Chris's comment: "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." I also read at COTKU as I ususally do at the UTC tournaments and agree with Chris's assessment of the questions. Difficulty level was just about right for non-ACF, in my opinion. The statement that it was "worse than CBI" is silly. 90% of the questions were answerable by at least one out of the 8 people in most rooms. Bonuses had an easy 10 points and a hard 30, with some exceptions. However, there were too many bio questions and certainly too much verbage on many bonuses. I do find it interesting as a moderator, however, that comments during matches such as "Can you believe these questions?" usually come from the team that is behind in the match or is doing worse than expected at the tournament. Human nature, I suppose. Jason Russell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST