--- In quizbowl_at_y..., rsbhan <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > 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. Point #1..."a bunch of crap"? Nothing particularly wrong with being blunt to make a point, but that sounds more like something one would say when rejecting a batch of concrete due to excessive slump content, meaning that the necessary material is unusable due to excessive water content. I would hardly classify criticism of tournaments marketed for the "in-between/advanced" audience (that is, players beyond junior bird status and upward) as sufficiently devoid in merit to be considered as an effuluent byproduct (or whatever you call it in your favorite jargon). Point #2..stop me if I'm mistaken, but isn't this ongoing debate an exchange of ideas, thoughts, and theories? It seems like qualities such as question difficulty are still relative, because each tournament has a different set of players, and many common points of reference (i.e. bonus conversion, TU/negs, unanswered tossups) will obviously change as a function of the question writers, editors and players. If the circuit can develop a Mohs scale of question difficulty, I would be impressed, although I would next expect a perpetual motion machine. IOW, you might think that today's quizbowl packets are of perfectly acceptable difficulty, but that doesn't mean that John Doe and Jane Q. Public are necessarily of the same mind, even if they have a similar level of abilities. > 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: One's "inanane babble" might be another's idea or suggestion, either as a trial balloon or as a thought. However, as long as the exchange of ideas stays within normally accepted societal norms, you have much of a right to criticize such ideas as "inane" as I have to consider the idea, judge it on its merits, and then move on with my life or to question the status quo. > > If you think the circuit is in such dire straits, what the hell are > you doing to fix things? Sometimes fixing things requires more than just blood, sweat and tears. A certain amount of advertising and evangelisim may be needed to convince others of your point of view. I would also theorize that the nature of quizbowl attracts a certain number of intiuitive types that enjoy theorizing about systems and how to improve them. Sometimes, the theories are implemented, sometimes just discussed and set aside for other ideas. > 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. It doesn't seem to hard to criticize those who claim that the emporer has no clothes, either. It's a two-way street. As for Mssrs. Castagna and Young, both are working as advisors to existing programs. I hope to help out a local program in the near future, provided I stay in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. As for theoretical hogwash carrying no weight, shouldn't criticism of such hogwash also fail to cut much ice? > 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? I love how you seem to subscribe to the Dr. Laura theory of quizbowl arguments. I will ask this, though: if every quizbowler with a theory on how a tournament should be run decided to run a tournament, who would be left to play in the tournaments? Somehow, I'm thinking that you might run out of days on the calendar. > 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. Likewise, I think both your efforts at packet-writing and Mssrs. Young and Castagna are worthwhile in their own way. All 3 of you seem to care about the future of the circuit, but have different visions and different means of getting across your visions. No "right way" may exist, although several "correct paths" are possible. I may not like flying on (Insert Name Here) Airlines, but obviously enough people do for the company to stay in business. However, I might fill out a comment card if I've had a bad experience on a/an (Insert Name Here) flight. > 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. Ok, so what am I missing here? Players are concerned about what they think is wrong with the circuit. Players post on the board to express their concerns to a wider audience in hopes of convincing others to either a) follow their lead or b) speak to people with the time and energy to implement their ideas because those with the ideas have other pursuits besides quizbowl to worry about. Or maybe I should just hang it up now by quit moderating and trying to help out circuit teams because I'm not currently playing or attending grad school, and thus not in a logistical position to run tournaments or spend the balance of my leisure time writing questions for every single invitational on the circuit.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST