Charlie wrote: "In other words, the questions were not as hard as many would like, and that was intentional. We also included "trashademic" clues at the end of tossups where possible. Why? Because we had some brand spankin' new schools in attendance, and we'd like them to continue in the game. Sometimes there's a big difference for a novice team between losing 270-20 and losing 270-80." Speaking as one of the COTKU moderators, I didn't have a problem with the level of difficulty. Given the fact that 2/3 of the field were "Division II" and that it was early in the season, I thought the difficulty level and the "trashademic" clues were very much appropriate. The fact of the matter is that the good teams got most of those questions long before the trashy giveaway. I did, however, take issue with the "bad old ACF" style of writing. Some of the tossups and many of the bonuses were interminably long, villed with vagueries like "He was the most renowned blah blah and heavily influenced blah blah..." Even worse, sometimes they were unnecessarily so. I remember one three part bonus where you had to name poets. One part of it was three or four lines long and read like this "blah blah blah blah (three more lines of blahs)...Elegy in a Country Churchyard." I don't care what level you're on...all the ink before the name of that work was wasted, and the other three parts were equally unnecessarily verbose.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST