The more I think about the recent discussion on this forum, the more I realize it's just a bunch of crap. As I've stated before, the idea that questions are too hard and the idea of the "arms race" in question writing is false. The proliferation of novice tournaments easily defies this, as does last year's turn towards accessible questions in all formats and invitationals. However, some of you are probably not convinced by the mere mention of this fact and will continue with your inane babble about how the circuit is about to implode unless we do something drastic, like kick out all the grad students or let CBI write all our questions. To you complainers I offer this question: If you think the circuit is in such dire straits, what the hell are you doing to fix things? It's so damn easy to sit back and offer us your grim vision of the future of QB. It's so damn easy to go on and on about how the questions are too hard and how we're driving billions of young players away from the game. But this theoretical hogwash you all purport carries no weight whatsoever because I don't think any of you are making yourselves part of the solution. So you think the questions are too hard. Why aren't you writing easier packets for us then? Why don't I see freelance packets by Phil Castagna and Tim Young at every invitational I attend? What kind of example do you think you're setting for the young players who are causing all the problems with the hard questions? How come you all aren't running invitationals that espouse your own personal QB philosophies? Do you all freelance for NAQT or ACF? The fact of the matter is that this is all bullshit. The dedicated QB enthusiasts that really care about the future of the circuit have been hard at work for at least the past year (in many cases much longer) to make things better for QB in general and question writing in particular. Take someone like R. Hentzel. Instead of posting whiny diatribes about what he thinks is wrong with QB, he actuates on his vision and runs NAQT the way he thinks it ought to be (in conjunction with the views of NAQT's other members, of course). Or take someone like Kelly McKenzie. Even before Kelly started editing the ACF Fall Tournament for new players (the single greatest format innovation in many years), the packets he gave to submission events were almost always the most accessible (and certainly of very high quality). While the people mentioned above might have visions different from mine, at least they're doing something to make their beliefs manifest and that deserves more than a little respect. Allow me to be constructive for once and address the younger generation of players (maybe some old crochety geezers will learn something, too). Quizbowl is not this static entity with one person or a group of people in charge. If there's something you don't like, you have the ability to alter it to your satisfaction. You can write packets the way you think they should be written. You can run tournaments they way you think they should be run. Setting an example is the best way to get your message across. You'll never be able to convince everyone that your way is the best way, but you certainly won't convince anyone if you don't act on your ideas. And don't forget that quizbowl is nothing more than the sum of its constituents (i.e. the players). Therefore, it is every player's responsibility to try to fix the things he or she finds wrong with the game. It would benefit everyone involved if we all put a little effort into improving the questions or whatever we find out of whack. In conclusion, I would like to reveal to the world that Joon Pahk has the ability to mentally control doughnuts. Thank you for your time. R. Bhan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST