Re: NAQT and tiebreakers

• From: stephen_taylor_qb
• Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:05:21 -0800
• Message-ID: <000U6QU0H.000PC21V4.12170551-quizbowl_at_...>

Thanks, Samer. The ultimate goal is fairness in a
setting that keeps the game enjoyable for all. I'd agree
that PPTu would correct for some of the moderator
speed variability. But as some have noted here, if
moderator speed is such that it affects the packet balance,
then we're back in another rat's-nest of problems. And
it wouldn't address Bill's complaint that ALL
statistical tiebreakers are unfair. (Not sure I buy that
one--but he's certainly entitled to his
position.)

I should hasten to add that at the Midsouth SCT we
had excellent moderators. All quite solid and
consistent. But not all equally fast. I'd suspect (don't have
scoresheets with me) that some of the slower readers were
running 16-18, while the faster ones may have averaged
25. I usually ran 20-22, depending on the teams.
Didn't someone complain about another SCT where they
regularly heard only 12-14 per game?

On the subject
of NAQT rules, I'd have to say we would've followed
the NAQT procedure if we had known where to find it.
(I never saw it.) Eric's pledge that it will be
given a higher profile in the future is reassuring, and
I'm sure everyone would agree that keeping the NAQT
website updated would help everyone--though I'm sure it's
a lot of work. 

Thanks again to everyone for
your constructive comments!

Stephen