Note to self: stop picking verbal sparring matches with the lawyers. You're *not winning them*. Let's see if I can pull this thing vaguely back on track. But first thing's first. "You say this, and then bring up Edmund and GWACC repeatedly as if you don't really mean it. Please make up your mind." You know, you're right here. I associate you (still) with GW. It's hard to separate the ideas of one from the other. This is, of course, equally funny when you consider my *first* year in college was your *last*. So I will TRY to focus on the ideas put forward by you in your response, rather than those done by Edmund. I will address him later if I think it will prevent more headaches than cause them -- and with the way I word things, chances are it won't. (That was meant to be self-deprecating.) "Especially considering my biases come from experience. Where do yours come from?" I never stated a bias for or against CBI. I was merely reacting to your statements about CBI being bush-league. If you really wanted to see bush-league, go to a tournament run by a beginning program -- like, say, ours -- and witness the following: 1. A schedule made irrelevant the morning of the tournament. 2. Exactly enough rounds to cover, meaning good and bad questions alike had to be used. 3. Quality which would likely drive you up the wall with the low difficulty level. 4. Seven teams, three rooms, and one guy doing all the stats. Of course, the argument can be made that these were "rookie mistakes" and that CBI should do better with organization. But which of the problems often cited are the fault of CBI, and which are the fault of the host? "And while elitism is undesirable and sadly too prevelant in many areas of academic competition, if the competition to see who wins a national title isn't elitist, it's worthless." There's a serious difference between a tournament being elitist and its attendees being elitist. Say what you will about the major formats -- and much has been said -- but the thing which separates NAQT from ACF (for many of my teammates -- as said before, I'll play damn near anything) is that ACF seems to be disinterested in the enjoyment of all teams, choosing instead to focus merely on the top few. The result? NAQT has 36 contenders for best team in the nation, while ACF has 16. Such is their prerogative. Having not attended a CBI National (sigh), I have no idea how they handle things, so I will not comment further. Yet I do know how things were apparently handled by the players themselves. "Further, you invoked indirectly CBI NCT wins from years gone by, some of which arguably had a degree of legitimacy that this year's edition will pretty clearly lack." Why? On the contrary, the field at CBI NCT can be argued to be the _most_ legitimate. All but one of the teams present won their regional, and that other team was the two-time defending champions, edged out in a best-of-three in two very close games. I also know that, when NAQT announced its waiting list, you were upset -- and the jury's still out on whether this was rightly so -- that George Washington was passed over for Princeton B. Does that not deligitimize NAQT's championship, for not have the best teams there? Perhaps, if you see fit, rather than referring to CBI as a National, you could consider it a Tournament of Champions. At the very least, this is what it is. I hope this provides everyone with a little thought. It certainly is a more moderate stance. And one I wished I'd thought of before I reacted. "You seem to have a talent for doing that." I find myself in agreement with this. Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST