> and we can't have that can we? We can live with the teams hearing > questions from sets that were used within the same geographic > region, the wrong sets being sent to people, people hearing q's from > one division of a tournament that come up later in the other > division, so long as those responsible for the mishaps listen to all > feedback, often in the most patronizing manner possible. Of course, > nothing ever gets fixed does it? It's sad when the conversation > isn't about question quality for once and is instead about question > security which has all too often been the case since I started > college and has all too often involved the exact same people, who I > continue to allow to be anonymous. Anyone who knows anything on > this subject will know who those people are. Sean -- I'm sorry that you have an objection to the way in which the situation was resolved at DUNCE. That tournament was not directly run by NAQT, so I cannot speak officially for its organizers, but I will say that the decisions to which you object were (1) made in consultation with NAQT, and (2) have my personal support. Your message goes on to generally criticize NAQT's carelessness, however, and that I can speak to authoritatively. You've made valid complaints about NAQT in the past which, I would have thought, had been brought to satisfactory resolution. Among other things, we haven't shipped an incorrect set since your complaint of a year ago, and we took the time to arrange the 2003 ICT questions so that if questions were used in both Division I and Division II they were used in the same packet. Both changes, while clearly the right thing to do, took effort that was performed without raising prices in compensation. Perhaps you have other issues which we have not yet addressed, but I feel that it is not, in fact, true that "nothing ever gets fixed." At the very least, I feel that NAQT has been prompt to admit mistakes that it has made and has tried to correct them, either retroactively, or at the earliest opportunity. I'm sorry that our responses have seemed condescending to you--that's the diametric opposite of our intention and I hope that you will accept my apology. I also hope that others who have provided us with valuable feedback haven't gone away with that impression. Your final charge, that of teams hearing questions from sets that were used within the geographic region, is one that NAQT simply rejects in the case of DUNCE. The tournaments in question are 727 miles apart according to MapQuest, over five and one-half hours' drive in either direction for a team in the center. I can't change your opinion that that constitutes the same "geographic region," but in our opinion, and I hope in the opinion of the majority of teams who would like to have nearby juniorbirds to attend, it does not. NAQT makes it clear on its schedule page, list of past tournaments, tournament hosting page, and host instructions which sets are being used and that it is the responsibility of teams to ensure that they only attend one tournament using a given set. For us, the alternatives to this policy are significantly higher question fees and/or a draconian registration policy that includes clearing every player's name with NAQT in advance. Neither is preferable, in my opinion, to treating players like adults and trusting them with the responsibility of tracking the sets used at the three or four NAQT tournaments they might attend. NAQT believes that DePauw handled the situation professionally and would be pleased to have its club host events in the future. -- R. Robert Hentzel President and Chief Technical Officer, National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST