Two biases to get out of the way before I comment: 1. Five years ago I was on the Harvard team. I know and like the current Harvard players, but I do not speak for them, then or now. 2. I was nominated NAQT ICT Coordinator several days ago (in my absence =)), partly because of my more recent ties to Boston University. I speak for neither NAQT nor BU*, though you know who to complain to if there are problems with game officials or other logistics. It behooves the hosts of any tournament to provide a competent reader in each room. This is especially true when it's an event with as much at stake as NAQT SCT. In addition, as many rooms as possible should have a full-time scorekeeper. There should be enough additional support staff to handle any disputes that come up (anything from a particular nasty protest to a double-booked room situation) and basically make sure the event stays close to schedule. (Speaking only for myself, I think it's safe to assume that NAQT awards sectionals bids based in part on the host's demonstrated ability to do this.) As far as I can tell (not having been there), the staff Harvard had did a good job. The TD and the club apparently went out of their way to recruit staff from outside the Harvard Club -- which in turn could produce possible recruits for ICT staff. =) I don't know if Harvard required bye teams to keep score (on penalty of death?) but I do know that at each of the past two NAQT ICTs, most rooms have had one game official and the teams themselves have been asked to keep score. (For those reading this post who haven't seen how this works, in theory both teams will keep the team score, question by question, while each team keeps track of its own individual tossup stats -- who got which question. In practice, I believe as often as not one player will volunteer to keep the official scoresheet and the other team won't object.) Although I personally have a strong dislike for that state of affairs -- and will mount something like a personal crusade to round up somewhere near 70 game officials and make the 2000 ICT the Best-Staffed Event Ever -- it has been a satisfactory alternative to logistical disasters. It seems much more reasonable to criticize NAQT for allowing such a state of affairs in the past (though the alternative would be a drastically smaller ICT field) than to criticize a particular school for a situation that was no worse. As for the criticism that Harvard should not have had the five players playing: 1. Harvard certainly wasn't the only host to field one or more house teams despite having fewer than two officials per room. If memory serves, Berkeley had two house teams -- more than five players -- while leaving certain readers in rooms by themselves. Nobody complained that I know of. (It helps that the solo game officials were of Rob Hentzel caliber.) 2. There was the matter of qualifying more teams. I think the fact that Harvard's teams could do so well when two of them were solo players demonstrates that the club deserves the bids it got. And I can attest from my conversation with R. (who drove me to Berkeley) that NAQT and Harvard had discussed at length the best solution to a potential bind. (Note to future TDs and logistics people: The earlier you take care of potential problems, the better. The more time one has to think, much less arrange things, the better solutions emerge.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST