Re: ACF Regionals

lone1c <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:20:35 -0000

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, tgallows <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> Wow -- now here's an unusual way to get to 55.8 ppg: 
> "Nathan Florida State 0 105 65" -- that's powers (zero, of course),
> tossups, and negs, in 13 rounds.
> 
> Great job of editing by Subash -- I thought the questions were
> excellent.  A couple of repeats and a minor glitch here and there, but
> overall the questions were well-structured and well-written/-edited. 
> Thanks also to Charlie and the moderating/stats crew at UTC for
> another good tournament.
> 
> --Raj Dhuwalia, UF

I'm afraid the paeans for the packets are not entirely due to Subash.
Some of the credit probably had to go to the moderating staff, who
probably had to do a lot more "on the fly" adjustments than you think,
Raj.

I can recall two questions where I failed to note that the answer to a
later part of the bonus was mentioned earlier in the same bouns. In
addition, a few questions (such as the "greatest common divisor"
bonus, to name the most egregious example) were completely
inappropriate for a tournament at the level of ACF regionals. In
addition, the structuring of questions was very scattershot--a number
of questions turned into "Hungry, Hungry Buzzer" within the first two
lines.

Acceptable and alternate answers were also inconsistent. For example,
a one Russian literature tossup listed four acceptable English answers
plus the original Russian, while a question on a class of organic
compounds which arguably allowed the functional group as an answer did
not even include a prompt. Also, some Renaissance paintings with
multiple titles were listed with only a single acceptable title; this
actually led to an incorrect call at the NE Regionals--although by
sheer luck it did not effect the final result. 

However, the biggest problem was the huge number of
errors--grammatical, typographical, and, unfortunately, sometimes
factual--that remained in the final packets. I can recall at least two
or three blatant errors in the set (the "Concord Symphony" being among
the more glaring ones). But most packets had at least one question
where I was scratching my head trying to figure out just what the
question was saying. Sometimes this was because pronouns or verbs were
omitted, or because there were gems like "this rule this principle
states. . . .", or the pronoun rule was not being followed (use of
"they" when the answer is singular).

While I certainly appreciate the large amount of effort required to
put together a set of packets like these, I can't help but feel that,
at the very least, a "fresh pair of eyes" would have been of enormous
benefit to catch and fix the typographical problems, and catch some of
the other errors. While this means that there is one less person who
can play on the packets, I think the improvements to the packet set
(and perhaps possible pecuniary compensation?) as a whole would
justify the effort.

--AEI