Difference between revisions of "Talk:Criticisms of the NAC"
Rob Carson (talk | contribs) m |
Matt Weiner (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Setting aside that a "criticisms of good quizbowl formats" page would be both rather bare and rather pointless, this isn't Wikipedia. No enforced neutrality, no NPOV nonsense. This page exists because the NAC deserves to be criticized, and because there is a need for an easily-pointed-to compilation of those criticisms. --[[User:Rob Carson|Rob Carson]] ([[User talk:Rob Carson|talk]]) 15:17, 18 January 2014 (PST) | Setting aside that a "criticisms of good quizbowl formats" page would be both rather bare and rather pointless, this isn't Wikipedia. No enforced neutrality, no NPOV nonsense. This page exists because the NAC deserves to be criticized, and because there is a need for an easily-pointed-to compilation of those criticisms. --[[User:Rob Carson|Rob Carson]] ([[User talk:Rob Carson|talk]]) 15:17, 18 January 2014 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Anyway, I'm not a huge fan of this page as it stands -- I think it should be reworked into a coherent summary of the real, fundamental problems with the NAC, not things that we honestly wouldn't care about if we didn't already dislike the tournament (like a moderator making a political aside one time) or stuff like the quality of the questions in 1995, when there were 0 to 2 high school tournaments, and no high school nationals, with good questions. The ethics and plagiarism issue, the field quality, the value problem, and the CURRENT poor quality of the questions should be given much greater focus than piddly side concerns. [[User:Matt Weiner|Matt Weiner]] ([[User talk:Matt Weiner|talk]]) 19:37, 29 January 2014 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 21:37, 29 January 2014
Shouldn't there be a criticisms of good quizbowl formats page too, for neutrality and all. I know there controversy section on the NAQT already.Zachary Yan (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2014 (PST)
Setting aside that a "criticisms of good quizbowl formats" page would be both rather bare and rather pointless, this isn't Wikipedia. No enforced neutrality, no NPOV nonsense. This page exists because the NAC deserves to be criticized, and because there is a need for an easily-pointed-to compilation of those criticisms. --Rob Carson (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2014 (PST)
Anyway, I'm not a huge fan of this page as it stands -- I think it should be reworked into a coherent summary of the real, fundamental problems with the NAC, not things that we honestly wouldn't care about if we didn't already dislike the tournament (like a moderator making a political aside one time) or stuff like the quality of the questions in 1995, when there were 0 to 2 high school tournaments, and no high school nationals, with good questions. The ethics and plagiarism issue, the field quality, the value problem, and the CURRENT poor quality of the questions should be given much greater focus than piddly side concerns. Matt Weiner (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2014 (PST)