I would like to congratulate Kelly McKenzie on a job well done in editing the inaugural ACF Fall Tournament. I felt that the questions were entirely accessible, and it seems like most others share this sentiment. If your team did not attend this tournament, I would highly recommend that you purchase the questions in order to practice on some quality packets. Some other things I'd like to take a moment to comment on... Paul Tomlinson wrote: "I'd also like to apologize to Roger Bhan. Compared to the ACF Fall packets, SLO III was nearly devoid of organic chem questions." No apology is necessary. You are just as entitled to your beliefs in science distribution as I am. And I look forward to the 8/8 physics questions per round in the next tournament you edit. ;) Stan Jastrzebski wrote: "3. Lastly, this tournament further confirms my feeling that ACF is overdue in having a couple divisions, and not just one. This tournament was supposed to be accessible to younger players, and it was. However, it was MORE accessible to more experienced players, whose trouncings now get even worse, and perhaps harder to handle." This is quite possibly the most retarded thing I've ever heard. OF COURSE it was more accessible to experienced players. EVERY tournament is more accessible to experienced players, whether it's ACF Nationals or an NAQT intramural set. You're complaining about the fact that there are people out there that know more than you. Perhaps instead of making nonsensical complaints you should be spending your time writing questions or something. I guarantee you'll have less to complain about then. I firmly believe in making tournaments as accessible as possible (in accordance with their difficulty level). However, I also firmly believe in rewarding teams that put the effort into winning. Roger Bhan Chief Editor ACF Nationals 2002
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST