Talk:John Augustyn

Initial Advice

Are all these "career accomplisments" really necessary? The regular-season results aren't all that noteworthy, clog up the page, and are easily found on HDWhite—only the national accomplishments really warrant being here, IMO.

– Eric Yin (talk) 8:45, 10 February 2021 (CST)

I do get your concern, especially because most of these accomplishments are trivial at best, but my IAC accomplishments (which make up 15/19 of the accomplishments listed) aren't listed on HDWhite, and only NAQT Accomplishments are listed, of which a fraction of those total stats I have included in the overall Career Accomplishments list. You could also say that some of my awards listed, especially in the "Other Awards" subsection, aren't noteworthy and shouldn't be listed, in which case I would be happy to pull them from the QB Wiki article. Thank you for expressing your concern to me, as it will help me reconsider what to include on this QB Wiki article.

– John Augustyn (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2021 (CST)

It appears that several (all?) of these accomplishments occurred in the middle school division of NHBB; this should be probably be mentioned. I'd also generally recommend separating career sections into "elementary", "middle school", etc. sections so that it's easier to understand the chronology - I'm just going to go ahead and do this since I'm here. -Kevin Wang (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2021 (CST)

Exams and Debate on IAC as a "quizbowl orginization"

This is possibly more of a general question, but should we really include exams on here? While run by a quizbowl adjacent organization, they are not quiz bowl.

– George Tagtmeier (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2022 (CST)

Hello,

First of all, please sign your message in the future. It makes people’s lives just a bit easier to know who this feedback is coming from.

With regards to exams being included on QBWiki pages, a few pages of precedent exist on this matter to show that it is at the very least tolerated.

Govind Prabhakar, Quizbowl in Asia, Alex Dzurick

I am of the opinion that it is most certainly okay to ask Jonah to make a clarification as to wether or not exam awards are allowed. He’s doing his absolute best to ensure that QBWiki is a well-maintained and consistent trove of knowledge, and I am certain that he could use the feedback that you have to offer.

What I oppose, however, is your “opinion” that exams should not be included when precedent exists that it is okay to do so. Moreover, you choose to act on this opinion and use my page as a proxy for this opinion. But, I see you have a mild tendency to ignore precedent in the first place (See: User talk:George Tagtmeier), so oh well.

In addition, IAC/NHBB is not merely a “Quizbowl adjacent” organization, but is a particular form of quizbowl that has been played for over a decade. Merely calling such an area “Quizbowl adjacent” is doing a disservice to those that staff, maintain, and participate in this tournament. As far as I am concerned, an award given by a reputable quizbowl organization, even when said award is not entirely for quizbowl and has no practical value, is worth mentioning. There is precedent as well to back me up on this, but it is more debatable.

I apologize if this sounded passive aggressive.

– John Augustyn (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2022 (CST)

My bad on the failure to sign. I'm not sure why you think Jonah is some ultimate authority. As the owner of the wiki, he can certainly decide disputes and make rules, but the responsibility is on each of us as editors to make the wiki better. If you think exams have some specific reason to be here, you should state that. While IAC does do some multi-subject team events, these events aren't exactly the focus of the company. Calling IAC "a reputable quizbowl organization" is a stretch at best.

When I am asking if something should exist, pointing to precedent is dumb. Please give reasons why you think said things should exist. The precedent you referenced is also mainly just bullet points, not a multi-sentence discussion of how you had an "upset" of a test taken at lunch. The neg prize reference also doesn't make sense because the neg prize is directly related to quizbowl. I also don't understand why you decided to bring up an example of me disagreeing with another editor for "precedent" that I ignore precedent. I do think it's a little bit weird that this is the same editor you called into this talk page but whatever.

I tried trimming the page for readability, so your quizbowl achievements would be enhanced. You appeared to have reverted this. Since this section is specifically for discussion of exams, I'll start a new section more directly related to the page.

George Tagtmeier (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2022 (CST)

I don't think the exams really belong here, but that's more of an opinion than a rule; it doesn't rise to the level of me saying the content needs to be removed. That said, the page is on the bombastic side; be wary of letting it reach the old-style Charles Hang level of vanity content.

Also, with regard to "precedent", that's not necessarily the best concept to apply here for rules compliance because many QBWiki pages are…not ideal. I realize that makes it hard to know what to do, and the forthcoming clarification of rules and purpose might help. The Quizbowl in Asia page is different in that it's aggregating results across many schools and competitions run by different organizations, which other existing tools don't really support in useful ways (and are unlikely to do so), which bolsters the case for using the QBWiki to do it.

—Jonah (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2022 (CST)

Thank you for the feedback Jonah.

I think that exams should be present because I have no alternative place to mention them in, and because they were not explicitly prohibited. It's not a stretch to say that an award conferred by a quizbowl organization counts as worthy reading on the Quizbowl wiki. Moreover, NHBB and its activities are the focus of IAC the company, and what the company was initially built around. There's no reason to dispute the reputability of IAC, since it is by all metrics, "good quizbowl". Moreover, precedent is a sufficient reason for a portion of information to exist, at least, until Jonah can clarify the purpose of QBWiki. There is no other standard to go by in the absence of a specific set of rules or sample guidelines.

"The precedent you referenced is also mainly just bullet points, not a multi-sentence discussion of how you had an "upset" of a test taken at lunch."

It still mentions similar events to what I mentioned in my article. The point was that similar references existed, not for you to nitpick on how my page isn't the same.

"I also don't understand why you decided to bring up an example of me disagreeing with another editor for "precedent" that I ignore precedent. I do think it's a little bit weird that this is the same editor you called into this talk page but whatever."

Jonah's the owner. That's why I brought him up. How you mention to break three sentences of basic standards is beyond the scope of this discussion.

"I tried trimming the page for readability, so your quizbowl achievements would be enhanced."

I don't think removing seven accomplishments enhances my page.

-John Augustyn (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2022 (CST)

Just because you have an achievement (and you have many strong achievements) does not mean you need to share the achievement on the wiki. IAC is not "good quizbowl" because it is not quizbowl. There is significant overlap between IAC and quizbowl, but the two are different.

How you mention to break three sentences of basic standards is beyond the scope of this discussion.

What does this mean?

By trimming the page, I focused on your actual quizbowl achievements, not exam results and such.George Tagtmeier (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2022 (CST)

You already know my opinions from my points, but in short:

• 6 of IAC's 7 most prominent events would constitute pyramidal quizbowl (The odd one is the US Geography Championships, which used to be a partially-pyramidal competition). The exams are an aside for IAC, Quizbowl is their focus. They are a quizbowl organization.
• There is no formalized rule [as of the writing of this response] that explicitly states "Exams should not be allowed" on the QBWiki.
• Ideally, QBWiki pages should be controlled by the player, not by some editor. Exceptions occur when pages get excessive, like with Charles Hang. However, lopping off fifteen thousand bites of data is not the same as a mere thousand bytes that add sufficient context.
• In the process of you attempting to make the QBWiki better in your sense, you have trampled over the basic bedrock of rules, and violated the wills of at least a few players. None of what I have done comes close to being worthy of being deleted. That was what I meant by the "three sentences"; those were the QBWiki's terms of service. Your batman-like psychosis of what QBWiki should be is distorting your perception of what needs to be included. I see no harm in adding exams run by an organization on quizbowl, and me including them is not some sort of "lunch upset" as you claim.

-John Augustyn (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2022 (CST)

1 of IAC's 7 most prominent events constitutes pyramidal quizbowl in the traditional sense. If NAQT made a test, it would also not be appropriate for the wiki. There is no formalized rule about the use of exams, but because exams are not quizbowl, they do not belong on the wiki.

If by "the player" you mean the subject of the article, I would completely disagree. Other editors are often better able to make objective articles, and help prevent the self-aggrandizement we see on certain articles.

If by "terms of service" you mean privacy policy, the privacy policy isn't very helpful here. Not everything that is acceptable for the wiki should be on the wiki. The lunch upset quote was from you, you discussed how you led an upset of an exam in the page prior to it being deleted. We can further discuss what should and should not be included, as there are no formal rules there, but as of right now, you have one of the longest personal pages, especially for a high schooler. I am going to once again cut down the page in length to bring it into line with other pages, while preserving noteworthy and contextually important quizbowl achievements. The page is probably still too long even after trimming, but it's closer at least.

George Tagtmeier (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2022 (CST)

What even is "the traditional sense" with regard to how quizbowl is played? Simply put, it doesn't exist. In the sense that core quizbowl elements are used (i.e. tossups), IAC's competitions mostly fulfill this criteria. I stand by my previous claim that 6/7 of IAC's competitions constitute quizbowl.

You state that if NAQT made a test, it would not be quizbowl or deserving of a mention on this wiki. However, "lightning round" tests, which can vary from tournament to tournament, are often used in numerous quizbowl competitions as a means of qualifying for HSNCT. The points earned from these tests are counted by NAQT as valid quizbowl points. Therefore, NAQT already sanctions these exams as valid forms of competition, and the results are likewise transferred to the wiki in the form of wins and hyperlinks. Even quizbowl events, like the history bee in past years, used to use an exam component as a means of ranking. No one was denying back then that National History Bee was "never quizbowl". Even if these competitions contain a lack of buzzer-based competition, it fulfills a general requirement of quizbowl, in that it is a test of knowledge done in a competitive environment. The ambiguity of whether or not exams should be included on QBWiki, which I do acknowledge is present, should be fulfilled based on wether such information is relevant. In my case, I believe it is, considering the fact that there isn't an "Exam Wiki" for exams. No one is hurt by me adding three sentences to an article.

Nothing is objective, there is always an element of bias in some articles. However, this does not give editors broad liberties to destruct an article. Ideally, there should be a balance between the player and the editor, where both agree on a "middle ground". Specifically with this article, while it is long by the standards of this wiki, it is not particularly bloated or irrelevant. When in doubt of a middle ground, the player, with more firsthand experience of the events mentioned in the wiki than an editor in most cases, should be given a priority. This never meant editors are out of the picture, but instead gave them a broad arbitration of "don't scrupulously mention every tournament". Of the 50+ quizbowl-related events I have participated in, only eight are directly mentioned in the article. I don't think that qualifies as an exercise of scrupulosity.

No, the "lunch upset" quote was not from me. Please look further up to see that you in fact made that quote first.

I agree that the privacy policy was not helpful in this case, but now that guidelines and comprehensive rules are in place, such documents are more irrelevant with regard to how articles should be formed.

Source for the claim that my page is one of the longest for an hser? I don't see one, and your comment implies that me "blanking my page" would be better than the pre-December status quo. There is no violation of the rules in my page. Moreover, what is noteworthy is debatable. I debate that my page is fine as it is, and the opinions of frequent editors other than you reflect that. If anything, the page is less bloated, considering my increasing participation in the quizbowl community compared to when this article was first written.

-John Augustyn (talk) 4:35, 8 April 2023 (CDT)

The traditional sense with regard to how quizbowl is played are the formats used by major quiz bowl organizations like NAQT, PACE and ACF.

This is not what a lightning round is at all. Relevance is also not at all determined by the existence of another wiki. Just because a wiki doesn't exist for information you want to share with the world doesn't mean its relevant here. Nobody is saying that the information is harmful, just that it is not relevant and does not belong here on the quiz bowl wiki.

Beyond defamation and the like, you do not have special privileges because you are the subject of the article. There is no difference between "the player" and "the editor". The page is still scrupulous. Nobody else mentions things like quarterfinals or exams.

You stated "This is the only time that such an upset has happened in IAC National Championship Exam history" discussing a test that was administered at lunch (if I remember IAC correctly).

The QBWiki "Long pages" special page. Not sure which editors you are referencing, as zero have come to your defense here. You reverted back to edits you made in the past, not added anything new, so I'm not sure what you mean about your increasing participation.

George Tagtmeier (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2023 (CDT)

Inclusion of Statistics

The QBWiki is not supposed to be a repository of all statistics. You can list major accomplishments, but this page is too long. Firstly, we should avoid random unprovable estimations, especially when they do not add much to the article. The general bar I have seen for inclusion in IAC matters is finalist or better. An arbitrary mention in a podcast is also not particularly informative. Due to an extremely low number of current events questions at Scobol, I removed that you "won" the category. The page is still likely a bit too long, but this helps quite a bit. George Tagtmeier (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2022 (CST)

Winning a category at Scobol Solo is a significant accomplishment within the tournament that is recognized at the awards ceremony, and all categories have the same number of questions (one per round, overtime notwithstanding). Whether it's worth a mention on the QBWiki is debatable and I don't really care either way, but putting "won" in quotes seems inordinately and oddly petty. —Jonah (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2022 (CST)

Thank You for the clarification Jonah. I think that awards recognized at ceremonies, with discretion, are acceptable to put on a QBWiki page. This is in line with what Jonah said, but stuff like "xth place individual finish at xx Varsity Tournament" is not necessary, since these are local affairs. IAC events are national [and international] affairs, and if my memory serves me right, teams above 16th place at the History Bowl and semifinalists and above for national competitions were recognized at IAC awards ceremonies. This would put all of the accomplishments listed on prior pages in this realm.

By no means is my page, or any page for that matter, intended to be a repository of all statistics. There's a clear purpose as to why two-thirds of my page is devoted to national achievements, not "every statistic I've ever gotten", as a detractor of mine claims. In addition, the "unprovable statistic" is easily accessible information on the NAQT website, and it adds significant context to the article from an average reader's perspective. If you want me to list "major accomplishments", my page can be a sentence or a novel, but I have chosen a length that I feel is appropriate. Judging by the fact that some seem to think that my accomplishments "aren't worthy", I'd imagine that this person wants all QBWiki pages to be a singular sentence, which provides no contextual value to anyone.

Also, the "For Ten Points" Mention is not "arbitrary", as people claim. For 10 Points has a viewership of at least 500-750 listeners per episode on Soundcloud, and probably way more if you include all of the podcasting services and social media sites that choose not to publish viewership details. Moreover, the detail is informative, putting my performance in the context of people such as Rohan Ganeshan or Arin Parsa. This comparison I just mentioned was stated on this particular bit of the podcast, and should not confer any sense of how I personally think about this mention.

Finally, Low number of current events questions is subjective. In the IHSA format, for example, there are few (from what I've been told around 0.25 - 0.4 questions per game) current events questions. However, considering that there are portions of a QBWiki page devoted to documenting these category awards, I think that it is an okay contribution to this page. As Jonah stated, all Scobol Solo categories have 1 question each, so saying that this award is worthless presents an inaccurate picture of how the Scobol Solo is run. John Augustyn (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2022 (CST)

I decided to attempt to improve this article based on general feedback from others about how certain people make overly grandiloquent articles about themselves. My goal here is not to be petty, but to move this article more in line with other articles in tone.

Recognition at awards ceremonies is completely arbitrary. I do think more discussion about the role IAC should play in the wiki should occur, but I think finalist is a good minimum (Although this could be different for academic bowl, which is much more similar to quizbowl).

Not sure why you are labeling me a detractor. You cited an estimation due to a lack of stats. You changed this, which is good. Your page could be a sentence or a novel, but right now, compared to other pages on the wiki, it is too long, which is what I am trying to correct. Please Stop strawmanning me.

The FTP mention is arbitrary because the hosts of FTP can mention anyone they want for any reason. Compliments people give you most likely do not belong on the wiki, regardless of if you agree with them or not.

I wasn't trying to imply that the award was worthless, based on the statistics it appeared there were very few current events questions. I put won in question marks because in most of the country you cannot win a category in quiz bowl. I suppose this could be different with a solo tournament like Scobol, but depending on what you want to keep, I suppose this could stay.

George Tagtmeier (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2022 (CST)

The article is already in line. Plenty of people have read it before you and thought it was fine. Why change it now? Who are these "others" you're referring? Clearly not the owner of the wiki, as he saw no need to change the content of my article.

FTP is run by two major middle school coaches. Their opinions are as valid as NAQT honoring a top player with an article, like they have done in the past.

The failure of you to recognize the Scobol Solo category winners and their importance is more than simply an error, particularly when the Scobol Solo page itself is one of the more notable ones on the wiki. A supposition is not the same as a fact. You can also win a category at IPNCT, but I'll put that aside.

-John Augustyn (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2022 (CST)

Just because people read an article doesn't mean they think it is fine. Compared to other pages on the wiki, this page is too long, which is why I decided to edit it.

Good point, perhaps we should discuss if NAQT Player of the Week awards are notable, but an opinion is different than an award

My failure to recognize the existence of category winners was an error. The Scobol Solo page isn't exactly notable, and right now it's actually pretty unappealing. If I were better at wikitext that might be something I would work on.

George Tagtmeier (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2022 (CST)

When does "long" become too long? If people didn't think an article was fine, they would have edited it. The fact that you are the first person who believed that this article is worthy of a trimming speaks to the opinion of the broader quizbowl community with regard to my article.

NAQT Player of the Week is both an opinion and an award. The hosts of FTP, being fairly well-versed in quizbowl, make the determination of a terminator in a similar sense. I would be open to a debate over whether an accomplishment like that should be included, but as of right now, I think that it is "true and relevant" enough to quizbowl to stay.

-John Augustyn (talk) 4:35, 8 April 2023 (CDT)

Over the course of the last few months, I have realized that your arguments were very helpful and constructive suggestions, and that my motives were by comparison, unwarranted. I have taken them to heart and adjusted my page accordingly.

-John Augustyn (talk) 9:12, 8 July 2023 (CDT)