So, I guess before people (mis)construe my earlier post as an attempt to defend myself against what I see as baseless charges of excessive difficulty for difficulty's sake, let me take a moment to say that I agree with Kelly's post that ACF Regionals (as is) might be too hard to encourage new teams to return. I was attempting to write what I thought would be a median-level packet in terms of difficulty. I may have well been dead wrong about what I thought was easy. I really enjoy hard questions (keeping in mind I did not believe the packet I submitted was composed of more than a few hard questions), but I believe they have their place, and that that place is at ACF Nationals, Masters and Open tournaments (may they flourish as always). Regionals should have a few hard questions to help distinguish between the best teams and to satisfy veterans, but no more than that few (heck, even ACF Fall asked a tossup on Zaitsev's rule). I like it that there are three difficulty levels now (The Fall tournament is a truly insightful innovation for its root idea that academic questions need not always be so obscure that only the top scholars in the country can approach them). I am an idiot for failing to see what is easy rather than an ogre attempting to kill off new talent. Lee is right. Kelly is right. Let us continue find and reward both new talent and hard work. Let us continue to award the highest honors to the best teams. Let ACF of the Highest Ideal flourish. At any rate, Lee, I apologize for being a party to scaring off your teammates--You all have the hearts of lions to go out for ACF Nationals anyway. In fact, everyone should go. Godspeed, and good hunting. --Wesley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST