Just adding my $0.02 to the discussion. I was largely satisfied with the packets being used. The questions were pretty much ideal with respect to numbers of clues, tossup lengths, brevity of bonus lead-ins, and those other factors which can make timed packets difficult to moderate. Admittedly, there were some questions that had me scratching my head, but those were thankfully few and far between. On the other hand, there were two points of concern which I think need to be registered. <rant> [1] There were a distressingly large number of typos, incorrectly spelled words, and grammatical errors. I understand that there are a large number of packets being written in a relatively short amount of time, but the errors were largely of the sort that could easily be caught using a word processor's "flagging" features. [2] Not all of the packets were of "standard" length. At least three rounds were missing a 28th tossup; several rounds also lacked a 26th bonus. Unfortunately, these exceptions also occurred when the matches were close, and the reasonably expected 28th tossup was nowhere to be found, necessitating the finding of an additional tossup which was "blind" to both teams. NAQT rules clearly state that at Sectionals and Nationals, the game runs for 18 minutes or until 28 tossups are heard. Since the IFT's are essentially the same as the SCT's and ICT's, there is no reason why every IFT packet should not also be 28/26. </rant> Now that I've made my peace, I'd like to congratulate to Princeton A on its well-deserved win at the IFT, and for all the Div I teams who somehow managed to survive repeated exposure to my moderating. :-) --AEI
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST