Re: Proofreading, and the JCV/Elvis Packets

ratatosk22 <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Mon, 03 Feb 2003 13:32:42 -0000

James Dinan wrote:
> 
>     If I have to make a criticism as a moderator/cranky old man, it 
> has to do with the packets.  Not the quality or difficulty levels 
of 
> the packets, mind you, but the complete lack of proofreading I saw 
in 
> several of the mirrored packets I read.
> 

OK, I've had my couple days to stew regarding JCV, and that was 
probably the better way to go.  

Let me preface by saying that no packet in itself cost us the 
tournament; our spotty play, combined with some solid performances by 
South Carolina, Cornell, and Duke, took care of that.  Also, the 
Stanford Cardinal Classic packets were a pleasure to hear, and I'm 
glad we got to play South Carolina in the final on them; the MIT 
packet was also written soundly, as were the South Carolina and 
Cornell packets.

Still, it's been a long time since a tournament and a question set 
has frustrated me as much as JCV and the questions contributed by the 
Elvis tournament.  

For JCV itself:
-We started 90 minutes late, as the TD did not get there until 10:45 
for a tourney that was supposed to start at 9:30... I believe packets 
were being printed out, though it may have been something else.  
Because of this, we did not get out from our last finals match until 
about 8:30 PM... at least we only had to take the Metro home; I felt 
bad for South Carolina in that respect.
-Because of the late start, moderators (who were excellent veterans 
overall, and did a very good job) were not apprised as to the rules, 
causing some to accept answers and some not to; some to call time 
after 3 seconds, and some after 5, etc.
-No packets were written by the editors, and it appeared that 
Maryland's submitted packet was barely touched, other than to arrange 
the questions in order.  Perhaps we are just the greatest question 
writers out there, but I highly doubt it.

The rest has to do with the packets, and the editors' handling of 
them:
-I overheard one member of the JCV staff say that the first few Elvis 
packets were compiled hastily, so were placed early in the 
tournament.  Aside from the fact that tournament editors probably 
should not have used them in the first place without a sound 
proofreading (see James's comments above), I have to wonder why the 
packets were finished and sent so late.
-Perhaps due to packet lateness, there were an obscenely high number 
of repeats... so much so in one packet that we got to hear only 19 
toss-ups.  In the first game of the finals, we clinched after toss-up 
18, so everyone decided to save those last two toss-ups for the 
second finals game if they were needed... that's how bad it got.
-Many packets had only 21 or 22 toss-ups/bonuses in them, causing 
situations like the one above, when repeats arose.
-Given how the Elvis packets turned out, I have to question why they 
comprised half of the double round robin.

-As for the Elvis packets themselves, difficulty was inconsistent 
within packets, as was underlining.  I would like to see the 
justification as to why Agrippina and Frederick William did not 
require prompts, but "Race" from Jonny Quest did (you needed "Race 
Bannon").
-Here were some of the more memorable questions we heard this weekend:
1.  "Identify these college coaches on a 5-10-15 basis... for 15, he 
guided UCLA to 10 titles and an 88-game winning streak."  
2.  "Five points for one, fifteen for two, and thirty for all three, 
name the three Gargoyles from Disney's "Hunchback of Notre Dame."  
While this is a one-part, multi-answer bonus (as opposed to one-part, 
one-answer, all-or-nothing), this in essence becomes an all-or-
nothing for most people who have not seen the movie (not exactly in 
the canon of most adults).
3.  Each packet featured a physical bonus, where the teams had to act 
out the answers, some of which were one-part bonuses as well.  It was 
an interesting innovation, but moderators ignored it for this main 
reason: why would the moderators necessarily know what the answers 
are, without visual aids?  Also, I don't think any of us wanted to 
act out Michelangelo's _David_ :-P 
4.  A toss-up on Tadjikistan, that mentioned "its neighboring former 
capital of Almaty".  While technically OK, in just about every room 
people negged with Kazakhstan, because it is easy to miss the 
word "neighboring".  It just seemed to be asking for negs.
5.  A toss-up on Imamu Amiri Baraka, where Leroi Jones was mentioned 
in the second line... I'd love to know where the toss-up went from 
there.
6.  But the one that won the grand prize:  a science bonus, whose 
parts asked you to identify whether a result was "higher" 
or "lower."  That may be acceptable in "Secret X" or "The Bonus Game" 
on "The Price is Right," but IMHO binary bonuses are never acceptable 
in quizbowl.  I believe that was the first one I heard at a tourney 
since 1996.

Overall, it seemed that the Elvis packets were hastily put together.  
I understand that some people may have put significant effort into 
these questions, so that should count for something.  In the future, 
though, I would suggest looking at examples of quality packet sets, 
such as the ones written by Stanford/Berkeley and Georgia Tech this 
year.

-Adam Fine