Re: A proposal to the circuit at large.

Stephen Webb <*sdwebb91984_at_sdwebb91984.yahoo.invalid*> · Fri, 01 Nov 2002 14:14:49 -0000

Sounds like a pretty coherent little idea. I doubt our team would be 
interested though, as our policy is that the players write packets to 
practice on each week, and if nobody writes questions, nobody 
practices. That policy has worked so far, as we've yet to have a 
practice canceled. As long as one player cranks out a good round or 
so there's always a scrimmage going on, even if it's a brief practice.

But I do think it's a good idea. I'd volunteer to help edit the 
suckers but for my lack of experience and time constraints.

Stephen Webb
GT

--- In quizbowl_at_y..., nominalize <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> My team tends to be in chronic short supply of current, well-written
> packets to practice on. We plow through five or six every week, so
> for 30 or so weeks it all requires an enormous amount of packs.  We
> also could use the practice writing questions.  So I have an idea 
for
> a practice-round packet exchange.  
> 
> It'd work like this:  There would be a pool of teams involved.  Any
> team that wishes to join signals their intent to whoever is running
> the pool.  Then they write a packet and submit it.  Once it's
> received they'll get the super-secret address where they can find 
the
> other packs in the pool.  Each pack will be classified by format and
> relative difficulty (1-5, perhaps).  An editor or perhaps staff of
> editors could rid them of errors, etc.  To stay in the pool it would
> require the oh-so-onerous task of getting your team to write one
> packet a semester, due preferably by the beginning of the next
> semester.  Of course, teams could offer more if they liked. 
> Acceptable would be all sorts of packets of varying difficulty, in
> any format, even CBI-style, if it's legal. ;-) 
> 
> This way, teams could have current, relevant packets to practice on
> without having to wait for tournaments' spare packs to filter in, 
and
> can have a better choice of packets to tailor their practices to 
suit
> their needs.    
> 
> Such a program should help improve question-writing across the 
board,
> and might eliminate some of the stump-the-chump mentality that
> cyclically looms over the circuit, since teams would not just be
> writing for ACF or ACF-style tournaments.
> 
> Plus they'd be free questions.  Even though it may harm the business
> of selling packets at tournaments, free questions in these years of
> leaner budgets seem much more enticing. 
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Andrew McKenzie
> University of Oklahoma