gaussian," but in general, ever math question I've seen has typically accepted word forms (e.g. "compact" for "compactness" and so on). I haven't seen the question, but in general, given that it contains a bunch of things named for Gauss, giving Gauss as the answer seems eminently reasonable to me. If the answer was specifically "Gaussian integers," then of course it wouldn't be correct but I don't think that was the case. Can someone provide the original question in either this thread or the question discussion thread?

[jagluski]

As you know (or would know if my explanation had been more coherent), the key decisions NAQT made in protest resolution were to trust Britannica on the religious literature bonus part, and to uphold the non-prompt of a mathematician's name on a question about something always known by a particular adjectival form of that mathematician's name.

Naren has already explained as much of the Brahma/Brahman thing as I think needs to be explained, but I'd also like to disagree with your second resolution as well. Lots of things are known as "Gaussian," but in general, ever math question I've seen has typically accepted word forms (e.g. "compact" for "compactness" and so on). I haven't seen the question, but in general, given that it contains a bunch of things named for Gauss, giving Gauss as the answer seems eminently reasonable to me. If the answer was specifically "Gaussian integers," then of course it wouldn't be correct but I don't think that was the case. Can someone provide the original question in either this thread or the question discussion thread?

For 10 points each--answer these questions about {complex numbers}:

C. What complex numbers whose two parts are both integers are named for the man who proved {quadratic reciprocity}?

answer: _Gaussian integer_s (prompt on "Gaussian"; do not prompt on "Gauss")

[Mechanical Beasts]

Trevor demonstrated that "always" is flat-out wrong, since a math course and a math textbook disagree; moreover, there's no real difference between saying "Gauss" and figuring out how to make an adjective out of "Gauss."

[cvdwightw]

This post has absolutely nothing to do with question stuff, but is something else that I picked up on while perusing stats: playoffs.

First, I noticed that 6-4 Flushing played a total of 0 playoff games. I recognize that this may not at all be NAQT's fault - perhaps Flushing took off after the Saturday rounds and didn't check in on Sunday - but without knowing the circumstances, this seems eerily similar to the 2002 Hartland scenario in which a team that was, by record, a playoff team (and, like Flushing, would not have been the first team screwed over on a PP20H tiebreaker) did not end up playing any playoff games due to (well, I suppose Freeburn can post a screed explaining his side of things).

Second, I also noticed that La Jolla B was eliminated in the playoffs, in the first round, by its own A team. Also, Moravian was eliminated in the first round by Lafayette, a team that it had already played on Saturday. I recognize that it is practically impossible to control repeated games and teams playing teams they play all the time during the Saturday rounds, because NAQT has no control over which teams end up with which cards. However, I think it would be a benefit to the tournament if NAQT were to slightly tweak the initial playoff seedings such that no school would play a team from its area until the third round, and each team gets at least one playoff game against a team they haven't already played. This would only require switching a few teams by a single seed, and given that it's the first couple of rounds, before everything gets jumbled up, it should be relatively easy for NAQT to go through its playoff seedings and make sure that its initial pairings don't put teams together that have already played (either the day before or at multiple local tournaments). Maybe it's just me, but it seems like at such a large tournament, part of the appeal is getting to play teams you don't see at local tournaments, and it's probably more than a little annoying to see a team you've already played in the first round of the playoffs.

[ak47]

Just to resolve the Flushing HS case, the reason Flushing played no playoff games was simply because they had to leave the tournament for their high school graduation ceremony on Sunday.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

My thought is that once you get to the playoffs it doesn't matter because that's how things shook out, and if you end up seeded to play some other local team then thats just what happens.

[jagluski]

This post has absolutely nothing to do with question stuff, but is something else that I picked up on while perusing stats: playoffs.

First, I noticed that 6-4 Flushing played a total of 0 playoff games. I recognize that this may not at all be NAQT's fault - perhaps Flushing took off after the Saturday rounds and didn't check in on Sunday - but without knowing the circumstances, this seems eerily similar to the 2002 Hartland scenario in which a team that was, by record, a playoff team (and, like Flushing, would not have been the first team screwed over on a PP20H tiebreaker) did not end up playing any playoff games due to (well, I suppose Freeburn can post a screed explaining his side of things).

Flushing did qualify for the playoffs and was seeded as such, but they went to the info desk after prelim rounds and informed NAQT verbally and in writing that they would be leaving after the Saturday rounds due to their graduation on Sunday. They did receive a playoff card and I went and forfeited their first playoff match against Solon. There was no oversight here (or lack of being able to get hold of Flushing)

[The Time Keeper]

this seems eerily similar to the 2002 Hartland scenario in which a team that was, by record, a playoff team (and, like Flushing, would not have been the first team screwed over on a PP20H tiebreaker) did not end up playing any playoff games due to (well, I suppose Freeburn can post a screed explaining his side of things).

I didn't know that anyone was unaware of the backstory to this, but I'll get it out of the way for Dwight at least. There were apparently one too many 7-3 teams that year for NAQT's schedule so they had the two teams with the lowest PPG (in a timed format) have a play-in game to determine the final playoff seed. Maybe they used PP20TH, I don't know. Either way it probably would have ended up with Hartland playing Dorman and Dorman won that game.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[cchiego]

FYI here's a link to podcasts of all rounds (except 13, in which a student apparently did not want to be recorded): http://www.naqt.com/hsnct/2009/podcasts/index.html

This might help resolve some issues, although currently the podcasts are taking a long time to load for me.

[master15625]

Yeah, it is taking me a long time as well.

I have only gotten one downloaded so far, and I've downloaded for two hours.

[Charbroil]

I can play them as a streaming file on Firefox, but yeah, it takes a ridiculously long time on IE.

[master15625]

I can play them as a streaming file on Firefox, but yeah, it takes a ridiculously long time on IE.

Really, you could. for me, it keeps stopping, and eventually it just stops...

[Charbroil]

Well, admittedly, I only listened to the first few seconds of it--I assumed it would be good all the way through, like the other podcasts (from previous years) are.

[btressler]

I apologize for the tardiness of this, a storm left me without power for 24 hours.

Mainly, I'm disappointed...a tragic end to a fantastic match.

For those who weren't there... hopefully, there will be a podcast up soon to refer to; I was sitting so far back that I could not hear well what transpired (an issue in itself, but a relatively insignificant one). But what I did hear was the winning team's coach, with (by my judgment) genuine regret, respond to congratulations by conceding that they should not have won, because on the final (I believe) tossup of their 350-340 win, Henry Gorman's response was delayed by more than the allotted time. Sweeping NSC and HSNCT is a massive achievement, yet the circumstances in the latter left the victors' coach sensing an impending outcry.

Understatement of the year. I couldn't apologize enough to Eric for the way the round ended. I thought time was being enforced unevenly in several of the earlier matches that I watched and now I wish I had said something to someone before the final.

I have a profound sense of disconcerment over the finish of this year's HSNCT. Every Charter colleague that asked me about our tournament can't understand why I am not estatic. If only we could hit the rewind button and fix the way things were adjudicated.

For what it's worth, we protested the Gauss question in our match for the same reason. I was told by R that "Guass" is wrong, "Gaussian numbers" is a prompt. This makes NO sense to me when "what numbers" is in the question! Maybe this wouldn't have happened to two of the best teams in the nation if the question had been worded as "The man who proved quadratic reciprocity lends his name to what complex numbers whose parts are both integers?". (The protest we made regarding "Jacques" in the same round wasn't really a protest, it was more of "we're not sure about this, could you look that up?".)

One year we were told that "fusion reactor" was not OK for "fusion" becuase the question had said "this process". But "Confederate States of America" was OK for "Confederate Congress" even though the question had said "this legislative body".

Last year in our State College round I protested when the answer of "speciation" was given for "species" because the question said "these entities". The protest didn't matter, but later I was told it would probably be denied. Am I wrong in thinking that speciation is a process and not an entity? But now we deny Dorman "fluoride" because "an ion of this element" is seeking an element and the player keyed in on the wrong word.

I hope the point is clear: Will NAQT please decide whether we're going to give leeway to close answers or not?! My personal viewpoint is the strict one, but whatever decision is made is fine by me so long as it is enforced uniformly. Right now it feels like decisions are being made arbitrarily.

On a more positive note, way to go juniors for making it to 27th. I thought it was a joke when I got a text message saying they had beat Rancho Bernardo. I think they'll be more excited about attending next year's HSNCT than I will be.

FWIW, R told me that they hope to be back on Memorial Day weekend next year.

[Down and out in Quintana Roo]

FWIW, R told me that they hope to be back on Memorial Day weekend next year.

Then that means we probably can't go because of graduation. Meh, oh well.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

I could have sworn the CSA congress protest was over Andy Watkins either correcting himself or being prompted and then giving the congress part later, not over the CSA being accepted as the answer to a question on its congress.

[btressler]

I could have sworn the CSA congress protest was over Andy Watkins either correcting himself or being prompted and then giving the congress part later, not over the CSA being accepted as the answer to a question on its congress.

I thought it was accepted outright, but I may misremember.

I got over that protest a long time ago. I just bring it up as another example of this frustrating pattern of ambiguity. It's the kind of stuff we dealt with at Chip. I don't expect it here.

[Matthew D]

I hope that it stays the same weekend personally because it would clip us from getting to attend because of graduation also... I really hate starting so early in the year at times...

[Mechanical Beasts]

I could have sworn the CSA congress protest was over Andy Watkins either correcting himself or being prompted and then giving the congress part later, not over the CSA being accepted as the answer to a question on its congress.

Correct: I said CSA Congress (and then added "of the CSA" because I figured I might as well nail down everything necessary) before R indicated whether that was cool or not. It was the sort of situation where Tressler ought to have protested (since it was the only remotely borderline, in terms of acceptability, swing of the match, and the game was decided by what, ten points? Certainly not more than a tossup. But at the same time, it wasn't a protest he was going to win.

[Gautam]

For what it's worth, we protested the Gauss question in our match for the same reason. I was told by R that "Guass" is wrong, "Gaussian numbers" is a prompt. This makes NO sense to me when "what numbers" is in the question!

Given that the question said "what numbers" AND that it mentioned they are integers of some kind, I see absolutely 0 reason for "Gauss" to be prompted.

GK

[master15625]

For what it's worth, we protested the Gauss question in our match for the same reason. I was told by R that "Guass" is wrong, "Gaussian numbers" is a prompt. This makes NO sense to me when "what numbers" is in the question!

Given that the question said "what numbers" AND that it mentioned they are integers of some kind, I see absolutely 0 reason for "Gauss" to be prompted.

GK

Exactly what I was thinking. It said what numbers, and if I am not mistaken they said "Gaussian" should be prompted, not "Gaussian numbers", but I could be worng.

the correct thing is Gaussian Integers.

[Tower Monarch]

For what it's worth, we protested the Gauss question in our match for the same reason. I was told by R that "Guass" is wrong, "Gaussian numbers" is a prompt. This makes NO sense to me when "what numbers" is in the question!

Given that the question said "what numbers" AND that it mentioned they are integers of some kind, I see absolutely 0 reason for "Gauss" to be prompted.

GK

What exactly does common usage have to do with correctness of an answer? A quick google search would show that at least one quite reputable source disagrees with you, which should be enough - if an answer is academically equivalent, it should be treated as equivalent.

The thing is, even if you think "Gauss" isn't promptable for Gaussian, it's an entirely different story when it can be commonly referred to as "Gauss integers." I see absolutely 100% reason for it to be accepted.
Per Neil, that doesn't sound like the issue, but integers are numbers and so numbers should be prompted (or according to that Google books link, accepted outright as it is also a common alternative).

[grapesmoker]

Looking at the question it seems straightforward to me that "Gaussian integers" is the only acceptable answer. I was under the impression previously that this was a tossup on things named after Gauss, but since it's asking for a specific thing, then "Gauss" is clearly not the correct answer. As for the other points raised by Bill, I think he's exactly right: if you're given a proper noun, you need to match your answer to that noun. If there's some ambiguity, then word forms are acceptable (Gauss/Gaussian, etc.) but there really needs to be some consistency in the adjudication of such things.

[Mechanical Beasts]

But we already know that they're also called Gauss integers, so Gauss integers would be acceptable. And they said integers in the prompt, and I think it's standard that that sort of word need not be repeated. (For example, no one requires me to say "Raman scattering" after "FTP name this kind of scattering;" often I can just say Raman even before the word "scattering" in the tossup.