Disclaimer: These opinions are my own and are independent of my position as a member of NAQT, LLC. Brian wrote: > Ideally, I think, ACF could be folded into NAQT. I don't think this will ever happen...There's not that much difference between hard NAQT and modified ACF. There may be some overlap in the subject matter and difficulty of questions at these levels, but the major differences between the two formats almost certainly ensure that they'll never draw exactly the same clientele. For those readers of this group who aren't familiar with NAQT and ACF: * Official NAQT tournaments are always timed. ACF tournaments are never timed. Because of this, there are differences in playing strategy (e.g., the blitz works great in all-the-time-in-the-world ACF, as does the power tossup in keep-it-moving NAQT.) * The question distributions are quite different. ACF focuses on traditional academics with only a minimal current-events or popular-culture content. NAQT has a strong academic core, but permits considerably more current events and popular culture. The differences of opinion among players about these distributions are well-known, varied, and all valid. * ACF tournaments use submitted packets. NAQT questions are written by members and contract writers. Both are centrally edited, but the process is somewhat different between the two organizations. * ACF is a volunteer organization. NAQT is not. I don't think that the attitudes of ACF and NAQT organizers toward the game are especially different, but there will always be some differences in the ways the organizations are run. IMO the differences among formats (not limited to ACF and NAQT!) help encourage the diversity needed to expand the QB circuit. Many schools never had viable traveling clubs until a core of students got hooked after playing CBI. Brian also wrote: > That stated, ACF does seem to have one clear purpose. Every year, one or two students get "turned on" by the format's academic focus and find it to be a substantive part of their educational development. I can vouch for this personally. I was a competent, though not stellar, ACF player in the mid-90s. My personal and academic foci simply aren't in the Western-civ core that I think will always remain the heart of ACF. However, I've learned about things that had never before piqued my interest after my exposure to them in *both* ACF and packet-submission invitationals. I *do* think the bar has been set considerably higher in recent years, for better or for worse, but lowering it across the board may well be a disappointment to those who enjoy ACF as it is now. There's always the option of producing "multi-level ACF", and because ACF is as much a philosophy as it is an organization, perhaps such a thing will evolve if there's a demand for it. Anyway, the fact that I'm now listening to classical music in my lab, and read the occasional history book for pleasure, is a direct result of my interaction with both ACF and invitationals. I still go home and write power-pop songs on my keyboard before watching "Crocodile Hunter", so I consider the process to be one of expansion rather than of fundamental upheaval. :-) Julie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST