I think Kelly is right on the mark. Some of the questions this past weekend were REALLY hard. Most of you who have commented have used the word "accessible" to describe them. At first, I agreed. I didn't think they were too bad. However, when I considered that my teammate Kivin Childers, who averaged around 40 ppg at NAQT, and around 30 ppg at every tournament we go to, only averaged around 10 ppg, I had to wonder. I averaged about 20-30 ppg less than usual, myself. Granted, we have no science people on our team. However, our strengths are arts, literature, and history. There was one art bonus that we got zero on... A zero-point art bonus for us is unheard of. Between Daniel McHan and me, art is one of our strongest areas. At any rate, my teammates - who are relatively new to ACF - are totally turned off to it. If it were not for my adamant demanding that we continue to play in ACF events, that would be one team that ACF scared away. While that may be what some of you want, please keep in mind that even the greatest of players - such as Kelly - will not be around forever. If the questions continue to be this obscure and this inaccessible to "newbies," then ACF may go the way of the Roman Empire. And, as I mentioned before, we at Athens State used ACF Regionals questions (from 1999-2002) in EVERY practice we've had this year. This year's set was, without a doubt, the longest and most obscure. Just more observations. Thanks, Kelly, for bringing some validity to this argument. -Lee --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, mac4731 <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > Since some discussion about question quality is already underway > concerning this past weekend's Regionals, I thought this would be a > good time to post about some question writing topics that have been > on my mind for some time. These are simply my opinions, and I have > neither the desire nor the time and energy to get into a big debate > or flamewar about this, so I think I'll simply say what I have to say > and leave the arguing over its accuracy or relevance to people who > like such things. I'll also preface this by saying that I have ACF- > style questions and those who write them in mind, but that much of > what comes up will have further applicability, and I'll trust you can > decide when that is true. > > In the interests of typing as little as possible, my current opinion > of ACF-style questions is the following: > > 1) Many aspects of question construction, like pyramid structure, use > of interesting, relevant, academic clues, etc., are at the highest > level in the history of the game > > 2) The general difficulty of the answers in both tossups and bonuses > almost always ends up being unnecessarily difficult. > > 3) Questions have become far too long. > > The only one of these on which I think I'll elaborate is the second, > and I'll cite this past weekend as an example, not because it is the > lone case of this, but because it is fresh in my memory and because > it is definitely not in the minority on this point. My point is not > to say that every question from this weekend needs to be made easier. > In fact, I think that considered individually, each question is a > perfectly fine question for use in a tournament like Regionals. But > taken cumulatively, they were too hard for teams that haven't been > around the circuit for years to enjoy, and far too many enthusiastic, > improving teams spent round after round frustrated hearing answers > that they had not heard of. This may not have been as obvious at > other sites from this past weekend, which were attended almost > exclusively by elite teams and tournament veterans, but at the > incarnation I attended this was a major problem. I realize that ACF > as a format is intended on at least one level to satisfy the more > hardcore players who desire a high level of difficulty in their > questions. My point is that there still needs to be enough emphasis > on combining these with a healthy dose of questions that are > accessible, and by accessible I mean questions whose answers > are "easy" because they are of fundamental importance to their fields > and which have a good chance of being answered even in a room with > two moderately talented freshmen teams, not those topics that > are "easy" because they've come up so often that quizbowl veterans > have all written a question about it and know the clues, even if > practically no one outside of the game has heard of it. In my > opinion, there is a place for both hardcore and accessible answers at > most tournaments, but I think almost every ACF-style tournament is > unnecessarily difficult, and that the same competitive results > and "indulgence of the canon" (for lack of a better or less confusing > phrase) could still be achieved with questions that contained a much > higher percentage of basic material. > > I want to close by saying that I think Raj and the gang did a very > good job with editing this weekend, and I thank them for the > incredible effort that they expended in producing the questions. What > issues I have with the end product is almost entirely the result of > trends that have been ongoing for years, trends that have been making > it harder and harder for new players of talent and intelligence to > become part of the game. Usually, posts of this sort are dismissed by > most of the quizbowl community because they are made by people who > are seen as whiners who want to win without bothering to make an > effort to improve and/or because they hate the format itself. I hope > you don't dismiss this post too quickly, especially since it is being > made by someone who personally enjoys sets like last weekend's, and > that even if your initial instinct is to disagree with me, that you > will take some time to consider this, because I think it is a problem > that needs to be addressed. Thanks for your time. > > Kelly
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST