NY/NJ 2007-08

[TheCzarMan]

Sadly, it may just be Princeton for now. Due to scheduling conflicts (Namely Homecoming Dance) a good chunk of A team would not be able to attend. We're still seeing if bringing along some younger players with me as the A team is viable at the moment.

[ChathamNJ]

CzarMan: Please email me at sfineman AT chatham HYPHEN nj DOTT org

[ChathamNJ]

As for NJ, as mentioned Seton Hall is definitely up there, and Bergan Ct. is the real deal. If yesterday is any indication, High Tech, Millburn and Livingston are rebuilding. I would like to add Chatham as a team to watch for the future, and we will see how Bloomfield does at Princeton and LIFT.

Aw, shucks! Thanks for the kind words - we had some excellent students turn out for this one and they worked well as a team, so we had by far our best NAQT day ever. Unfortunately we'll be absent from both Princeton and LIFT, but once marching band ends we should have some more people out.

[The Infanta]

NJ

1. Bergen County
2. SHP
3. Pingry

NY

1. Stuy
2. Hunter
3. Kellenberg

[The Infanta]

Alright, it's been a little over two months since my last post, and I want to opine on my observations since then.

NJ

Seton Hall - A formidable team. Rob's base of knowledge is quite broad and the rest of the team plays great as well. We (Kellenberg) are basically matched by them in ability, and almost all rounds we play against them are dangerously close.

Pingry - We were defeated by them at Princeton, but this is because we were extremely undermanned that day. That said, I wish they would come to more events, since we only ever see them once a year at Princeton (save last year when they came to HHHW).

Bergen Cty. - Great team, but essentially carried by Watson and Aaron.

NY

Stuy - Amazing, as usual. Doug's teammates are also improving dramatically; they were awesome at Harvard and Aidan was one of the top scorers at LIFT.

Hunter - We haven't played them yet, but I read for them at LIFT. As Doug mentioned earlier, when it comes to tossups, it's all about Guy, although his teammates seemed pretty good at bonuses. An excellent squad.

HHHW - Less impressive than previous years. Lauren is quick, but it's really all just Lauren.

I'm lazy and don't feel like commenting on the -frequenting teams, so I'll end my rant here.

[ieppler]

But Lauren Feldman is a better history player than Dan Puma...

[dyetman89]

Doug's teammates are also improving dramatically; they were awesome at Harvard and Aidan was one of the top scorers at LIFT.

Thanks for bringing this up, because I do think it deserves more notice. I'd venture to say that Aidan was good from the start and remains good today (he was one of the top scorers at LIFT '06 as well - his second-ever tourney, incidentally). Not to mention Nina Charap's massive improvement over the last few months, which has been really impressive to watch firsthand. There's also Danny Zhu, who (in addition to his knowledge of physics, compsci, other techy jibba-jabba) may well be the best comp math player on the circuit.

Actually, this weekend will be the first time in months that the full Stuy A has played a tourney - hopefully we won't self-destruct.

I'm embarrassed to say I have yet to play...all but two of the consensus top teams in NY/NJ so far this year (although I have seen plenty of the bottom). Your modesty aside, Kellenberg has to be #3 in New York at this point. As for the rest...well, hopefully I'll see Bergen and HHHW at Hunter.

Speaking of Hunter, evidently Trinity Prep has a team registered, and unless memory fails, this is the first I've ever heard of them. Could be another addition to our dysfunctional family - or just a flash in the pan. If anybody knows who these guys might be, do invite them to the boards!

[The Atom Strikes!]

But Lauren Feldman is a better history player than Dan Puma...

And Micheal Wright. And Dan Humphrey.

[ieppler]

FWIW, my cousin goes to Trinity (I'm assuming that you're referring to the Trinity School in Manhattan and not some other Trinity School) and didn't know that they had a team. This is the first I've heard of them, as well.

[Ondes Martenot]

i guess i'll join in the fun (btw..how does kellenberg know my real name)

seton hall-great team as always. We've played them 3 times this year and gone 2-1 (with one 270-265 win at LIFT and a 365-355 loss at HHW) games against seton hall are always so exciting and close

livingston took a huge hit losing meryl, and pingry and millburn are both decent

NY

Hunter- the last time we faced them it was so frustrating, guy kept beating us on the buzzers. But essentially they're a one man team who's fortunate to have one of the best players in the country

Stuyvesant-never played the A team yet, but i assume they're very good. hope to play them at hunter

Kellenberg- up until this year i knew very little about them. We played them twice a SKIT at rutgers and went 1-1. They seem like a very deep team. we'll probably play them at hunter

HHW-we lost to them at LIFT and they looked very good, although i think questions may have been a factor (i think they powered 6-7 of the first ten questions)

as for my own team (bergen), we've centered on the fact that watson has transformed from a power-neg machine to a power-power machine, with 60 ppg at SKIT and LIFT. We have a third guy on our A team at hunter who should give us more depth in music/lit/art where we lack a bit

[The Infanta]

Aaron, I'm friends with you on Facebook (Marisol Brady).

[The Infanta]

I forgot to mention that, unfortunately, we are unable to attend Hunter (although I might show up as a reader).

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

I can just confirm for you all that Hunter does, in fact, have more then one person on their team who knows how to study, improve, and are motivated. I think a big problem for Hunter has been that they've not played with their full A team for a while, it sounds like most of the time its Guy and some random 8th graders.

[Ondes Martenot]

oh
i forgot about that

[Ondes Martenot]

why so many no shows for hunter (kellenberg, seton hall, charter, livingston, millburn, pingry, etc...)?

[Sir Thopas]

I can just confirm for you all that Hunter does, in fact, have more then one person on their team who knows how to study, improve, and are motivated. I think a big problem for Hunter has been that they've not played with their full A team for a while, it sounds like most of the time its Guy and some random 8th graders.

Heh, thanks. One of those "random 8th graders" is on my A-team normally, though, and usually my other junior is there too. The other random 8th graders are, hopefully, our future after I (and the other juniors) graduate. Usually we're just down one, occassionally two; that one gets all the history we don't know (he would have helped a lot at TJ, having actually heard of the Battle of Chibi . . .).

[The Infanta]

why so many no shows for hunter (kellenberg, seton hall, charter, livingston, millburn, pingry, etc...)?

I'm the only one on our team who is not a Science Olympian, and there is an invitational in Athens, PA that those who are are attending (grr...).

[btressler]

Charter is doing its Middle School tournament tomorrow (1/19). I've tried different dates, but the one that brought in the most teams was MLK Saturday. And in fact, tomorrow I'm expecting 42 teams.

We actually don't "get out" much Jan-Feb due to local events. And I've already blown through tons of bus money (stupid gas prices...) We probably won't be seen again out of state until the weekend of quizbowl goodness.

[dyetman89]

Well, Prison Bowl went down, and the (prelim) stats are up. Some reflections:

HHHW A is definitely down from last year, or so it seemed to me. They did end up fourth, but whether that means much in this field I'm not sure. Blayne knows how to run a team though, so who knows? they may well be a good deal better by nats.

As to the above post about "the better history player," let me put it thusly: Lauren Feldman is a better history player than Dan Puma like I'm the Grand Witchdoctor of Timbuktu. They're simply not on the same level at all, whatever the ACE camp results may have suggested.

Disappointingly, I didn't have a chance to see Bergen Academies A first hand, but their numbers are impressive, and they did finish ahead of every NY/NJ team save Stuy. As to the notion of a two man team...not from the stats I'm looking at. I wouldn't quite call them a one man team either, but clearly Watson was dominating the tossups by a considerably margin here.

Trinity is brand new, but they are definitely a team to watch. When we played them, they were obviously a bit green as far as the rules were concerned, but they clearly have some substantial knowledge. They seemed like a pretty young team, so if they keep at it they could be damn good. I invited them to join the boards, so I guess we'll see what happens.

[Ondes Martenot]

in regards to bergen a resembling a one man team

1. watson was just a having a very good day (he personally had 145 pts. in our defeat of hhw a) that combined with his somewhat large number of his negs gives the rest of the team scant opportunites to buzz in

2. at naqt tournaments such an imbalance doesn't exist on our team. while watson is still usually the top scorer on our tea, naqt has stuff like math and sports which i can usually get. acf is also much heavier in stuff like philosophy/classics, which i am horrible at, and lighter in stuff like history/geography which i do well in

[dyetman89]

Well, I haven't done a thorough study of the questions, but in general 20/20 ACF has 4/4 history, just as it does 4/4 science and 4/4 lit, though you're absolutely right about the paucity of geography.

[Ondes Martenot]

the lack of math/sports/current events also makes a noticeable difference

i still don't understand why acf lacks math, it's just as "academic" as any other subject

[Gonzagapuma1]

the lack of math/sports/current events also makes a noticeable difference

i still don't understand why acf lacks math, it's just as "academic" as any other subject

It doesn't lack math. It lacks computational math which isn't really math because some people who are great at math can't do a a problem in 5 or 10 seconds but still know a lot about math.

[Sir Thopas]

the lack of math/sports/current events also makes a noticeable difference

i still don't understand why acf lacks math, it's just as "academic" as any other subject

It doesn't lack math. It lacks computational math which isn't really math because some people who are great at math can't do a a problem in 5 or 10 seconds but still know a lot about math.

Yeah, there were some theoretical math questions in the set yesterday.

[ieppler]

As to the above post about "the better history player," let me put it thusly: Lauren Feldman is a better history player than Dan Puma like I'm the Grand Witchdoctor of Timbuktu. They're simply not on the same level at all, whatever the ACE camp results may have suggested.

Based only on playing questions, Puma actually finished second in the social studies/history tournament to Henry Gorman. Lauren "beat" Puma due to superior scores on written quizzes. Comparing tournament results to the ACE camp quiz scores leads me to believe that written tests are not necessarily the best indicator of quizbowl success. (This thread probably isn't the best place for this discussion.)

[Golran]

I don't know if anybody (maybe The Infanta) might know, but for Regional Quiz Bowl which regions can get an extra team invite to the final tournament for both and or varsity and JV because 1 team has gone for the past 2 years. Also if possible, can you mention which team it was that made it those years? I am especially interested in my region, Central Suffolk.

[First Chairman]

Comparing tournament results to the ACE camp quiz scores leads me to believe that written tests are not necessarily the best indicator of quizbowl success. (This thread probably isn't the best place for this discussion.)

As this discussion could gradually go to a different thread...

Written tests should never be considered a substitute for quiz bowl as we know it, but it can be used as a measuring stick on depth of knowledge. The information with written questions is all out there at once whereas clues are revealed more sequentially with oral questions. A slightly different skill.

Then again, it also depends on how the tests are delivered. HSCS also has written tests given in a one-on-one elimination format... and usually we do a pretty good job identifying individuals who have the knowledge base to do well with quizbowl. They might need more confidence with buzzer speed, which is the one skill quiz bowl rewards that a written test cannot.

[The Atom Strikes!]

As to the above post about "the better history player," let me put it thusly: Lauren Feldman is a better history player than Dan Puma like I'm the Grand Witchdoctor of Timbuktu. They're simply not on the same level at all, whatever the ACE camp results may have suggested.

Based only on playing questions, Puma actually finished second in the social studies/history tournament to Henry Gorman. Lauren "beat" Puma due to superior scores on written quizzes. Comparing tournament results to the ACE camp quiz scores leads me to believe that written tests are not necessarily the best indicator of quizbowl success. (This thread probably isn't the best place for this discussion.)

The question playing also was a little flawed in that the neg penalty was really harsh-- four negs and you were out. This killed Dan Humphry and Micheal Wright earlier in the competition.

[TheCzarMan]

http://ratings.aiquizbowl.com/state.php?state=NJ

http://ratings.aiquizbowl.com/state.php?state=NY

Given these results, what your current Top 5 atm?

1. Seton Hall/Stuyvesant
3. Kellenberg
4. Bergen/Hunter

Kellenberg seems to have Seton Hall's number a lot of the time, but overall I'd say Seton Hall still holds the edge against them. The reason for the tie between Seton Hall and Stuy is because, to my knowledge, they haven't played each other yet which surprises me. I know Hunter *almost* won THS today which impresses me. If they keep that up they'll move up my rankings fast.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

Um, I may not live there but I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that it's pretty blatantly obvious that the top 2 from your area are Stuyvesant and Hunter.

[BuzzerZen]

Fun fact: Guy scored 119.09 PPG over 11 rounds on an IS-set yesterday. This suggests the question: great performance, or greatest? Seriously, against Charter D, Guy was 6-10-0. The questions and the competition may have something to do with it, but I am still gobsmacked. They beat Stuy by about 200 and Moravian by about 350. Stuy lost to Moravian by 10 points, with Ben and Douglas playing with notably higher-scoring teammates than Guy.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

Fun fact: Guy scored 119.09 PPG over 11 rounds on an IS-set yesterday. This suggests the question: great performance, or greatest? Seriously, against Charter D, Guy was 6-10-0. The questions and the competition may have something to do with it, but I am still gobsmacked. They beat Stuy by about 200 and Moravian by about 350. Stuy lost to Moravian by 10 points, with Ben and Douglas playing with notably higher-scoring teammates than Guy.

MANCRUSH!!!

[The Atom Strikes!]

I was quite impressed by Guy's performance yesterday. He's improved quite a bit since that TJ tournament at the beginning of this school year, where we beat him by about 400 points. He managed to beat us once (though the margin of victory was small), and beat a lot of other good teams, though he lost to us in two games of final. I also noticed that his teammates have improved somewhat, and are beginning to get some of his aggression.

I was also somewhat surprised that Stuyvesant did not perform better than they did yesterday. They seem to have declined somewhat since the start of the year.

[catsasslippers]

At yesterdays tournament the team consisted of two A-team members, a B-team member and a C-team member. I wouldn't take yesterdays performance as an example of well the entire A-team plays together.

[The Atom Strikes!]

At yesterdays tournament the team consisted of two A-team members, a B-team member and a C-team member. I wouldn't take yesterdays performance as an example of well the entire A-team plays together.

True, you and Danny were not there... But Doug does something like 70% of your team's scoring, n'est-ce pas?

[dyetman89]

I was quite impressed by Guy's performance yesterday. He's improved quite a bit since that TJ tournament at the beginning of this school year, where we beat him by about 400 points. He managed to beat us once (though the margin of victory was small), and beat a lot of other good teams, though he lost to us in two games of final. I also noticed that his teammates have improved somewhat, and are beginning to get some of his aggression.

I was also somewhat surprised that Stuyvesant did not perform better than they did yesterday. They seem to have declined somewhat since the start of the year.

Honstly, Henry, it's statements like this that make me wonder if you follow the results of any of the tournaments you don't compete in, or pay any attention to the lineup of any of the better teams. First of all, do you honestly believe that yesterday's horsehit questions were the best way to seperate the wheat from the chaff? Second, did you happen to see the Prison Bowl results? Check out the questions (questions that were considerably more difficult than yesterday's, and notably free of an unbelievably large gen. knowledge/pop culture/geography/random nonsense distribution), check out Stuy's relevant numbers, and then tell me if you don't think our full A-team is a force, and a good deal better than in October. Yesterday's Stuy team was missing its #2 and #3 player (as far as NAQT format is concerned) and still led the field in powers. Chew on that.

On that note, call it sour grapes if you must, but am I the only one who thought a good deal (not by any means all, but a good deal) of the questions yesterday were terrible? I realize that if you don't have at the very least a passable command of pop cult/gen. knowledge/random bullshit, your team is going to eventually plateau at NAQT, that it's always been that way, and that it's not worth complaining too much about. Still, does it have to comprise so much] of the packet? It seems like these kinds of questions have climbed considerably in number in the sets we've played this year. I found many of the more academic questions to be hilariously clue-poor as well, with some howlers of leadins to boot. Honestly, I don't think I'm imagining this - the questions, it seems to me, really have gotten worse, the distribution really has become more absurd. It's insulting that NAQT considers them suitable for any team, good or bad, to play on.

[The Atom Strikes!]

I was quite impressed by Guy's performance yesterday. He's improved quite a bit since that TJ tournament at the beginning of this school year, where we beat him by about 400 points. He managed to beat us once (though the margin of victory was small), and beat a lot of other good teams, though he lost to us in two games of final. I also noticed that his teammates have improved somewhat, and are beginning to get some of his aggression.

I was also somewhat surprised that Stuyvesant did not perform better than they did yesterday. They seem to have declined somewhat since the start of the year.

Honstly, Henry, it's statements like this that make me wonder if you follow the results of any of the tournaments you don't compete in, or pay any attention to the lineup of any of the better teams. First of all, do you honestly believe that yesterday's horsehit questions were the best way to seperate the wheat from the chaff? Second, did you happen to see the Prison Bowl results? Check out the questions (questions that were considerably more difficult than yesterday's, and notably free of an unbelievably large gen. knowledge/pop culture/geography/random nonsense distribution), check out Stuy's relevant numbers, and then tell me if you don't think our full A-team is a force, and a good deal better than in October. Yesterday's Stuy team was missing its #2 and #3 player (as far as NAQT format is concerned) and still led the field in powers. Chew on that.

On that note, call it sour grapes if you must, but am I the only one who thought a good deal (not by any means all, but a good deal) of the questions yesterday were terrible? I realize that if you don't have at the very least a passable command of pop cult/gen. knowledge/random bullshit, your team is going to eventually plateau at NAQT, that it's always been that way, and that it's not worth complaining too much about. Still, does it have to comprise so much] of the packet? It seems like these kinds of questions have climbed considerably in number in the sets we've played this year. I found many of the more academic questions to be hilariously clue-poor as well, with some howlers of leadins to boot. Honestly, I don't think I'm imagining this - the questions, it seems to me, really have gotten worse, the distribution really has become more absurd. It's insulting that NAQT considers them suitable for any team, good or bad, to play on.

I actually did check the Prison Bowl results before I posted. My conjecture about your percentage of your team's scoring was actually somewhat subdued (you scored about 4.5 times as many points as your teammates put together did, putting your contribution to your team at over 80%). Although Danny Zhu is an excellent computational math player, and Aidan is good, but completely overshadowed by you in a Ted Gioia-Dan Puma sort of way (he shows this with high scoring on teams that don't include you), your teammates do not really seem to affect your team's results very much. Also, at Prison Bowl, you faced decent but not fantastic opponents: none stronger than Gonzaga, who went 3-4 in the preliminary rounds of the TJ Housh classic (a tournament whose difficulty is somewhere between the HSNCT and ACF Fall). As for the powers comment: for one thing, it isn't true. Our team had 15 more powers than yours did, along with 12 more tens and 9 fewer negs. For another, 6/7 of these were yours. Furthermore, the reason that you power as many questions as you do is because you play highly aggressively, and resultingly neg with Dees-level frequency.
As for your comments about the questions: to an extent I truly agree with you. Many of the Academic questions contained too little useful information, and lots of the leadins were poorly placed (a question about a certain country that started with the name of its famous opposition leader came to mind...). While the set was not as terrible as IS-70, it was certainly bad. This year's sets have been palpably worse than those of previous years. I can only hope that editors like Andrew Yaphe can prevent the HSNCT from meeting the same fate.
However, you have not been successful in making the case that your team would be more successful in beating opponents on better questions. Of the two non-NAQT tournaments that you attended, one had somewhat sparse opposition, (Hunter) and in the other, you lost 4/7 of your rounds in the playoff bracket (Harvard).
In light of your comments, I have to agree that I was not right to imply that your team's strength had decreased since the beginning of the year. However, this is probably because I overestimated your abilities somewhat then, due to your performance at tournaments that in retrospect, seem rather dodgy.

[dyetman89]

Whoa, very sorry about that powers comment; in my haste I stupidly misread the stats. Wilmington Charter did indeed have far more powers than anyone else, and just really impressive numbers all around. I should also say that Henry's teammates seem to have improved (I admit I was shocked by how good they were against us - that is to say, very), and that Guy's teammates, at least based on their performance in the Hunter-Stuy round, seem to have picked up, not just aggression, but an ability to "turn it on," if you will, when it really counts. Maybe they're one and the same. Hunter was also missing their #2 player, I believe.

That being said, Henry, when I suggested you take a gander at the Prison Bowl stats, I was not expecting you to marvel at how we blew out Bergen D or some such - as I admitted myself, it was a pretty weak field. The bonus conversion there for example, though, has to say something about how good Stuy is when the questions get tough and more heavily academic, and how much Danny and Nina do in fact contribute. Interestingly, Prison Bowl had zero comp math, and Danny still had 24 ppg.

By bringing up the Harvard results, you do more, I think, to prove my point than refute it - Danny Zhu was conspicuously absent from Stuy A, which played three handed. Besides, that tourney was over three months ago. Alot can happen in three months.


BTW, as to my negging, this marks the first time so far this season that I have out-negged Tabachnick - the fact is, whether I play carefully or recklessly, the powers seem to come. It might have something to do with knowing shit, rather than a mere willingness to hit that red button earlier than most. I know that's not what you meant, though, so I'll drop it.

[Gonzagapuma1]

Also, at Prison Bowl, you faced decent but not fantastic opponents: none stronger than Gonzaga, who went 3-4 in the preliminary rounds of the TJ Housh classic.

I have no clue how we got pulled into this but we got completely screwed at Tj by the card system. I realize a loss to Gov B wasn't exactly our finest moment, but we did have to play you guys(lost by like 100), wj(lost in a really close game), and RM(got blown out). I think the fact that St. Anselm's went 5-2 while losing to your C Team is pretty good evidence that we got screwed.

[Gonzagapuma1]

Oh, also we had the 8th highest ppb at TJ and we beat the team that had the 7th highest by about 400 points.

[The Atom Strikes!]

Doug: My apologies. I was unaware that your team lacked Danny Zhu at Harvard. (Admittedly, I just looked at the game scores for this tournament over Byko's ratings rather than reading the full results sheets). In that case, I look forward to seeing how much value he adds at a difficult tournament with a top field: I look forward to seeing your team's full roster at the WOQ. I should have been more clear: I was not calling your team weak or bad (you would make any reasonable Top 20 list, and most of the top 15s as well). I was just trying to say that I perhaps had overestimated the ability gap between your team (which I have admittedly been somewhat frightened of for a good portion of the year), and Hunter (who I believe that I have underestimated somewhat). Then, after reading your post, I was rather annoyed and posted without being diplomatic.

Dan: I think that the card system worked out the way that it did because its construction was partly in response to the HSNCT's card system, which actually rewarded early losses somewhat (allowing teams to lose to Pensacola in the second round, and then cruise for the next six rounds to go 8-2 for the prelims). That system had a team that went loss-win play against another team that went loss-win, advantaging teams that went win-loss and then had to play another win-loss team. This was exacerbated somewhat by TJ's number of teams, but it was probably the fairest way for them to do the tournament so as to swiss-pair the teams and get seven rounds done in a reasonable amount of time.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

I love how you post something criticizing yourself about not being diplomatic and then post something that out of nowhere takes this really vague stab at my team. Dude, either grow the stones to actually insult me or don't try.

[btressler]

Am I allowed to ask admins to ban all my players from creating accounts?

[Gonzagapuma1]

Dan: I think that the card system worked out the way that it did because its construction was partly in response to the HSNCT's card system, which actually rewarded early losses somewhat (allowing teams to lose to Pensacola in the second round, and then cruise for the next six rounds to go 8-2 for the prelims). That system had a team that went loss-win play against another team that went loss-win, advantaging teams that went win-loss and then had to play another win-loss team. This was exacerbated somewhat by TJ's number of teams, but it was probably the fairest way for them to do the tournament so as to swiss-pair the teams and get seven rounds done in a reasonable amount of time.

I wasn't really trying to criticize the way the tournament was run, I was just trying to dispel your argument that because we went 3-4 at TJ we weren't a very good team or whatever your point was.

[Ondes Martenot]

if i may comment on the rankings made by czarman

hunter and stuy are definitely the best teams in the area by far

after that i'd have to say its something of a dead heat between bergen/seton hall/kellenberg. i know that most of the games between seton hall and us are usually decided by ten to twenty points and i think the same is true between kellenberg and seton hall. our lackluster performance yesterday was probably due to lack of watson/slightly harder than usual field. we hope to be at full strength at nj states at rutgers (which i have heard may turn into ny/nj state(s))

p.s.
stop bragging about your negs
watson will outneg everyone at rutgers

[AKKOLADE]

Am I allowed to ask admins to ban all my players from creating accounts?

No?

Fake edit: No.

lower case letters

Argh capitalize the appropriate words.

[Ondes Martenot]

ARE MY POSTS THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHEN I DON'T CAPITALIZE?

[AKKOLADE]

ARE MY POSTS THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHEN I DON'T CAPITALIZE?

Yep. But "comedy" all caps doesn't help either.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

No, but they violate board rules.

[Ondes Martenot]

uh-oh