2018 Penn Bowl - General Discussion Thread

[mtebbe]

This thread is for general discussion related to Penn Bowl 2018.

First of all, I would like to thank all the writers involved in this project: Jaimie Carlson, Nitin Rao, Margaret Tebbe, Ayush Parikh, Antonio Jimenez, Paul Lee, Lorenza Colagrossi, Will DiGrande, Eric Mukherjee, Sam Claypoole, Jacob Dubner, JinAh Kim, Gabe Ajzenman, Samir Khan, Lam Tran, Joe Jun, and Alex Quinn. A huge thanks also goes to our editors Jaimie Carlson, Jordan Brownstein, JinAh Kim, and Eric Mukherjee.

Most of the literature was written by Jaimie Carlson and I, with contributions from Lorenza Colagrossi, Sam Claypoole, JinAh Kim, and Ayush Parikh. It was edited by Jaimie.

Chemistry was written by Ayush Parikh and Paul Lee, with contributions from Jaimie Carlson. Ayush, Paul, Jaimie, and Eric wrote Physics. Biology was written by Ayush and Paul, with contributions from me, Jaimie, Lorenza, and Eric. Other Science was written by Ayush and Jaimie, with contributions from Jacob Dubner, Lorenza, and Samir Khan. Eric edited all the science categories and Samir also edited math.

History was written by Nitin Rao, Antonio Jimenez, and Jaimie, with contributions from me, Will DiGrande, and Ayush. History was edited by Jordan and Nitin.

Paul, Jacob and I wrote most of the music, with contributions from Joe Jun, Jaimie, Ayush, Lam Tran, and Lorenza. Painting and Other Arts were written by Jaimie and I with contributions from JinAh, Lam, Jacob, Sam, Paul, and Ayush and edited by Jaimie.

Jaimie, Lorenza, Nitin, and Ayush wrote Religion with contributions from Will and Sam; Eric edited. Jaimie and Lorenza wrote mythology with contributions from Nitin and I; Nitin wrote most of Philosophy with contributions from JinAh, Lorenza, and I and JinAh edited it.

Antonio wrote Economics, Political Science, and Sociology, I wrote Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and Linguistics, and Jaimie wrote Psychology and Mixed Academic. Lorenza and Ayush also contributed to Social Science; Eric and Jaimie edited. Finally, Gabe and Will wrote most of CE/Geo questions with contributions from Ayush and Antonio, and trash was written various members of the writing team.

Feel free to discuss how you felt about the tournament and the set.

[vinteuil]

I can't say I was a fan of this set. I think the biggest problem that can be fixed before the next mirror are the number of extremely long, sometimes convoluted sentences. These need to be broken up, and the questions just need more pronouns in general.

There was way. too. much. military history. 3 tossups on military history in the finals packet is just absurd; consider at the very least swapping one or two out with non-military questions from other packets.

What was the mythology breakdown? My impression is that it was very heavy on Norse, which extremely lends itself to the problems Matt Jackson pointed out in this post: http://hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewtopic. ... 3&p=319150

(Similarly, a bonus with three Aztec gods as answerlines can't easily be followed by a tossup on an Aztec god at regular difficulty: you've narrowed it down to 2 reasonable answer choices once it becomes obvious that it's Aztec—and this one did pretty fast.)

What was the other science breakdown? I'm bad at assessing this on the fly, but my impression was that there was quite a bit of computer science and not much "pure math."

There were a lot of misplaced early clues. (I apologize for saying this without a detailed list of examples, but I won't have time for a deep dive on the set.) Examples that readily come to mind for me are the clue about "living in Nazi Germany" in the moral luck question (also just a very transparent clue!), dropping "condensation" so early in the Cauchy tossup, and giving the structure of L'estro armonico as the very first clue of the Vivaldi question.

It's easy to say "everything was so transparent!!" and very aggravating to hear as a writer, so let me try to be more specific. The Falkands war question namedropped British-sounding leaders, Spanish-language leaders, and post-WWII-sounding technology well within power; this kind of conjunction wasn't uncommon, and I'd encourage the editors to look for it pretty much everywhere if they plan to overhaul the set.

Finally, something more subjective: there were too many questions on individual characters from works of fiction. There was at least one bonus part on a character per round, sometimes more. Often this was unmemorably-named, relatively minor characters like Elizabeth from Frankenstein. In general, I thought the consensus was that it's a bad idea to ask about an individual character unless there's something particularly important or famous about them (e.g. Uriah Heep) or they're a much-discussed protagonist (Leopold Bloom)/central to the work in which they appear (Viola). I apologize for not substantiating this with a link to a forums discussion, but I'm fairly sure one exists.

[Good Goblin Housekeeping]

As a moderator I found this set pretty difficult to read, which from what I remember was due to a lot of run-on sentences (I'd probably have to re-look at the set but it certainly felt that I had to take a breath after some sentences)

A decent amount of the set felt kind of rushed (in particular after a few rounds of the tournament the quality of the set seemed to decline?) and there were defnitely a handful of parts with internal repeats (or the one history bonus that just listed a sentence about a woman which felt like someone was going to rewrite a part and then just never finished it?)

The set definitely wanted a lot more identifiers/pronouns: the teams I was reading for seemed consistently confused at times at what some of the questions actually wanted.

A lot of the bonuses definitely could have had easier easy parts.

The science in this set could have definitely used a bit of looking over, as there was a decent amount of cluing that felt hosey, off, or just not well described. For example, in the Beer's law tossup, there was a later clue about the woodward-fieser rules that was just extremely confusing since they're not actually "used" in UV-Vis.

There was also a lot of bio which ended up listing various factors in a row, and while it's fine to stick a bunch of stuff like that out there, it would be nice to have pronunciation guides for these kinds of things.

[Auroni]

I'll focus on two of the biggest fixable systematic problems with this set in this post:

1) Missing Pronouns/Referrents. Jacob and Andrew both mentioned this, but I want to highlight how big of an issue this was. In several tossups in this set, more than half of the sentences seemed to have no indication of what the question was asking for. Frequently this took the form of the leadin mentioning the referrent, the next three or four clues missing them, and then the fifth or sixth clue finally reminding the player what was wanted. While moderating I frequently found myself ad-libbing these so that teams in my room wouldn't be confused.

2) Bonuses that were too hard. A fair number of bonuses that I read yesterday seemed entirely to be almost entirely out of reach of a lot of the newer/middle teams that were playing. Two examples that readily come to mind an entire bonus on Zadie Smith (with her as the easy part), and one on Colson Whitehead (with a far easier easy part on Caesar that tied into Shakespeare). Once I look over the set, I may be able to provide more examples. This kind of thing leaves teams that are just playing college tournaments harder than novice events for the first time with the sense that they don't really know any of this stuff, which is not desirable. One of the challenges of writing a regular/medium/etc difficulty tournaments is to write about interesting concepts and content within a general framework that is accessible to most players, and this set often really just seemed to ignore that stipulation.

[Justice William Brennan]

There was way. too. much. military history. 3 tossups on military history in the finals packet is just absurd; consider at the very least swapping one or two out with non-military questions from other packets.

Three military tossups in the Finals Packet 1 was definitely an oversight that should've been caught--the packetization had some feng shui issues that didn't spread diversity as much as it should have, so a lot of military history might have gone in the later packets and lent to recency bias. A quick tally of the answer matrix gave me roughly 15/15 that was mostly or completely military-focused out of a total of 60/60 history. I'll concede that I'm a WWII fiend who let too much of that content slip into the set, but a lot of that 15/15 I mentioned isn't just cluing "Battle X" and "Tactic Y".

This region’s inhabitants were reluctantly granted religious tolerance by the Letter of Majesty. Don Íñigo Vélez de Oñate offered Elector John George I control over Lusatia in return for intervening against this region. The husband of Elizabeth Stuart was invited to become ruler of this royal electorate, but because of the Treaty of Ulm he did not receive support from the Protestant League. A military contractor from this kingdom, Albrecht (*) von Wallenstein, amassed confiscated territories here into his Duchy of Friedland. Count Thurn led an event in the capital of this kingdom that caused grievous injuries to Vilém Slavata of Chlum. After losing the Battle of White Mountain, Frederick the Winter King gave up this kingdom’s throne and left the Holy Roman Empire. For 10 points, name this kingdom where the Thirty Years’ War was started after the Second Defenestration of Prague.
ANSWER: Kingdom of Bohemia

An organization started by this man adopted a black flag with a volcano at its center to symbolize the mourning of his country. For a time, this man worked in candle factory in Staten Island owned by his friend Antonio Meucci. In 1867, this Freemason called for the abolition of the Papacy two months before he was wounded at the Battle of Mentana. The Hungarian exile István Türr aided this man in his most famous campaign, after which he forfeited his hopes for (*) republicanism at the “Handshake of Teano.” This one-time commander of the Uruguayan Navy bore a grudge against the Count of Cavour for bartering away his hometown of Nice. After the Battle of Volturno, this nationalist turned over the Two Sicilies to King Victor Emmanuel II. For 10 points, name this Italian leader who led his Redshirts to conquer Sicily in the Expedition of the Thousand.
ANSWER: Giuseppe Garibaldi

My Bohemia tossup, for example, is mostly about the Thirty Years' War, but it primarily clues the politics and the diplomacy around Bohemia in the war. The Garibaldi tossup takes a famous general, but only half the tossup really clues specific military events. My tossup on the U.S. Navy and Mannerheim are similar tossups that come to mind. It's understandable if you think 15/15 is too much military-related content, but it doesn't feel that way to me because much of the content that's putatively military-focused actually substantially clues other types of history.

It's easy to say "everything was so transparent!!" and very aggravating to hear as a writer, so let me try to be more specific. The Falkands war question namedropped British-sounding leaders, Spanish-language leaders, and post-WWII-sounding technology well within power; this kind of conjunction wasn't uncommon, and I'd encourage the editors to look for it pretty much everywhere if they plan to overhaul the set.

Jaimie's big philosophy for this tournament was regular-difficulty clues on easy(-ier) answer lines. When you're parsing an answer in real time and then you hear the answer and it's a lower-difficulty topic, it's easy to go "oh, it was just that." I can't speak for categories other than history, but I think in general Jordan and I did a satisfactory job of keeping transparent clues out of power and the first 4-5 lines of a tossup. On easy answer lines, I think transparency in the last few clues is often unavoidable.

13. This war began after a group of marines masquerading as scrap metal workers illegally raised their flag at Leith Harbour. Troops in this war made weed-killer puns about Operation Paraquet, which was launched under Guy Sheridan to recover ground lost at the Battle of Grytviken. The V-Force Avro Vulcan bombers were flown in extremely long-range missions under Operation Black Buck during this campaign. Combatants during this war used Exocet missiles to (*) sink the HMS Sheffield, though it was submarine torpedoes that controversially sunk the General Belgrano. After establishing a beachhead at San Carlos, the eventual victors won at Goose Green and captured Port Stanley two weeks later, causing Leopoldo Galtieri to be removed from power. For 10 points, name this 1982 war between the United Kingdom and Argentina over a South Atlantic archipelago.
ANSWER: Falklands War [or Guerra de las Malvinas]
<NR, World History>

For what it's worth, this Falklands tossup doesn't mention a single Spanish-sounding name until the word before the penultimate sentence. Sure there are a lot of English proper nouns in the first 5 sentences, but for a less-skilled player, those names could easily apply to the United States, Canada, New Zealand, or Australia. Even if players realize this is a post-1945 conflict early in the question, I don't think their instantly directed to the Falklands War until well after power.

[alexdz]

I'll echo both Auroni and Andrew here. Far too often, I noticed sentences waxing on and on for sometimes several lines with no pronoun/referent in sight, often building on and providing clues connected to previous one but with no clear "ask." This, I think, was by far the biggest content-related issue.

To a point specifically that Andrew made, I also noticed that the first few packets appeared more heavily edited than later ones. To highlight one way I could tell, there were distinctly more pronunciation guides in the first 2-3 packets than in later ones. This was so much so that when my co-staffer read a later morning round before he had to leave, he actually thought he had somehow turned them off or deactivated them.

I do want to compliment what I thought was some well-written social science for the most part, primarily in my majors of linguistics and sociology. What came up in those fields were all things I remember learning about distinctly in those classes, asked about in an easily understandable way. Kudos on including sociolinguistics stuff, too!

[Aaron's Rod]

the packetization had some feng shui issues that didn't spread diversity as much as it should have

Along with what Jacob mentioned about the set being very heavily CS-driven, I wonder if the packetization issues contributed to (if memory serves) the total absence of jazz in the first ~8 rounds.

(Another small feng shui thing I didn't love was having the tossup on Miracle on Ice being in the same packet as the Olympics art tossup.)

[That DCC guy]

The biggest problem I saw and I’m sure it’s echoed in the other comments but a lot of the bonuses mentioned future answerlines. For example the Oscar Wilde bonus talked about the Ballad of Reading Jail (or whatever the title is) and then later the third bonus’ answerline was the latter piece of literature. I know there were more examples of this in the packet I just can’t remember them without looking back at my notes which I don’t have right now.

[A Dim-Witted Saboteur]

Stray thoughts on the history distro:

I also found the history quite military-heavy and noticed a lot of hard parts that weren't terribly clear in the reasons for their notability (Zyzzyx and Loretta Walsh stand out). The Ayutthaya tossup seemed like too difficult an answerline and dropped Naresuan way, way too early (given that he was likely the most important Ayutthaya monarch). The Scrap metal clue in the Falklands tossup quoted seems a bit misplaced. That said, I enjoyed the whimsical nature of some of the history distribution and appreciated the historiography in this set (the Franco-Prussian war tossup stood out to me as well done). The fact that one packet led in with two tossups on school shootings may have been non-ideal packetization, as was the packet that had a tossup on John Macdonald coupled with a Canadian history bonus. This was very good for a first effort as history editor (?) on Nitin's part, but could've benefitted from more oversight on hard part control and balance in subdistributions both on a set-wide scale and within packets.

Other things: it seemed like there were a lot of CS problems used as hard parts; more balance in the other science distro would've been welcome.
I'm not great at thought, but I had the impression that that distribution wasn't terribly well executed (I know this is very non-specific feedback; sorry).
I generally enjoyed the literature in this set, but some of its easy and hard parts did tend to get a bit out of control.

Another note, directed at everyone who writes things: Please stop writing tossups on Wakanda like it's an actual country. It was funny the first 4 or 5 times.

[Victor Prieto]

I was going to say something along these lines before the advanced stats got posted, but I'm glad they backed me up - science seemed noticeably harder to power compared to other categories. I understand that fields generally are weaker at science, but I felt the power clues in science tossups were pretty unforgiving in this set.

On the other hand, this set did a fantastic job at answerline selection. I can't recall a single answerline where I thought to myself "wow, that was not a good idea for a tossup answerline," when this is sometimes a chronic issue for other sets.

EDIT: the other thing my team noticed is the not so great scattering of topics throughout the packets. We didn’t recall hearing any Japanese or Finnish mythology, for example, but it could have just been luck that landed those in the last couple packets, while there was plenty of Norse stuff.

[Banana Stand]

The names in bonuses were a bit much at times, but less so than the last Penn Bowl I played. Bonus parts on Laurel McKelva and Undine Spragg just really don't need to exist and are fairly uninteresting. For that Wharton bonus, you can easily just make the hard part Custom of the Country and not drop Spragg's name if you think that'd make it too easy, then that opens you up to having a better middle part and more variety in the bonus. I actually didn't think Elizabeth was an example of this, though. She's a pretty important character in Frankenstein and I'm guessing 90% of the people at the tournament have read Frankenstein, so I don't think that's a big deal. Some other small individual things I noticed were that the "moonlight" tossup was both transparent and dropped some famous lines a bit too early, Undset seeming just slightly above the mark difficulty-wise(she seems more Regs+ now but was really trendy like 5 years ago so it's probably fine to have a couple of these in any given set), and that Richardson tossup being worded extremely confusingly. The TU on "Rose for Emily" was also constructed pretty poorly since it was just seemed like vague description... Colonel Sartoris.

Overall I actually enjoyed the lit in this set a lot and thought it was one of the more polished lit sets at regular difficulty that I've played recently.

[34 + P.J. Dozier]

The names in bonuses were a bit much at times, but less so than the last Penn Bowl I played. Bonus parts on Laurel McKelva and Undine Spragg just really don't need to exist and are fairly uninteresting. For that Wharton bonus, you can easily just make the hard part Custom of the Country and not drop Spragg's name if you think that'd make it too easy, then that opens you up to having a better middle part and more variety in the bonus. I actually didn't think Elizabeth was an example of this, though. She's a pretty important character in Frankenstein and I'm guessing 90% of the people at the tournament have read Frankenstein, so I don't think that's a big deal. Some other small individual things I noticed were that the "moonlight" tossup was both transparent and dropped some famous lines a bit too early, Undset seeming just slightly above the mark difficulty-wise(she seems more Regs+ now but was really trendy like 5 years ago so it's probably fine to have a couple of these in any given set), and that Richardson tossup being worded extremely confusingly. The TU on "Rose for Emily" was also constructed pretty poorly since it was just seemed like vague description... Colonel Sartoris.

Hard agree on the Richardson tossup – I can't imagine I'm the only person to have negged with Henry Fielding right before "Henry Fielding" was dropped.

For what it's worth, the "A Rose for Emily" tossup's early clues, at least in the first line, were not too bad (I recognized the lines being clued in the first line, I just couldn't buzz on them because I hadn't been reviewing my cards lately), although it definitely cliffed at "Colonel Sartoris."

[aseem.keyal]

This tournament was fun to play, thanks for writing it! My subjective impression was that the chemistry and biology skewed harder than the physics, though I'm not sure if this is supported by the advanced stats. The visual art seemed fine, but at times a little bland (more polemically, I felt like the Christina's World and Third of May tossups were pretty boring). Overall though the tournament was enjoyable (things like the synethesizer tu, examen, DNA computing, and organs on a chip were interesting to hear about).

[a bird]

Here are some general thoughts about the science in this set. Before I begin, I'll agree with Aseem that the visual arts at this tournament didn't light my world on fire and with Jacob that there was more military history than expected. (On the other hand, I think these questions did a reasonable job of pulling in interesting clues as Nitin argues.)

There a two main point about the science distribution: difficulty and sub distributional concerns.

First difficulty: It's pretty clear that the bio and chem tossups at this tournament were pretty hard compared to some other categories. In addition to my subjective feeling from playing those categories, the power numbers for many tossups in those categories were pretty low (with a few exceptions). while the early clues in those categories were quite difficult, most of the questions were reasonably accessible by the end. I'd like to commend the writers and editors for picking answer lines of appropriate difficulty. There were also bonus difficulty issues in these categories, with some pretty hard hard parts and medium parts in a few bonuses. Physics and other science were probably okay in terms of difficulty.

Next sub distributional issues: did this tournament have any guideline for other science? There were two math tossups in the packets played at the main site (including one in the finals) compared to 5 CS. This is not an inherently bad decision, but it goes against the typical distribution. Was there a rationale for this change, or did it just happen because of what the writers felt like writing? If this was a conscious decision, I'd like to hear the rationale, and I think it should have been mentioned in the set announcement. In general it seems things might have been better with a fixed subdistribution.

I noticed that the physics set emphasized modern research and advanced topics over core course topics like quantum mechanics and electromagnetism*. There were clues from advanced courses like GR and QFT (e.g. fied equations TU, fermions TU and photon propagator clue). Including lots of modern research topics and clues from advanced courses is good, but I think "regular" (or medium) difficulty tournaments should also include a healthy does of core topics. Core topics like quantum tunneling did appear in the set, but when they did, many earlier clues were from contemporary research or from other fields (like biology in the case of the tunneling TU). I think mixing clues across disciplines is not a bad thing, but it should be done thoughtfully and in a balanced way. It seems like this tournament might have gone too far with those clues at the expense of core concepts.

There were some core quantum mechanics bonuses, but that material didn't really make it into the tossups.

[Zealots of Stockholm]

I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, but I do want to point out that it was frustrating as someone from a club that hosted this set that many of the issues with pronouns and bonus parts revealing their answers still were not fixed by the second round of mirrors.

I also thought that there was a lot of CS and military history.

[Valefor]

I'll preface this post by saying that some of the issues I address were likely exacerbated by the limitations inherent in playing quiz bowl over Skype/Discord.

That said, having participated in the online mirror yesterday, I did not enjoy this set. I'll echo the very first comment that Jacob Reed made in this thread, and which was made subsequently by others: this set was plagued throughout by perplexing, tortuous wording, and an absolutely critical lack of pronouns, to the point that there were several points at which our team (myself, Tejas Raje, Ryan Rosenberg, Kenji Shimizu) had absolutely no idea exactly what we were being asked on a given bonus part. The byproduct of this was that there were countless tossups that devolved into 8-way buzzer races near the end when the dark clouds of the writing parted to make way for a single, clear clue.

The be more specific about one thing that caused this problem, there seemed to be several points throughout the set where the writer used the conjunction "and" to connect two clues that had absolutely nothing to do with one another, other than being nebulously about the answer line--along the lines of "<Clue about the answer>, and <totally unrelated clue about the answer>." This is something of a pet peeve of mine, but when the word "and" appears in the middle of a sentence in a tossup, to me at least it indicates that there is some kind of greater relationship between those two clues--say, in a lit tossup on an author, two clues from the same novel. There is nothing wrong with splitting two clues into two separate, shorter sentences (and adding another pronoun instance). It increases clarity, and it prevents players from sitting there during a game trying to parse out some sort of connection where there is none.

The capstone on the entire day was, in the last round that we played, a tossup whose (I believe) second clue began "This choreographer" and proceeded to drop clues about characters from Petrushka. I know that, at the very least, Greg Peterson and I both buzzed there with "Fokine" and got negged, only to discover to our incredulity that the tossup was on Nijinsky (who, while he did dance the lead role in Petrushka, certainly did not choreograph it). I vented about this to a couple of friends online who had already read/played the set, and got the response from one of them--and I quote--"LMAO they still haven't fixed that?? amazing"

Factual errors suck, but they happen. Anyone who has ever written questions has gotten something wrong at least a couple of times. It's annoying, it's frustrating, but it's part and parcel of quiz bowl. Mistakes happen; that's why protests exist. A factual error is easily forgivable. What there is zero excuse for is having a clear factual error in your tournament pointed out, and not fixing it for subsequent mirrors.

[Mike Bentley]

I'll preface this post by saying that some of the issues I address were likely exacerbated by the limitations inherent in playing quiz bowl over Skype/Discord.

That said, having participated in the online mirror yesterday, I did not enjoy this set. I'll echo the very first comment that Jacob Reed made in this thread, and which was made subsequently by others: this set was plagued throughout by perplexing, tortuous wording, and an absolutely critical lack of pronouns, to the point that there were several points at which our team (myself, Tejas Raje, Ryan Rosenberg, Kenji Shimizu) had absolutely no idea exactly what we were being asked on a given bonus part. The byproduct of this was that there were countless tossups that devolved into 8-way buzzer races near the end when the dark clouds of the writing parted to make way for a single, clear clue.

The be more specific about one thing that caused this problem, there seemed to be several points throughout the set where the writer used the conjunction "and" to connect two clues that had absolutely nothing to do with one another, other than being nebulously about the answer line--along the lines of "<Clue about the answer>, and <totally unrelated clue about the answer>." This is something of a pet peeve of mine, but when the word "and" appears in the middle of a sentence in a tossup, to me at least it indicates that there is some kind of greater relationship between those two clues--say, in a lit tossup on an author, two clues from the same novel. There is nothing wrong with splitting two clues into two separate, shorter sentences (and adding another pronoun instance). It increases clarity, and it prevents players from sitting there during a game trying to parse out some sort of connection where there is none.

The capstone on the entire day was, in the last round that we played, a tossup whose (I believe) second clue began "This choreographer" and proceeded to drop clues about characters from Petrushka. I know that, at the very least, Greg Peterson and I both buzzed there with "Fokine" and got negged, only to discover to our incredulity that the tossup was on Nijinsky (who, while he did dance the lead role in Petrushka, certainly did not choreograph it). I vented about this to a couple of friends online who had already read/played the set, and got the response from one of them--and I quote--"LMAO they still haven't fixed that?? amazing"

Factual errors suck, but they happen. Anyone who has ever written questions has gotten something wrong at least a couple of times. It's annoying, it's frustrating, but it's part and parcel of quiz bowl. Mistakes happen; that's why protests exist. A factual error is easily forgivable. What there is zero excuse for is having a clear factual error in your tournament pointed out, and not fixing it for subsequent mirrors.

Yeah I was also disappointed that a lot of the criticism mentioned earlier in this thread wasn't resolved for later mirrors. I understand that it's hard to get motivated to do these things, but players of later mirrors definitely appreciate them.

I understand how much work goes into producing a set. But I think this tournament really could have benefited from an extra level of effort to produce more interesting answer lines and clues, greater consistency across categories, and better proofreading. Hopefully this crew will learn from this experience and produce higher quality work in the future.

[Mike Bentley]

FYI the packets are now posted.