Re: Now with Bonus Flame and CBI criticism for topicality's sake

theblasmo <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Sat, 13 Dec 2003 14:41:28 -0000

I hate quoting myself in replies, but:
 "The irony is that CBI is probably one of the
most progressive of the formats, at least in terms of population and
politics. Not that the others aren't, mind you, I'm not saying that
all. But CBI has always gone out of its way to put forth a
progressive "agenda" if you will, in terms of race, gender, and
orientation."

I simply wanted to address your constant bashing of CBI as a format. 
In some ways, I agree, especially with the problems that can exist 
when one room follows the rules closely, and the others don't. I 
also stated in the post that complaints about format and questions 
were legitimate. The "dead white male" approach, or even tokenism, 
has also been a complaint about ACF, however, and that has nothing 
to do with the way it's set up or the people running it, and 
everything to do with the selection of material by the people who 
send in packets. The editors have done a great job with this over 
the years, and Kelly's last batch for the Fall tourney were 
extremely balanced. But if all you get are questions about dead 
white guys, what can you do? You can't rewrite the entire packetr 
yourself. ACF has gone out its way to address this problem, and 
TRASH and NAQT have never had that reputation (not that I know of. 
All I ever hear are compliments about question selection). I agree 
with some of your complaints, and when OU withdrew from CBI 
competition a few years ago, it was because we felt that the 
questions had gotten too vague, and had too many twists in the 
wording -- not teh subject matter. Quoting Eric Bell, "How can you 
study for this stuff? What's the point?" The reason we got back in 
was that the next year saw an improvement in the quality, and the 
overall "game show" format of it, which we enjoyed, and we voted to 
rejoin, without disappointment. I appreciate your fondness for ACF, 
but comparing the two is ridiculous, since they're not the same 
thing: format, approach, and subject matter differ so much that they 
belong to two different genres with the same root. The last few 
years has seen a great improvement in both degree of difficulty and 
topic selection with CBI, and much fewer "Right Turn Clyde's" in the 
questions themselves. The diversity and openmindedness -- note that 
I accept all genres of quizbowl here -- that CBI puts forward exists 
in the overall philosophy of the parent company. Again, none of the 
formats are closed-minded, by any stretch, but CBI pretty much makes 
it a statement of purpose that the people who make up the staff, 
production, formats, are an extremely diverse group in regards to 
gender, race, and orientation. Is the Honda Challenge "tokenism"? 
Couldn't tell you, I'm not black, and I haven't played it. I doubt 
it, somehow, as everything I've experienced with the group -- and 
I've known a lot more of them than you, I promise you -- would seem 
to indicate that it's not. I just get sick of hearing people bash 
CBI by resorting to elitism -- our format's better than yours, 
Huzzah! -- instead of criticism. There are legitimate complaints, 
and CBI tries to address them in the same way the others have. To 
ignore that is mainly the result of limited exposure -- and on your 
end, obviously, that's fine. But many people have enjoyed all the 
formats without developing a hate-CBI attitude. I appreciate it for 
what it is, and the agenda it puts forth. But Tokenism? At CBI? That 
Argument doesn't hold any water if you've been around it as much as 
I have. 
David Murphy
Univ. of Oklahoma