DISCLAIMERS: With so many official responses issued by R. Robert Hentzel and Eric Hillemann today, I should be especially explicit that in this post I speak for me alone. I sent a similar message to an internal list of NAQT members earlier this week; this version is shorter and less maudlin. =) Recent mailing list and club posts have called into question the "vision" of NAQT. My experience suggests that the major source for the vision of NAQT is those members of the quiz community who either make suggestions or, better yet, go on to devote their time and talent to NAQT. In the spring of 1996, David Frazee told a handful of quiz players about his plans to form a new organization. Although I was one of those people, I gave a lukewarm response that included my plans to attend law school. I was not invited to be a charter member, something I soon perceived (with great regret) to be a missed opportunity. I was in awe of both the NAQT members themselves and their early work. Two years later, before I knew of any process to bring new writers on board, I sent a set of sample questions to naqt_at_.... Despite the crunch associated with producing ICT questions, Tom Waters sent me a detailed critique. After I pestered enough people[1] at ICT '98 and sent a follow-up e-mail to Frazee, R. -- new president of NAQT -- wrote back in appreciation of my enthusiasm and sent contract writer specifications. Following a year of heavy participation, I became a full member of NAQT at the 1999 post-ICT meeting. The fact that I was able to become part of the group caused my awe to fall considerably =); all the same, I'm glad to see other members devote so much time to making this thing work. Since joining up with NAQT, I have written many questions, partly because the need was there but mainly because it is something I happen to enjoy doing. Some of these questions are pretty good; some were decent questions that a good editor could improve; some will (thankfully) never see the light of day. Here I'd like to point out my belief that I am a significantly better writer now than two years ago, despite six previous years of experience submitting and editing college-level questions. That should not be mistaken for a pat on the back: From my current point of view, a lot of the questions I wrote pre-1998 were *terrible*. Rather, NAQT powers-that-be have provided extremely good feedback, based on a refined idea of what does(n't) make for an outstanding question. Several times I have seen R. express displeasure at what seems like a perfectly fine question to me, one with no obvious flaws, because it is (to borrow a term from him) "uninspired." (to be continued)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST