2008 QU NAC: B. T. Washington (OK) wins!

[Blackboard Monitor Vimes]

Once again Maggie, I encourage you to logically defend the tournament NAC runs against those done by NAQT and PACE as being a better national, or even just a good national. I have never seen such an argument presented and would love to hear one from its supporter so I can edify myself on their beliefs.

Until I attend an NAQT or PACE tournament I will not be able to do this. Even at that time, I anticipate liking them better than NAC.
I have found significant problems with NAC since my job behind the scenes, and think that if Chip would delegate things to other people and loosen his control over the tournament, that it could perhaps be of the same caliber as what I think NAQT and PACE might be.
At this point, all I can offer you is what I do like about NAC. I like the variety of having a bonus, 60 second and "stump the experts" round. I also like that it is not completely comprised of pyramidal questions. Finally, I like the heavy emphasis on the arts and humanities.

I join the majority of the rest of the forum in urging you to attend an NAQT or PACE tournament. Given that you like a variable format rather than straight 20/20 as well as art and the humanities, I think you would enjoy PACE greatly as it has more lit, RMP, art, and social science than NAQT. However, I am unable to understand your dislike of pyramidality. Give it a chance.

[Sir Thopas]

Finally, I like the heavy emphasis on the arts and humanities.

Other formats have more arts and humanities because instead of the following distribution, which I'm making up but is somewhat plausible I suppose:
50% "significa"
20% humanities
20% arts, including pop music
10% science,

This is the PACE distribution:
Arts 13.79
Current Events 3.45
General Knowledge 3.45
Geography 5.17
History 17.24
Literature 17.24
Popular Culture 3.45
Religion, Mythology, and Philosophy 10.34
Science 20.69 (includes 1 math calculation bonus in category quiz)
Social Science 5.17

So 14% art and about 60% humanities, depending on how nebulously you define that. That is more science, but it's also MUCH more humanities.

(EDITed for actual distro)

[evilmonkey]

I mean, this makes me very happy, except these are the same sentiments you expressed the last time you found yourself on the losing side of an argument about the quality of Chip's tripe.

Right, after good quizbowl ended for the year, and she hadn't had a chance to experience it.

Just before having said your first point, you insulted a quiz bowl coach no one else seems to find objectionable,

False, see southside_amit's post

and did so because they dared to adhere to the rules every legitimate quiz bowl tournament accepts, and those which any reasonable tournament would approve of.

Well now, she doesn't know those rules, does she.

As to your second point, it does mean that you did choose to shun good quiz bowl this year.

I think we already established that there was no choice because she was not aware of any other choices.


Now, @ Maggie. Thank you for trying to be open. Obviously, we all believe you were wrong with your protest ruling (although, it is possible that that is what Chip's rules stipulate). So here is what was wrong - by denying them any further guesses after "Jonathan" (an answer that would have been given a prompt for more information at other tournaments), you are telling they got the wrong answer, even though they clearly had SOME knowledge, and they had not said anything incorrect yet. Basically, you are penalizing them for having knowledge, but not knowing what Chip had put on the sheet.

NAQT and PACE have a lot more arts and humanities, so I'm sure you'll be pleased with that. PACE has the variety of different rounds within a game, while NAQT does not.

Can you explain why you don't like pyramidal questions? (You can do it by e-mail, if you prefer)

[wowitsquinthaha]

Until I attend an NAQT or PACE tournament I will not be able to do this. Even at that time, I anticipate liking them better than NAC.
I have found significant problems with NAC since my job behind the scenes, and think that if Chip would delegate things to other people and loosen his control over the tournament, that it could perhaps be of the same caliber as what I think NAQT and PACE might be.
At this point, all I can offer you is what I do like about NAC. I like the variety of having a bonus, 60 second and "stump the experts" round. I also like that it is not completely comprised of pyramidal questions. Finally, I like the heavy emphasis on the arts and humanities.

Come to GSAC! I'm sure Dr. B would be willing to give you a discount, coming all the way from Oklahoma

[Blackboard Monitor Vimes]

If there is a question here, please ask it. Otherwise, you sound like a caveman.

Ug, Ug, OOg, Ug-Oog

EDIT: I just really don't think we should be placing a ranking on a team who has only played 13 non QU games, and won all of them...

That's sort of like the teams that you run across in Byko rankings who are really high up because they've played 5 games of VHSL or some other state competition and won all of them. It's really hard to judge with such a small sample size. I'd be interested to actually see this team in competition.

[Blackboard Monitor Vimes]

Until I attend an NAQT or PACE tournament I will not be able to do this. Even at that time, I anticipate liking them better than NAC.
I have found significant problems with NAC since my job behind the scenes, and think that if Chip would delegate things to other people and loosen his control over the tournament, that it could perhaps be of the same caliber as what I think NAQT and PACE might be.
At this point, all I can offer you is what I do like about NAC. I like the variety of having a bonus, 60 second and "stump the experts" round. I also like that it is not completely comprised of pyramidal questions. Finally, I like the heavy emphasis on the arts and humanities.

I join the majority of the rest of the forum in urging you to attend an NAQT or PACE tournament. Given that you like a variable format rather than straight 20/20 as well as art and the humanities, I think you would enjoy PACE greatly as it has more lit, RMP, art, and social science than NAQT. However, I am unable to understand your dislike of pyramidality. Give it a chance.

Come to GSAC! I'm sure Dr. B would be willing to give you a discount, coming all the way from Oklahoma[/quote]
Quint, fix your quote. You're putting Maggie's words in my mouth. Also, if not GSAC, BTW should try to come to a tournament on the east coast if this is economically feasible.

[wowitsquinthaha]

That's sort of like the teams that you run across in Byko rankings who are really high up because they've played 5 games of VHSL or some other state competition and won all of them. It's really hard to judge with such a small sample size. I'd be interested to actually see this team in competition.

Another reason to come to GSAC and play against the house team consisting of Winston Wu, Ted Tanner, KEVIN CHEN, and George Berry

[jbarnes112358]

Ug, Ug, OOg, Ug-Oog

Oh. Now I get it... I agree, which is why I mentioned the limited data, used a wide range, and used terms like "probably consistent with".

I was using Byko's ranking of 34 which is also based on the limited record. i am also using their points and PPB stats (around 18) which is about like our B team did this year if I am remembering correctly. So, yes, it is basically a wild guess.

[Frater Taciturnus]

That's sort of like the teams that you run across in Byko rankings who are really high up because they've played 5 games of VHSL or some other state competition and won all of them. It's really hard to judge with such a small sample size. I'd be interested to actually see this team in competition.

Another reason to come to GSAC and play against the house team consisting of Winston Wu, Ted Tanner, KEVIN CHEN, and George Berry

Whats this now?

[wowitsquinthaha]

Whats this now?

Just kidding, GB. But seriously, try to attend a good house written tournament if you want to get the full experience of good quizbowl. Because, in my opinion, house written tournaments are usually better than IS-sets.

[jbarnes112358]

But seriously, try to attend a good house written tournament if you want to get the full experience of good quizbowl. Because, in my opinion, house written tournaments are usually better than IS-sets.

Many house written tournaments are indeed better than IS-sets. But, it depends on the house doing the writing.

[lasercats]

Until I attend an NAQT or PACE tournament I will not be able to do this. Even at that time, I anticipate liking them better than NAC.
I have found significant problems with NAC since my job behind the scenes, and think that if Chip would delegate things to other people and loosen his control over the tournament, that it could perhaps be of the same caliber as what I think NAQT and PACE might be.
At this point, all I can offer you is what I do like about NAC. I like the variety of having a bonus, 60 second and "stump the experts" round. I also like that it is not completely comprised of pyramidal questions. Finally, I like the heavy emphasis on the arts and humanities.

Come to GSAC! I'm sure Dr. B would be willing to give you a discount, coming all the way from Oklahoma

Great! What is it?


PS: It's not that I dislike pyramidal questions, but I think some should be....not pyramidal as well. Like my other opinions, maybe my opinion will change once I see good quizbowl.

[Mechanical Beasts]

I mean, this makes me very happy, except these are the same sentiments you expressed the last time you found yourself on the losing side of an argument about the quality of Chip's tripe.

Right, after good quizbowl ended for the year, and she hadn't had a chance to experience it.

The point is that she expresses these sentiments when she's losing an argument and completely different ones when that's not the case.

Just before having said your first point, you insulted a quiz bowl coach no one else seems to find objectionable,

False, see southside_amit's post

Which says that he's a little rude, whereas she said "I don't like the way the coach treats the team and/or anyone else." This implies that he's pretty abusive of his own kids too, which is far more objectionable than "is not always polite." Also, I'd note that South Side A and B haven't played Charter this year--though granted they played James Island A, who played Charter at DACQ, and perhaps rumors spread. His experience with Bill Tressler is, I could only imagine, less than, say, that of many posters on this board.

and did so because they dared to adhere to the rules every legitimate quiz bowl tournament accepts, and those which any reasonable tournament would approve of.

Well now, she doesn't know those rules, does she.

My invocation of "any reasonable tournament" was meant to indicate that if a rational person were to sit down and think of ways to run a tournament, it's pretty likely that they'd be either cool with the protest, require a prompt, or accept the damn answer. Also, she certainly could come to know the rules since they're public and

I am making an effort to learn as much as possible about NAQT, PACE, and others so that I can work for them in the future.

As to your second point, it does mean that you did choose to shun good quiz bowl this year.

I think we already established that there was no choice because she was not aware of any other choices.

Conceded.

Maggie--though I'm glad that your opinion will change, you think, once you discover more questions, what at the moment makes you like variety that makes some of the questions not pyramidal?

[wowitsquinthaha]

Great! What is it?

Only the greatest tournament ever, but it's in Virginia

[evilmonkey]

The point is that she expresses these sentiments when she's losing an argument and completely different ones when that's not the case.

You expect her to act irrationally and stand by her points when others point out flaws? Its fairly obvious that we've shaken her prior beliefs about quizbowl. She's actually thinking about what she likes about Chip's tournament. Frankly, I'd be more upset if she DIDN'T say these types of things.

Which says that he's a little rude, whereas she said "I don't like the way the coach treats the team and/or anyone else." This implies that he's pretty abusive of his own kids too, which is far more objectionable than "is not always polite." Also, I'd note that South Side A and B haven't played Charter this year--though granted they played James Island A, who played Charter at DACQ, and perhaps rumors spread. His experience with Bill Tressler is, I could only imagine, less than, say, that of many posters on this board.

So she exaggerated based on a couple bad experiences. I've done it, you've done it, maybe if you talk to her about it she'll give him another chance and retract part of her statement. (Note to Maggie: I've never met this guy but - would you say that perhaps you went a bit far in your assessment of him. based on the limited experience and the overwhelming support for him?)

@Maggie - I don't want to keep badgering, but could you explain what circumstances you believe might be appropriate for a non-pyramidal question? Again, if you don't want to state your opinion publicly, I believe you have my email address.

[btressler]

This is a fine line between angry and rude, so I guess this assessment was accurate.

I think the salient points have already been covered. Answers that would have been accepted under standard quizbowl were not. Protests that would have been accepted under standard quizbowl were not. The reason was: that what's on the paper.

I do not apologize for being angry when I feel I am being treated unfairly.

(Somehow this was the only time I protested the whole tournament.)

I for one very much do not want to go back.

EDIT: And if you didn't get it from me, you would have got it from the kids. When I came up, they wanted to protest the same thing. So I'm happy to be "rude" on their behalf.

[Matt Weiner]

This is a fine line between angry and rude, so I guess this assessment was accurate.

I think the salient points have already been covered. Answers that would have been accepted under standard quizbowl were not. Protests that would have been accepted under standard quizbowl were not. The reason was: that what's on the paper.

I do not apologize for being angry when I feel I am being treated unfairly.

(Somehow this was the only time I protested the whole tournament.)

I for one very much do not want to go back.

EDIT: And if you didn't get it from me, you would have got it from the kids. When I came up, they wanted to protest the same thing. So I'm happy to be "rude" on their behalf.

I don't think you understand, Bill. What are you, some sort of "coach?" A person who has "been in quizbowl for fifteen years?" Someone who is the "leader" of one of the "best teams in the country?" Feh! Maggie S. Cats, Esquire, won the prestigious Who Wants to Be a Moderator competition! How dare you question her!

[Tegan]

Once again Maggie, I encourage you to logically defend the tournament NAC runs against those done by NAQT and PACE as being a better national, or even just a good national. I have never seen such an argument presented and would love to hear one from its supporter so I can edify myself on their beliefs.

Until I attend an NAQT or PACE tournament I will not be able to do this. Even at that time, I anticipate liking them better than NAC.

Maggie,

Good for you! This is how I started out. I heard a lot but decided I needed to go out myself and see with my own eyes.

Back in 2005, I attended every national (scored at NAQT HSNCT, read at PACE NCS, coached at PAC, and sat in on a few rounds at the QU NAC). Only then did I feel that I had the chance to form ideas on them that are based on actual experience, and not what everyone is telling you to think. If you find that you would like to see the NAQT HS NCT next year, I would be happy to meet you and introduce you around to whomever you want to meet (I don't work for NAQT, but I loosely know a few of the folks). I would be happy to talk to you about this.

I >>strongly<< encourage you to go to the PACE NCS. While NAQT is mesmerising with its ability to run a huge tournament with pretty good efficiency, I think that nothing really beats the intimacy and warmth of the people you meet affiliated with PACE. You even learn first hand that Matt W, one-on-one, is a giant pussy cat in panther skin robes. If you can make it there, you get to see some people who, IMO, are grassroots interested in giving players a great experience. Even if for some reason you walked away feeling that the format or questions were not something you like, meeting this group is a phenomenal experience. If I had more time and money, I would be flying out to PACE every year to set up buzzers.

I applaud you for taking it on yourself to "see the world", so to speak. Feel free to drop a line around here if you need help!

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

Maggie, if you want to read pyramidal questions from decent-to-good sets that are indicative of what we all are talking about as good quizbowl, read some of the stuff on quizbowlpackets.com (an archive of good high school sets that include every PACE national championship - check out this year's, which is simply the best tournament ever played in HS) and collegiate.quizbowlpackets.com/ (a collection of good college sets that adhere to good quizbowl rules for the most part). You can't get free NAQT sets online, but you can listen to live podcasts of the 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 High School National Championships. Additionally, on The Quizbowl Cast you can hear lots of games at all levels of the game in play (most recently you can hear live recordings of the PACE NSC 2008) which should give you a better gauge of teams like Charter, TJ, Dorman, and the true national champion Whitman playing on good, challenging pyramidal questions.

[Mechanical Beasts]

The point is that she expresses these sentiments when she's losing an argument and completely different ones when that's not the case.

You expect her to act irrationally and stand by her points when others point out flaws? Its fairly obvious that we've shaken her prior beliefs about quizbowl. She's actually thinking about what she likes about Chip's tournament. Frankly, I'd be more upset if she DIDN'T say these types of things.

I'm concerned that she made just such a set of conciliatory assertions before, and subsequently went back on them once talk had died down. She only says things like this to try to end arguments she's losing, so far as I can tell.

Which says that he's a little rude, whereas she said "I don't like the way the coach treats the team and/or anyone else." This implies that he's pretty abusive of his own kids too, which is far more objectionable than "is not always polite." Also, I'd note that South Side A and B haven't played Charter this year--though granted they played James Island A, who played Charter at DACQ, and perhaps rumors spread. His experience with Bill Tressler is, I could only imagine, less than, say, that of many posters on this board.

So she exaggerated based on a couple bad experiences. I've done it, you've done it, maybe if you talk to her about it she'll give him another chance and retract part of her statement. (Note to Maggie: I've never met this guy but - would you say that perhaps you went a bit far in your assessment of him. based on the limited experience and the overwhelming support for him?)

Yes, and it was wrong when I did it and when you did it too. I hope that she retracts the whole damn thing, but she's had ample opportunity to do so.

And I think, Maggie, that you should feel welcome to state your opinion publicly. You'll get many more opinions on it, and many more nuanced arguments. Since you're beginning to believe that pyramidal formats are superior, you'll appreciate the extra ammunition. Also, I know that I hold many opinions that the larger community disagrees with. It's healthy to feel confident enough in them to post them and discuss them publicly.

[lasercats]

Thank you to everyone who has been kind enough to offer me aid and support.



I suppose I will retract my statement against Mr. Wilmington, despite his post earlier in this thread. I exaggerated a bit, as I often do when people are killing my spirits on the internet. I shouldn't have made that post, just like he shouldn't have about me. I still have my opinions on this matter and am entitled to them, but they will remain in my head and not on the internet.

[Mechanical Beasts]

I suppose I will retract my statement against Mr. Wilmington

Don't blame yourself; you raised him right.

despite his post earlier in this thread

Which said roughly "I guess there's a fine line between angry and rude, but I was justified in being angry." How inflammatory!

I shouldn't have made that post, just like he shouldn't have about me.

Retracting your statement and making another = not a good idea.

I still have my opinions on this matter and am entitled to them

Fact!

but they will remain in my head and not on the internet.

Lame!

[Tegan]

waaaaaaah i'm taking my ball and going home, the mean quizbowl people won't take my pretend tournament seriously

There's a Mr. Beall on line five. He will need your social security number to make the first deposit in your account, may I give it to him now, or wait until the end of the year.

Matt, you aren't doing the case for good quizbowl a favor here.

[First Chairman]

You even learn first hand that Matt W, one-on-one, is a giant pussy cat in panther skin robes.

Now that visual makes my brain hurt. No offense, Matt.

[Mechanical Beasts]

You even learn first hand that Matt W, one-on-one, is a giant pussy cat in panther skin robes.

Now that visual makes my brain hurt. No offense, Matt.

Garden path!

[lasercats]

I suppose I will retract my statement against Mr. Wilmington

Don't blame yourself; you raised him right.

despite his post earlier in this thread

Which said roughly "I guess there's a fine line between angry and rude, but I was justified in being angry." How inflammatory!

I shouldn't have made that post, just like he shouldn't have about me.

Retracting your statement and making another = not a good idea.

I still have my opinions on this matter and am entitled to them

Fact!

but they will remain in my head and not on the internet.

Lame!

For the sake of maintaining some professional integrity. I don't want to become (more of?) that controversial figure on the message board. I may have thought the way he handled his protest was unprofessional, but maybe keeping my detailed opinions to myself will maintain what little dignity I have.

[lasercats]

waaaaaaah i'm taking my ball and going home, the mean quizbowl people won't take my pretend tournament seriously

There's a Mr. Beall on line five. He will need your social security number to make the first deposit in your account, may I give it to him now, or wait until the end of the year.

Matt, you aren't doing the case for good quizbowl a favor here.

Agreed, but what do I know? I wouldn't know good quizbowl if it roundhouse kicked me to the face!

[First Chairman]

Agreed, but what do I know? I wouldn't know good quizbowl if it roundhouse kicked me to the face!

You'd know it if it slapped you like the Cold Trout of Facts (TM)...

[Mechanical Beasts]

For the sake of maintaining some professional integrity. I don't want to become (more of?) that controversial figure on the message board. I may have thought the way he handled his protest was unprofessional, but maybe keeping my detailed opinions to myself will maintain what little dignity I have.

You should have quite a good deal of dignity, considering that you stood up to substantial abuse for as long as you have.

A forum without controversy stagnates. It's better for the community to have you than to lack you. And getting to hear more detail in your opinions--as to the manner of the protest, as you hint at here--might make it easier for us to understand your position.

For the moment, you're right; you wouldn't. It's good that you aspire eventually to know good quizbowl. But exposure helps. Meanwhile, read some packets on the Stanford archive and witness the evolution.

[etchdulac]

Maggie: Just a couple of ideas to throw out here, to further your pursuit of different forms of quizbowl.

1.) The Oklahoma Quiz Bowl Alliance runs NAQT and tournaments intermixed with OSSAA format events throughout the school year. Their schedule for the coming year can be found at http://www.geocities.com/ok_quizbowl/.

This organization is run by a good Sooner named Eric Bell, whom you may already know. In addition to all his contributions to quiz bowl pre- and post-graduation, Eric Bell was the vindicated victim of the first Chip Beall farce I ever witnessed, when Eric played for Broken Arrow at NAC in (circa?) 1992.

As OQBA is an organization, I presume, run primarily or entirely by volunteers, I would guess that he would be receptive to an offer of assistance moderating or judging an event. I won't speak for him any further than that, because I'm largely unaware of how his organization works. At the least, I'd encourage you to watch them operate, see what NAQT looks like at that level if you missed out on it in high school.

2.) I work with TQBA, Texas' flatteringly imitative quiz bowl alliance. We will presumably have at least one event in Dallas, and maybe you'd be able to come down. Obviously, with so much going on around Oklahoma, working with them would be the first choice, but I'd like to posit the idea that you're welcome here, there, everywhere... and so on. I feel safe in saying TQBA's leader, Chris Romero, would support your efforts at horizon-broadening.

I went to high school in Chip territory in his heyday, and knew only his format. Some of us old folks were in the boat you're in once upon a time. It's hard hearing our truths, I imagine. I for one appreciate your openmindedness.

[lasercats]

Thanks Stephen. I know who Eric is from one NAQT tournament a couple of years ago. I will shoot him an email.

[btressler]

Also, perhaps you can explain to us what Bill Tressler did to you, so that we can understand why a man we find perfectly affable--and I'm saying this even though my junior year he lodged a ridiculous protest, but one I can't begrudge anyone considering that it could have been a 90-point swing and we ended up winning by ten--is actually slime, whereas you, who seem to think that vaguely sniping at anyone who criticizes Booker's support of a bad organization is great fun, are a class act.

Warning: about to veer off topic.

If we're going to drudge up old dirt, then I'll at least tell you how we got there.

Earlier in the tournament, "fusion" and "fusion reactor" were not considered the same answer. (I forget which was sought.) So when "Confederate States of America" was given for "Confederate Congress", I felt the same rule would apply. A country is not a legislative body, and I don't think "Russia" would be accepted for "Duma".

It happened again this year against State College. The question said "these entities" and their (good) player buzzed with "speciation" when species was sought. I consider speciation a process, but not an entity so I protested. If the moderator had told me that "species problem" was also OK, I probably would have dropped it.

Later I talked to R, and he told me that he probably would have accepted speciation. NAQT's guiding philosophy is to generally accept answers that contain the sought information. But R admitted that the policy has not been uniformly applied in the past. He hopes to clarify this guideline into the rules sometime soon. (And I think a good Theory discussion could take place on this topic.)

For what it's worth, I retroactively withdraw my protest against Shady Side and apologize for lodging it.

[Howard]

...maybe keeping my detailed opinions to myself will maintain what little dignity I have.

Your opinions of bad things Bill (or anyone else) have done in your presence are indeed probably best left between you and Bill (or that other person). I've known Bill for many years and have tremendous respect for him as a coach, tournament organizer, and someone who is actually helping to expand quizbowl and improve other teams. In my opinion, he's a bit terse when something ridiculous happens, not necessarily even in his own teams' favor. By the same token, I'd also rarely consider him wrong. But talking about those sorts of things negatively in public typically just blows things out of proportion (as it seems to have done in this thread).

Constructive criticism should be done in private. Praise in public.

[Tegan]

Earlier in the tournament, "fusion" and "fusion reactor" were not considered the same answer. (I forget which was sought.) So when "Confederate States of America" was given for "Confederate Congress", I felt the same rule would apply. A country is not a legislative body, and I don't think "Russia" would be accepted for "Duma".
It happened again this year against State College. The question said "these entities" and their (good) player buzzed with "speciation" when species was sought. I consider speciation a process, but not an entity so I protested. If the moderator had told me that "species problem" was also OK, I probably would have dropped it.
Later I talked to R, and he told me that he probably would have accepted speciation. NAQT's guiding philosophy is to generally accept answers that contain the sought information. But R admitted that the policy has not been uniformly applied in the past. He hopes to clarify this guideline into the rules sometime soon. (And I think a good Theory discussion could take place on this topic.)

Being a moderator, this can be one of the most difficult issues to deal with: consistency from room to room. This is why the more notes left for moderators (alternative answers, don't accept, etc.) is so crucial. Especially in NAQT where the moderator has little time to preview the questions, and is reading so fast .... I made two blunders along the lines of acceptability in one match at Culver's Midwest (I know St. Joes was in the room for this). Other moderators probably did not make the same mistakes I did.

I think lasercats pointed out that this is a big problem. Despite only running a few rooms, there seems to be a lot less consistency from room to room at NAC than at the 60 or so rooms running at NAQT. This post mentions the "species/speciation" issue ...... that was one question in a couple of hundred tossups at NAQT. It seems that every year at NAC there are a dozen or so that end up burning the team with the deeper knowledge because of some technicality.

In the one round I saw, the question needed "Freedom Rides" ... Chip would not accept "Freedom Riders", stating "the question clearly wasn't looking for people" (debatable on the "clearly"), and then followed up by saying "but you clearly knew the answer".

Things like this will come up every so often .... no matter how careful and how many edits questions go .... but there is a big difference between "once in a long while" (NAQT & PACE) because you do the ethical thing and have your questions edited and checked, and "with regularity", (being once every 1-2 rounds). And especially with 's "experience" at running tournaments, he should know to look out for this. I understand he has other writers, but he is ultimately responsible for the product .... and the level of question problems in his tournament is unacceptable. It would be unacceptable at a local tournament (goodness knows I have fracked that up at tournaments I have run), but is wholly unacceptable at a national level tournament.

My interpretation is that he has a poor staff who writes/edits, or he simply doesn't care (or perhaps he does care, enjoying the "drama" that it sets up. I simply don't know which it is.

This is why it is so critical to have two people (minimum) in a room in big matches; preferably one with a humanities background, and one with math and science. They may not have background in every single situation, but the chances of being able to analyze the argument is increased (for unacceptable answers, acceptable alternates, etc). From what I saw, Chip had too many matches being run with one moderator in the room. That is not a good idea.

[Mechanical Beasts]

Warning: about to veer off topic.

If we're going to drudge up old dirt, then I'll at least tell you how we got there.

Earlier in the tournament, "fusion" and "fusion reactor" were not considered the same answer. (I forget which was sought.) So when "Confederate States of America" was given for "Confederate Congress", I felt the same rule would apply. A country is not a legislative body, and I don't think "Russia" would be accepted for "Duma".

It happened again this year against State College. The question said "these entities" and their (good) player buzzed with "speciation" when species was sought. I consider speciation a process, but not an entity so I protested. If the moderator had told me that "species problem" was also OK, I probably would have dropped it.

Later I talked to R, and he told me that he probably would have accepted speciation. NAQT's guiding philosophy is to generally accept answers that contain the sought information. But R admitted that the policy has not been uniformly applied in the past. He hopes to clarify this guideline into the rules sometime soon. (And I think a good Theory discussion could take place on this topic.)

For what it's worth, I retroactively withdraw my protest against Shady Side and apologize for lodging it.

HOW DARE YOU DRUDGE UP OLD DIRT I ALREADY DRUDGED UP ARGH

No need to apologize; it was absolutely the right thing for you to do in the situation. (I once had to stop my captain that year from protesting that his response of "chicken" should have been taken on our crappy televised format after a "Chinese Year of the ___" clue had come up in the tossup. THAT would have been something to apologize for, especially since we were winning. Making the team appear both delusional AND points-greedy is notsogood.)

I remember it slightly differently; I remember saying "CSA" and then pausing less than a second before realizing I should give more information, then saying "Congress" and since the moderator didn't immediately take it, I got scared that they thought I was offering a second answer and might try to take it and that "Congress" might default to "US Congress" so I said "... of the CSA." I assumed that you were protesting the word salad "CSA--Congress-of the CSA" that the moderators accepted.

(Granted, even if that hadn't been accepted as it was, I think I could reasonably have gotten a prompt on CSA, especially because if "this legislative body" had already been read, responding "CSA" could imply "that of the CSA.")

But whatever; bygones be bygones. And barring something truly extraordinary (Henry attains quiz bowl nirvana and transcends corporeal existence? Charlie gets a teammate?), you'll never lose to SSA again.

And I mean it--absolutely no need to apologize or withdraw the protest, since it was both a legitimate point that deserved clarification and the necessary move for you to take as coach in that situation.

[Down and out in Quintana Roo]

Henry attains quiz bowl nirvana and transcends corporeal existence?

I'm not sure whether to root for this or not... interesting thought though.

Anyway, let's just say that our school doesn't really look forward to Comcast ( -style) competition for its academic merits, but it makes for some exciting games and gives some schools a chance who normally don't (that, and it's free). Nonetheless, we'd kill to go to something like NAC at the end of the year.

[STPickrell]

Agreed, but what do I know? I wouldn't know good quizbowl if it roundhouse kicked me to the face!

Would said roundhouse kick be as painful as one delivered by Chuck Norris in his prime?

I figure I'd be stuck in Limbo, being a virtuous pagan with regard to good quizbowl.

[#1 Mercury Adept]

Earlier in the tournament, "fusion" and "fusion reactor" were not considered the same answer. (I forget which was sought.) So when "Confederate States of America" was given for "Confederate Congress", I felt the same rule would apply. A country is not a legislative body, and I don't think "Russia" would be accepted for "Duma".
It happened again this year against State College. The question said "these entities" and their (good) player buzzed with "speciation" when species was sought. I consider speciation a process, but not an entity so I protested. If the moderator had told me that "species problem" was also OK, I probably would have dropped it.

In the one round I saw, the question needed "Freedom Rides" ... Chip would not accept "Freedom Riders", stating "the question clearly wasn't looking for people" (debatable on the "clearly"), and then followed up by saying "but you clearly knew the answer".

I saw a match in DC where a question started with some quotes from "The Tiger" and asked what animal was being addressed. Someone gave the answer of "tiger", but it turned out that they would only accept "The Tiger", probably because it was the title (that team won anyway, but I would have liked to see the results and rationale of a protest on that). Even though the question was clearly asking for the character/addressee.

[Mechanical Beasts]

I saw a match in DC where a question started with some quotes from "The Tiger" and asked what animal was being addressed. Someone gave the answer of "tiger", but it turned out that they would only accept "The Tiger", probably because it was the title (that team won anyway, but I would have liked to see the results and rationale of a protest on that). Even though the question was clearly asking for the character/addressee.

More importantly, is a response of Jesus the man/myth/legend/god/God equivalent to "the Jesus" if you don't say Quintana?

[Tegan]

I saw a match in DC where a question started with some quotes from "The Tiger" and asked what animal was being addressed. Someone gave the answer of "tiger", but it turned out that they would only accept "The Tiger", probably because it was the title (that team won anyway, but I would have liked to see the results and rationale of a protest on that). Even though the question was clearly asking for the character/addressee.

>>Shudders with goose pimples in a room where thermostat reads 83 degrees<<

To quote Sir Charles: "trrbl, trrbl, trrbl"

[Matt Weiner]

Constructive criticism should be done in private. Praise in public.

Do you actually believe this?

[Ed McMahon]

Would said roundhouse kick be as painful as one delivered by Chuck Norris in his prime?

HIYO!

[Howard]

Constructive criticism should be done in private. Praise in public.

Do you actually believe this?

Absolutely. Treat people like the human beings they are. Give them the respect they deserve as human beings.

Look back at my posts that have been critical. I think you'll find that in most cases I've been critical about things that groups of people have been doing on this board, although I've typically cited specific examples in making my point. I think you'll also find that there's very little in the way of tournament criticism. Why? Every tournament I've ever been to seemed to be run in a good-faith effort. When I had comments to make, I typically e-mailed them to the tournament director.

[vcuEvan]

Constructive criticism should be done in private. Praise in public.

Do you actually believe this?

Absolutely. Treat people like the human beings they are. Give them the respect they deserve as human beings.

Look back at my posts that have been critical. I think you'll find that in most cases I've been critical about things that groups of people have been doing on this board, although I've typically cited specific examples in making my point. I think you'll also find that there's very little in the way of tournament criticism. Why? Every tournament I've ever been to seemed to be run in a good-faith effort. When I had comments to make, I typically e-mailed them to the tournament director.

See if you e-mail your constructive criticism the only person who can read it and learn from it is the TD. If you post it here everyone can benefit from your insight. Also I think you can criticize people constructively and still treat them as a human being... although I have never received an email from you...

[First Chairman]

Constructive criticism should be done in private. Praise in public. ...

Absolutely. Treat people like the human beings they are. Give them the respect they deserve as human beings.

Look back at my posts that have been critical. I think you'll find that in most cases I've been critical about things that groups of people have been doing on this board, although I've typically cited specific examples in making my point. I think you'll also find that there's very little in the way of tournament criticism. Why? Every tournament I've ever been to seemed to be run in a good-faith effort. When I had comments to make, I typically e-mailed them to the tournament director.

See if you e-mail your constructive criticism the only person who can read it and learn from it is the TD. If you post it here everyone can benefit from your insight. Also I think you can criticize people constructively and still treat them as a human being... although I have never received an email from you...

In organizational behavior theory, Howard's right: one should praise accomplishments of individuals in public. Criticize privately if it is lodged to a single individual. Evan, I do agree that we should be sure that any constructive criticism can be placed here as long as it can be done without upsetting or humiliating anyone. Some of us do that well, some of us need to work on it. Not everyone can handle criticism being placed on the internet about their tournament. There are some moments I don't handle it at all well (though in the end, I take it all in stride anyway).

[Matt Weiner]

Absolutely. Treat people like the human beings they are. Give them the respect they deserve as human beings.

Look back at my posts that have been critical. I think you'll find that in most cases I've been critical about things that groups of people have been doing on this board, although I've typically cited specific examples in making my point. I think you'll also find that there's very little in the way of tournament criticism. Why? Every tournament I've ever been to seemed to be run in a good-faith effort. When I had comments to make, I typically e-mailed them to the tournament director.

OK, so what should we do about tournaments that are clearly not run in a "good-faith effort", like, for example, the one that is the subject of this thread? Do you really think Chip Beall is going to do anything in response to an honest list of suggestions that you e-mail him? Or is there infinitely more good to be done by posting in public with the goal of convincing people to stop staffing and attending his tournament?

I'm still totally unconvinced that all this talk about "civility" and "respect" is anything but an attempt to avoid defending the indefensible (the tournament itself) and refocus attention on an unimportant side issue (the meta-tone of the discussion about the tournament). It seems that no one cares about "civility" and "respect" and being "constructive" when it's time for morons to criticize ACF for being impossible or PACE for not having calculation tossups. These things only come up when NAC and College Bowl get called bad tournaments. Why?

[Howard]

See if you e-mail your constructive criticism the only person who can read it and learn from it is the TD. If you post it here everyone can benefit from your insight. Also I think you can criticize people constructively and still treat them as a human being... although I have never received an email from you...

Well, that's not entirely true. If I e-mail a TD who wishes to have an open discussion about the shortcomings of his tournament, he can post any portion of my e-mail he wishes. I do agree that we can politely and constructively criticize people in public, but in many cases the whole thing blows up into a whole load of drama despite the best of intentions. If it's left up to the person (or entity) being criticized whether to make public, there's likely to be less drama.

I realize your statement about not e-mailing you is meant in jest, but I didn't think you TD'd any tournaments my team attended. We did attend the VCU season ender, which I thought had numerous positive points, including question difficulty levels, question quality, and tournament efficiency. It was overall an excellent experience for me, and I'd have no qualms about attending another VCU event. I should have posted this in the tournament thread, but never did get around to doing it.

And one last item. I recognize that I'm often not in the mainstream of views on this board. So I understand that certain criticisms, praise, or just observations may not necessarily be of importance to the one receiving them. Ultimately, the tournament organizer must decide what type of event is to be run. While I might criticize this, that doesn't imply I have the right or invitation to tell the organizer what type of tournament to run. It's up to the organizer to make those decisions, and it's up to me to decide whether I wish to participate.

[Mechanical Beasts]

And one last item. I recognize that I'm often not in the mainstream of views on this board. So I understand that certain criticisms, praise, or just observations may not necessarily be of importance to the one receiving them. Ultimately, the tournament organizer must decide what type of event is to be run. While I might criticize this, that doesn't imply I have the right or invitation to tell the organizer what type of tournament to run. It's up to the organizer to make those decisions, and it's up to me to decide whether I wish to participate.

If your insights aren't in the mainstream, and your observations might not be important to the one receiving them, isn't your only bet to post them publicly, in hopes of reaching people who ARE receptive?

[Howard]

OK, so what should we do about tournaments that are clearly not run in a "good-faith effort", like, for example, the one that is the subject of this thread? Do you really think Chip Beall is going to do anything in response to an honest list of suggestions that you e-mail him? Or is there infinitely more good to be done by posting in public with the goal of convincing people to stop staffing and attending his tournament?

I think it's pretty clear we should be discussing NAC's shortcomings in public. I agree e-mailing would do little good. I didn't intend to re-initiate the discussion we've already had a few times, and was speaking in general. In this case, indeed, the idea should be to expose the problems of the NAC to the public for the purpose of educating it. Obviously, we cannot do that by e-mailing .

I'm still totally unconvinced that all this talk about "civility" and "respect" is anything but an attempt to avoid defending the indefensible (the tournament itself) and refocus attention on an unimportant side issue (the meta-tone of the discussion about the tournament). It seems that no one cares about "civility" and "respect" and being "constructive" when it's time for morons to criticize ACF for being impossible or PACE for not having calculation tossups. These things only come up when NAC and College Bowl get called bad tournaments. Why?

As intelligent beings, I believe we shouldn't base our personal behaviors on the behaviors of others. For example, if someone decides they should be a butthead toward me, that says something about their character. Similarly, if I decide that makes it okay for me to become an equal butthead, that ultimately says much the same thing about my character. This is often a difficult lesson to learn, and I'm always proud of my students when they grasp this. The more adult members of this forum probably realize this puts their character ahead of many adults.

I could continue a little more here, but I don't think it'll do much more than hit on points I've made before. If you (or another mod/admin) think it's a good idea to continue this avenue of discussion, I suppose we can, but I think we're pretty well off-topic at this point, and I'd rather not make either matter worse than it already is.

[evilmonkey]

I'm still totally unconvinced that all this talk about "civility" and "respect" is anything but an attempt to avoid defending the indefensible (the tournament itself) and refocus attention on an unimportant side issue (the meta-tone of the discussion about the tournament). It seems that no one cares about "civility" and "respect" and being "constructive" when it's time for morons to criticize ACF for being impossible or PACE for not having calculation tossups. These things only come up when NAC and College Bowl get called bad tournaments. Why?

Actually, I think there was an ACF IS IMPOSSIBLE thread or two where civility and respect got called into play. But, for the most part, I think its because people have less strong feelings about MATHCOMP than they do about NAC and CBI.