2022 NAQT SCT: Division II question-specific discussion

[Important Bird Area]

This is a question-specific discussion thread for the 2022 Division II SCT.

[ezekiel]

Thanks for writing and editing; it was a fun set to play!

One gripe: on the bonus on fractals (Packet 3?), we answered 'coastlines' for the first part. Our mod wasn't sure whether or not to prompt; they eventually decided to prompt (with the encouragement of the other team, thanks William & Mary B!), and I answered "coastline of Great Britain." Moderator decided to mark down a protest, since they (the mod) were still undecided on whether "coastlines" should have been prompted (despite W&M not wanting the protest). Final score at end of game was 5 points in our favor. Moderator checked with TD about whether they should in fact have prompted. TD said they'd check with NAQT/editors/question writers.

5 games later (at rebracketing), we find out that the powers that be ruled that it should NOT have been a prompt, losing us the game and bumping us down to bottom bracket (which was very frustrating). TD was very apologetic (which we appreciated), but this strikes me as a very strange instance of non-prompting-on-partial-answer (especially one that, IMO, demonstrates clear knowledge). Any chance anyone could clarify on why this ruling was made?

(Anecdotally, our D1 team got prompted when they gave the same answer to the same question.)

[meebles127]

Thanks for writing and editing; it an overall fun set to play!

One gripe: on the bonus on fractals (Packet 3?), we answered 'coastlines' for the first part. Our mod wasn't sure whether or not to prompt; they eventually decided to prompt (with the encouragement of the other team, thanks William & Mary B!), and I answered "coastline of Great Britain." Moderator decided to mark down a protest, since they (the mod) were still undecided on whether "coastlines" should have been prompted (despite W&M not wanting the protest). Final score at end of game was 5 points in our favor. Moderator checked with TD about whether they should in fact have prompted. TD said they'd check with NAQT/editors/question writers.

5 games later (at rebracketing), we find out that the powers that be ruled that it should NOT have been a prompt, losing us the game and bumping us down to bottom bracket (which was very frustrating). TD was very apologetic (which we appreciated), but this strikes me as a very strange instance of non-prompting-on-partial-answer (especially one that, IMO, demonstrates clear knowledge). Any chance anyone could clarify on why this ruling was made?

(Anecdotally, our D1 team got prompted when they gave the same answer to the same question.)

I do want to apologize for not getting back to you about the resolution of this protest earlier. I was trying to work out the possibility of re-bracketing tie-breakers and this honestly slipped my mind. I'm sorry.

[setht]

Thanks for writing and editing; it was a fun set to play!

One gripe: on the bonus on fractals (Packet 3?), we answered 'coastlines' for the first part. Our mod wasn't sure whether or not to prompt; they eventually decided to prompt (with the encouragement of the other team, thanks William & Mary B!), and I answered "coastline of Great Britain." Moderator decided to mark down a protest, since they (the mod) were still undecided on whether "coastlines" should have been prompted (despite W&M not wanting the protest). Final score at end of game was 5 points in our favor. Moderator checked with TD about whether they should in fact have prompted. TD said they'd check with NAQT/editors/question writers.

5 games later (at rebracketing), we find out that the powers that be ruled that it should NOT have been a prompt, losing us the game and bumping us down to bottom bracket (which was very frustrating). TD was very apologetic (which we appreciated), but this strikes me as a very strange instance of non-prompting-on-partial-answer (especially one that, IMO, demonstrates clear knowledge). Any chance anyone could clarify on why this ruling was made?

(Anecdotally, our D1 team got prompted when they gave the same answer to the same question.)

Sure. Here's the relevant bonus text.

A 1967 paper assigns this geographical feature a fractal dimension of 1.25. For 10 points each—

A. Name this geographical feature whose length is the title topic of a paper by Benoit Mandelbrot [ben-wah man-dul-broht].

answer: (the) coast of Britain (accept answers describing the coastline of the island of Great Britain; accept England or the UK in place of Britain; accept How Long Is the Coast of Britain? (Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Dimension))

The protest committee looked at this and decided that this was a question that did not require a prompt on "coastlines"—it would probably be okay to prompt (although the "fractal dimension of 1.25" clue in particular seems problematic for an answer of "coastlines, generically"), but it would certainly also be okay not to prompt. In cases that we think could go either way, we generally stick with the answer line that the writer and editors have come up with.

[ezekiel]

Shouldn't "it would probably be okay to prompt" imply a ruling of "moderator prompting was ok, and game result should not have been changed"? In cases of moderator discretion, it seems strange to actively overrule the mod's prompt.

[setht]

Shouldn't "it would probably be okay to prompt" imply a ruling of "moderator prompting was ok, and game result should not have been changed"? In cases of moderator discretion, it seems strange to actively overrule the mod's prompt.

"It would probably be okay to prompt" is meant to give a sense of how the protest committee viewed this particular question + answer combination, nothing more. It was not the formal ruling communicated to the TD, and it certainly does not imply "for this question, it's fine to leave it to the moderator's discretion whether to prompt or not"! There needs to be a clear, consistent ruling on whether "coastline" gets a prompt, independent of how any particular moderator initially reacts to that answer.

[ezekiel]

Shouldn't "it would probably be okay to prompt" imply a ruling of "moderator prompting was ok, and game result should not have been changed"? In cases of moderator discretion, it seems strange to actively overrule the mod's prompt.

"It would probably be okay to prompt" is meant to give a sense of how the protest committee viewed this particular question + answer combination, nothing more. It was not the formal ruling communicated to the TD, and it certainly does not imply "for this question, it's fine to leave it to the moderator's discretion whether to prompt or not"! There needs to be a clear, consistent ruling on whether "coastline" gets a prompt, independent of how any particular moderator initially reacts to that answer.

I see. Thanks for explaining!

[ArnavS]

Shouldn't "it would probably be okay to prompt" imply a ruling of "moderator prompting was ok, and game result should not have been changed"? In cases of moderator discretion, it seems strange to actively overrule the mod's prompt.

"It would probably be okay to prompt" is meant to give a sense of how the protest committee viewed this particular question + answer combination, nothing more. It was not the formal ruling communicated to the TD, and it certainly does not imply "for this question, it's fine to leave it to the moderator's discretion whether to prompt or not"! There needs to be a clear, consistent ruling on whether "coastline" gets a prompt, independent of how any particular moderator initially reacts to that answer.

Thanks Seth. I'm looking forward to seeing this ruling.

From what you say, prima facie the protest committee isn't prepared to invalidate the moderator's call. So it's naturally a bit odd and baffling that this nonetheless happened on Saturday. Maybe even on the word of a single question writer, without any input or supervision.

If this were a one-off tournament, this wouldn't be an issue. But as someone who's had a lot of fun at ICTs, I wouldn't want a team to potentially miss out for what feels like a procedural oversight.

[setht]

Thanks Seth. I'm looking forward to seeing this ruling.

We don't normally post rulings (because we don't think people will be interested), but sure: I (as the member of the protest committee in charge of communicating the ruling on this protest) wrote "we rule that "coastline" does not require a prompt here, protest denied."

From what you say, prima facie the protest committee isn't prepared to invalidate the moderator's call. So it's naturally a bit odd and baffling that this nonetheless happened on Saturday. Maybe even on the word of a single question writer, without any input or supervision.

There are some judgments that I think are properly/necessarily the moderator's call. For instance, "what the player said" or "whether a player got out an answer in time." (To be clear, I think it's fine if other staffers in the room offer their thoughts on what they heard, the timing of answers, etc. But these calls ultimately rest with the moderator.) These are generally things that are unique to the game the moderator is reading. Then there are other judgments that I think are not properly the moderator's call; this includes "should answer X be promptable." That's not unique to the game a particular moderator is reading, and we want the same decision in every game where the issue arises. That means the proper way to handle such cases is to have a centralized protest committee rule without reference to what any particular moderator may have done.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Maybe even on the word of a single question writer, without any input or supervision," but I can assure you that we did not solicit the opinion of the question writer in this case (let alone give that writer sole responsibility for making a ruling). When dealing with protests, we usually don't seek out the writer or any editors outside the protest committee unless the committee is unsure of the question content. That wasn't the case here, so the committee made our ruling without input from anyone else.

If this were a one-off tournament, this wouldn't be an issue. But as someone who's had a lot of fun at ICTs, I wouldn't want a team to potentially miss out for what feels like a procedural oversight.

I certainly agree with you that it's important to handle protests correctly at SCT. And I think people can reasonably disagree on whether "coastline" should have been prompted. But I think what we did in this case was procedurally correct, while "give weight to the moderator's call" would be incorrect.