Having just returned from my first UT-C tournament, I'm happy to report that it was just as enjoyable as everyone has made Charlie tournaments out to be. The competition was good, and the pre- and post-tournament rituals were celebrations of the good that can happen when good people get together. I recommend such a sojourn to anybody who's never taken a trip to Chattanooga. Congratulations and thanks to Charlie and all the people behind this weekend's tournaments for a job well done. Now if only there were a way to get from Albuquerque to Chattanooga that didn't involve Phoenix and Nashville... Special thanks also go out to Doug, Eileen, Stephen, and Mark for making the free agent experience such a good one. E-mail me if you want any of the team photos that were taken. The following are examples of some scenarios that came up this weekend that could have made for some very ugly situations had strong leadership (and a little luck) not been in the right place at the right time. Fyi, each of these decisions had the result of the game in the balance. #1: On Saturday, a tossup was answered incredibly early, and the given answer of "A" was believed (by the person buzzing and several others) to be the only answer that fit the clues already given. However, "B" was listed as the answer on the page, and, in fact, the subsequent clues were inarguably compatible with B as the answer. - 5 was given to the person who initially buzzed, and B was given by the other team, and was ruled correct. Following the question, a protest was filed and resolved after the round. The ruling was to throw the tossup out, rather than dealing with the (in)validity of the initial answer of A. Given the circumstances, it may have been difficult to verify OR dismiss A or B as fitting those first clues anyways. Me: This is non-ideal. Either A or B is correct, and the question should be decided by the game-play, instead of pretending it didn't happen and moving on to another tossup. I strongly advocate having some sort of post-game consultation (within reason) of relevant references to determine who gets the points, and proceed from there. Logistically, it's very easy to use an extra tossup. From the standpoint of a player, the game should be decided by facts, not ease of operations. How we lucked out this weekend: The team who gave the initial correct answer (and got a -5) also got the extra tossup, thereby getting the win that (in my opinion) they deserved. Plea: I hope that a reliable internet connection or reference materials (or at least someone near a phone who has them) are within a TD's reach at any and every future tournament. The result of a hotly-contested game is worth a minor delay, IMO. #2: In another match, a last name was given as an answer, which received a prompt from the moderator. The first initial was correctly given, but this also received a prompt. The rest of the first name was not given, the team received a -5, and play continued. It was the belief of the person buzzing that the last- name of the aforementioned answer _should have been_ enough information to get the points and receive a bonus question. Indeed, nobody in the room could come up with another person in history who had _both_ the same first initial and last name. As an aside, the only person anybody could think of who even shared the same last name is a figure in recent pop culture. A protest was not (in the recollection of myself and others in the room) filed. However, after the round it was put forth that, had a protest been filed, it would have been upheld, with the team receiving the points. Me: For a decision to be made about how much information is needed _after the fact_ is a very bad move, in my opinion. Proper writing and editing should have taken care of this before it ever happened. In my opinion, making a judgment call should be reserved for cases where there is no clear-cut solution. Post-game changes to correct answers, no matter how (im)precise they are, should not ever be allowed. It is the job of the editor to make sure that the precision of on-paper answers is appropriate, so as to prevent any utterances of "THAT'S all they wanted?" or "What do you mean 'more'?". Players shouldn't be allowed to petition for MORE information to be given by the other team or for LESS to be given by their own; that choice has already been put forth in print. How we lucked out: The team was not given the points, and the result of the game was not changed. In my opinion, only the last name should have been required. Since more was listed on the sheet, however, more was needed in this particular instance. Plea: Take special care when writing and editing a tossup answer, which is still the most important parts of any tossu. I know, "duh". I honestly do hope any fears I have of these things happening again get alleviated before I trek 1000+ miles for a tournament. Next time, we may not all be so lucky. Let me emphasize, though, that all is peachy from this weekend. In addition to all the fun, perhaps we can improve the quality of future tournaments from lessons learned at this one. ZD
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST