NAQT redux
Petrea Mitchell
Stuff I liked:
The much-debated power tossups barely changed the game at all. I
liked not having the moderators announce them; when we didn't get the 15
points, we didn't know, and when we did, it was a pleasant surprise.
The timeout rule. When it was first mentioned at the pre-tournament
meeting, I thought it sounded pretty useless... then I discovered it was
really handy when we needed to stop in the middle of a half and ask the
people in the hall to quiet down. Every school that we played found some
use for it. Now I can't imagine how we've survived without it. :-)
Question quality. While I do have some quibbles about the structure
and distribution of the questions, there were no trick questions, no puzz-
lingly easy questions, and an excellent degree of accuracy. We only had one
round where we simply didn't know any of the answers, and since that was
against the red-hot Harvard team, I don't know that we'd have had a chance
to buzz in anyway.
The tournament itself. Kudos to Harvard for pulling off a smooth and
notably on-time tournament. In particular, I want to thank you for changing
the second part of the tournament to bottom-bottom/top-top; I think that
made it a more enjoyable experience for all of us in the bottom halves of
the brackets.
I also want to apologize to anyone at Harvard I may have been un-
necessarily snippy at about resolving our protest on the Inanna/Ishtar
thing. It was the difference between us having a losing record and not hav-
ing a losing record, and the moderator had given me the impression at first
that it was just a matter of sending someone over to the library briefly...
David Frazee has since explained the NAQT procedure to me. I'm impressed at
the lengths they went to, even if the protest was eventually denied. :-(
Stuff I didn't like:
Distribution. The rest of my team complained about too much science,
but I can barely remember any. In other areas, I felt the questions concen-
trated on small parts of those subjects too much. Literature questions
seemed to be mostly 19th century novels, music was mostly opera plots and
characters (which IMHO isn't really about music in that case), trash was
mostly sports. Though I do like the idea of lumping sports in with regular
trash.
Bonus lengths. 18 minutes is a long time, but I don't think we ever
got through as many as 20 tossups in a match. Some boni had awfully long
introductions, and IMHO there were way too many 4 to 6-part boni for timed
play.
This form of question:
"Bill and Ted are lumberjacks in Nova Scotia. Freddy is a green penguin
that they raise as a pet and is later kidnapped by the ghost of Elvis, while
Shamrock the elf represents the universal human craving for coffee. This is
the plot of, FTP, what 1830 play by Joe Blow?"
I realize there are a limited number of ways one can write good lit
questions, but I got really, really tired of this one.
Overall feelings:
Considering this was one of the first ever tournaments in a new
form, good work! NYU is planning to be at Nationals.
--
/ GO NINERS!
Petrea Mitchell <|> <|> <pr...@mvp.com> <pem...@is.nyu.edu>
"Welcome to the net. There is no one in charge. Have a nice day."
---Bill Stewart-Cole
***** MST3K news ** http://www.mvp.com/~pravn/mst3k/upcoming.html *****
Timothy J Young
Petrea Mitchell (pem...@is.nyu.edu) wrote:
: Stuff I liked:
: The much-debated power tossups barely changed the game at all. I
: liked not having the moderators announce them; when we didn't get the 15
: points, we didn't know, and when we did, it was a pleasant surprise.
What do you mean by not announce? Did moderators tell you that you had
gotten 15 when you did? I would think that non-disclosure would make
scorekeeping aggravating.
: The timeout rule. When it was first mentioned at the pre-tournament
: meeting, I thought it sounded pretty useless... then I discovered it was
: really handy when we needed to stop in the middle of a half and ask the
: people in the hall to quiet down. Every school that we played found some
: use for it. Now I can't imagine how we've survived without it. :-)
Most timed tournaments I've been to (CBI excepted) have time-out
provisions (Penn Bowl, Terrier Tussle). I like the rule a good deal.
: Question quality. While I do have some quibbles about the structure
: and distribution of the questions, there were no trick questions, no puzz-
: lingly easy questions, and an excellent degree of accuracy. We only had one
: round where we simply didn't know any of the answers, and since that was
: against the red-hot Harvard team, I don't know that we'd have had a chance
: to buzz in anyway.
Funny how that works... :)
I didn't experience that feeling really... there seemed to be a couple of
packets that weren't necessarily great for me, and those tended to be GW
losses. The game we played against Carnegie Mellon seemed to have a
science-heavy packet involved, but maybe I just had a bad game. (Another
team to watch for those of us in Region 4 for Regionals...)
: The tournament itself. Kudos to Harvard for pulling off a smooth and
: notably on-time tournament. In particular, I want to thank you for changing
: the second part of the tournament to bottom-bottom/top-top; I think that
: made it a more enjoyable experience for all of us in the bottom halves of
: the brackets.
Maryland did the same thing... it has its ups and downs.
: Stuff I didn't like:
: Distribution. The rest of my team complained about too much science,
: but I can barely remember any. In other areas, I felt the questions concen-
: trated on small parts of those subjects too much. Literature questions
: seemed to be mostly 19th century novels, music was mostly opera plots and
: characters (which IMHO isn't really about music in that case), trash was
: mostly sports. Though I do like the idea of lumping sports in with regular
: trash.
I thought the science questions weren't distributed evenly enough between
packets... there wasn't a shortage overall but some packets that seemed to
lack science questions and others that had too many. Of course, it may
just be that I was able to answer science questions on the first night of
the tournament - at ACF-like tournaments, I don't get to answer many
science questions.
It did seem a like a high percentage of the music questions were opera.
Not that it makes any difference to me...
I too would have liked to see 20th century lit emphasized a little more
than 19th... but I guess that's just personal preference. NAQT, OTOH, did
a very good job incorporating non-Western literature into packets.
: Bonus lengths. 18 minutes is a long time, but I don't think we ever
: got through as many as 20 tossups in a match. Some boni had awfully long
: introductions, and IMHO there were way too many 4 to 6-part boni for timed
: play.
The bonus questions were too long, no doubt about it. That's the main
thing I'd work on if I were NAQT. Though in games I played at UMD, I don't
think we failed to get through 20 except maybe once.
: This form of question:
: "Bill and Ted are lumberjacks in Nova Scotia. Freddy is a green penguin
: that they raise as a pet and is later kidnapped by the ghost of Elvis, while
: Shamrock the elf represents the universal human craving for coffee. This is
: the plot of, FTP, what 1830 play by Joe Blow?"
: I realize there are a limited number of ways one can write good lit
: questions, but I got really, really tired of this one.
Actually, I like this kind of question. It's preferrable to
most of the alternatives : lists of works by an author, an author
biography question, or a character list. It requires real knowledge, not
list memorization.
And how exactly did the ghost of Elvis show up in an 1830 play, anyway?
:)
: Overall feelings:
: Considering this was one of the first ever tournaments in a new
: form, good work! NYU is planning to be at Nationals.
I wholeheartedly agree. My complaints are relatively minor, overall I have
to praise them for their efforts.
: --
: / GO NINERS!
: Petrea Mitchell <|> <|> <pr...@mvp.com> <pem...@is.nyu.edu>
: "Welcome to the net. There is no one in charge. Have a nice day."
: ---Bill Stewart-Cole
: ***** MST3K news ** http://www.mvp.com/~pravn/mst3k/upcoming.html *****
--
| Tim Young Geo. Wash. Univ. Law School, Dartmouth College ('96) |
| 1221 Mass. Ave. NW (Apt. 613) Washington, DC 20005 |
| "The insurgency began - and you missed it." - R.E.M. |
Richard Mason
Petrea Mitchell wrote:
>
> "Bill and Ted are lumberjacks in Nova Scotia. Freddy is a green
> penguin that they raise as a pet and is later kidnapped by the
> ghost of Elvis, while Shamrock the elf represents the universal
> human craving for coffee. This is the plot of, FTP, what 1830
> play by Joe Blow?"
>
> I realize there are a limited number of ways one can write
>
good lit questions, but I got really, really tired of this one.
Hmm. Personally, this is by far my favorite type of lit question.
I think it should be used more than other popular forms, such as:
"Born in 1806 in the town of Lillehammer, his father was a
barrelmaker. He spent time making ornamental clocks in Brussels
before accepting a teaching position at the Sorbonne. His
works deal with angst and the search for meaning. FTP, identify
this author of 'Shamrock the Elf'."
Actually, this latter kind of question is used to excess in all
categories, not just literature.
--
Richard Mason
ma...@robby.caltech.edu
D. E. Kidder
Richard Mason <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Petrea Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> I realize there are a limited number of ways one can write
>>
>good lit questions, but I got really, really tired of this one.
>Hmm. Personally, this is by far my favorite type of lit question.
>I think it should be used more than other popular forms, such as:
>"Born in 1806 in the town of Lillehammer, his father was a
>barrelmaker. He spent time making ornamental clocks in Brussels
>before accepting a teaching position at the Sorbonne. His
>works deal with angst and the search for meaning. FTP, identify
>this author of 'Shamrock the Elf'."
>Actually, this latter kind of question is used to excess in all
>categories, not just literature.
If you look at the NAQT questions for both campus and sectional
tournaments, I think one of the major differences between NAQT and
other questions is that NAQT rewards for more direct knowledge, and
less about the biography of major figures. Personally, I think this
is a lot fairer, especially in subjects like science, where this
approach actually requires some knowledge of the subject being asked.
DEK
D. E. Kidder (kid...@sgi.net)
"New! Improved for 1997! NOW WITH MORE EVIL!!"
--Seen on rec.toys.lego
Ben Weiss
On 25 Nov 1996 16:24:09 GMT,
Timothy J Young <tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu > wrote:
>Petrea Mitchell (pem...@is.nyu.edu) wrote:
>It did seem a like a high percentage of the music questions were opera.
>Not that it makes any difference to me...
>
>I too would have liked to see 20th century lit emphasized a little more
>than 19th... but I guess that's just personal preference. NAQT, OTOH, did
>a very good job incorporating non-Western literature into packets.
I agree with all these sentiments. Non-Western lit was reasonably
well represented (I recall Mahfouz, Soyinka, Isabel Allende more than
once...), but the American lit felt like mostly DWMs. More modern lit
would have helped; also more poetry and drama.
>
>: This form of question:
>
>: "Bill and Ted are lumberjacks in Nova Scotia. Freddy is a green penguin
>: that they raise as a pet and is later kidnapped by the ghost of Elvis, while
>: Shamrock the elf represents the universal human craving for coffee. This is
>: the plot of, FTP, what 1830 play by Joe Blow?"
>: I realize there are a limited number of ways one can write good lit
>: questions, but I got really, really tired of this one.
>
> Actually, I like this kind of question. It's preferrable to
>most of the alternatives : lists of works by an author, an author
>biography question, or a character list. It requires real knowledge, not
>list memorization.
I agree with Dwight Kidder that this is one of the best forms for a
question on a novel or a play. To use less of this type, they could
ask more about poetry and nonfiction. They also could throw in some
deeper trivia about works that people can be expected to know deep
trivia about (e.g. Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, _Huck Finn_, _Alice
in Wonderland_...).
Incidentally, now that we can talk about individual questions, I
appreciated one _Grapes of Wrath_ bonus that asked about the very last
scene of the book. That's a test of depth knowledge: Have you read
the *whole* thing? (Of course, as my teammate Dan Lee pointed out,
you could also get it by having seen the movie.)
Ben
Joseph K Wright
In article <329A04F4...@robby.caltech.edu>,
>> penguin that they raise as a pet and is later kidnapped by the
>> ghost of Elvis, while Shamrock the elf represents the universal
>> human craving for coffee. This is the plot of, FTP, what 1830
>> play by Joe Blow?"
>>
>> I realize there are a limited number of ways one can write
>>
>good lit questions, but I got really, really tired of this one.
>
>I think it should be used more than other popular forms, such as:
>
>"Born in 1806 in the town of Lillehammer, his father was a
>barrelmaker. He spent time making ornamental clocks in Brussels
>before accepting a teaching position at the Sorbonne. His
>works deal with angst and the search for meaning. FTP, identify
>this author of 'Shamrock the Elf'."
My feeling on literature questions is that there should be a balance
between questions on works, authors, and genres. I assume NAQT tried
to regain this balance by focusing more on works than on authors, and
especially on genres.
Unfortunately, I think they went a little bit overboard on the type
of question Petrea demonstrated above. It's not that questions about
works as such were overdone, perhaps, but that there was very little
variance in form. Plot summary-year-author. There are other ways to
write questions about works that reward knowledge.
And I still haven't figured out why the only questions one usually hears
about contemporary lit are about contemporary trash lit. This was not
much improved at NAQT. LIVE white males (and other living people) write
good books too! Where are the questions about the Roddy Doyles, A.S.
Byatts, Richard Fords, and E. Annie Proulxes of the world? They certainly
weren't at NAQT.
(I do have to say, though, that this is a mere blemish on what, overall,
was a terrific set of questions, IMHO.)
>
>Actually, this latter kind of question is used to excess in all
>categories, not just literature.
>
But trivia is the nature of our game, like it or not. Asking questions
about trivia about famous people is a fundamental part of it, and should
be.
>--
>Richard Mason
>ma...@robby.caltech.edu
--
Joe Wright, Communications Assistant, Office of Admissions and Financial Aid
wri...@pitt.edu Phone: (412)-624-7187
President and founder, Partnership for a Partnership for a Drug-Free
America Free America
John Sheahan
In article <57f8m5$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Joseph K Wright <wri...@pitt.edu> wrote:
[SNIP]
>The one problem that came up all the time was that people would constantly
>bug moderators, on the clock, whether or not a question was a power
>tossup. Or moderators would sit and dither, or would say "ooh, you just
>missed a power tossup on that one," or something like that. I think this
>was because of the novelty of the PTU, and will hopefully go away once
>it is well integrated into the game, but sitting there and discussing such
>things is a Very, Very Bad Thing in timed play.
>
Agreed. Commentary, whether by the teams or by the moderator, has no
place in a timed tournament.
But Joe hit on another serious point. One of the reasons why teams did
ask about the power points is that a few of the moderators seemed to be
missing them, or else needed to be reminded of the rule. Which leads me
to wonder how many power points went unawarded simply because the
moderator didn't notice and the team forgot to ask. This didn't come into
play in any of our close games, but this is the sort of thing that could
affect the outcome of a game, if only because the constant asking means
that there will be that much more wasted time before the clock expires.
I suspect that part of the problem is that many people (myself included),
tend not to see text notes such as footnotes or power marks while reading.
One improvement that NAQT might make is to have the power/non-power
division marked in a way that it is easier to notice when reading quickly;
one method that springs to mind is to do something like put the pre-power
words in bold, and the rest in normal type.
[Tim Young wrote:]
>>: Bonus lengths. 18 minutes is a long time, but I don't think we ever
>>: got through as many as 20 tossups in a match. Some boni had awfully long
>>: introductions, and IMHO there were way too many 4 to 6-part boni for timed
>>: play.
>>
Do you remember any specific examples? At least in the games that I
played, I don't recall even one 5- or 6-parter.
The real problem with timing, however, is prompting. A lot of moderators
were giving teams far too much time to scratch their heads for answers oin
bonuses, and waiting too long at the end of an unanswered tossup to call
time. Some seemed to be counting off seconds, which works great for ACF
play, but not for a timed round. IMHO, all NAQT moderators should follow
the Pat Matthews technique: natural pause only, and if you don't know it
immediately, you don't know it.
One last complaint: the edititing, while far above the average for an
invitational, was not quite perfect. I bring up just one example-- a
bonus that seemed to describe Sukarno gave the answer as Suharmo, with a
moderator's note not to accept Suharto. One of three things happened
here: (1) There really was a Suharmo who is different from Sukarno but who
was leader of Indonesia at the exact same time as Sukarno. In this case,
the moderator's note should have also told not to take Sukarno, and
avoided what would otherwise have been a protest. (2) Suharmo is an
alternate spelling/name for Sukarno. In this case, Sukarno should have
been listed as an alternate answer. (3) Suharmo was a typo.
Otherwise, though, a great tournament. Congratulations to Frazee & Co.,
as well as the hosts at Michigan.
-John
>
>--
>Joe Wright, Communications Assistant, Office of Admissions and Financial Aid
>wri...@pitt.edu Phone: (412)-624-7187
>President and founder, Partnership for a Partnership for a Drug-Free
>America Free America
--
Mark Staloff
Timothy J Young (tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu) wrote:
: : The much-debated power tossups barely changed the game at all. I
: : liked not having the moderators announce them; when we didn't get the 15
: : points, we didn't know, and when we did, it was a pleasant surprise.
: What do you mean by not announce? Did moderators tell you that you had
: gotten 15 when you did? I would think that non-disclosure would make
: scorekeeping aggravating.
Down boy. :)
I moderated some of Petrea's rounds, and if someone got the power toss-up, I
would say "Correct-15 points" or "15 points", etc., followed by oohs and
ahhhs from the crowd. Her point, I think, was that the absence of a power
TU/failure to get in on time wasn't noted.
Mark
Jennie Rosenbaum Matthews
Pat, not Jennie.
John Sheahan (jshe...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
[cut before and after]
&The real problem with timing, however, is prompting. A lot of moderators
&were giving teams far too much time to scratch their heads for answers oin
&bonuses, and waiting too long at the end of an unanswered tossup to call
&time. Some seemed to be counting off seconds, which works great for ACF
&play, but not for a timed round. IMHO, all NAQT moderators should follow
&the Pat Matthews technique: natural pause only, and if you don't know it
&immediately, you don't know it.
Actually, my "technique" is simply to actually use my digital watch to
count off exactly five seconds, prompt, and demand an answer directly
following the prompt. No magic to it at all :)
Pat
--
Patrick G. Matthews
"Listening to Offspring while driving automatically increases your speed
by 10 miles per hour without even touching the accelerator."
- Rick Grimes, 5/95
Richard Mason
Joseph K Wright wrote:
>
> In article <329A04F4...@robby.caltech.edu>,
> Richard Mason <ma...@robby.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >
> >barrelmaker. He spent time making ornamental clocks in Brussels
> >before accepting a teaching position at the Sorbonne. His
> >works deal with angst and the search for meaning. FTP, identify
> >this author of 'Shamrock the Elf'."
> >
> >categories, not just literature.
>
> But trivia is the nature of our game, like it or not. Asking
> questions about trivia about famous people is a fundamental part
> of it, and should be.
Mmm. But the nature of our game should be INTERESTING trivia.
I think sometimes we lose sight of that -- in the rush to produce
a packetful of questions, perhaps.
Thumbnail-bio questions are great if they have some memorable
anecdote or interesting fact. They are usually boring (and
often too vague) if they read like a resume. Born here;
educated there; spent time there; wrote "Moby Dick".
That's one reason I prefer questions about book plots; book plots
are interesting to hear about (usually, or people wouldn't read
the damn things).
Of course, I am only stating a preference, not proposing the
extirpation of questions about author biographies.
--
Richard Mason
ma...@robby.caltech.edu
John Sheahan
In article <57adn2$j...@news.nyu.edu>,
Petrea Mitchell <pem...@is.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Stuff I liked:
>
> The much-debated power tossups barely changed the game at all. I
>liked not having the moderators announce them; when we didn't get the 15
>points, we didn't know, and when we did, it was a pleasant surprise.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Did the moderators simply not
announce them at all, leaving you to find out what really happened at the
half or at the end of the game? I would find such a procedure maddening,
to say the least. I think it is fair to say that most teams need and
deserve to know how far ahead or behind they are at any given point.
Also, as has been mentioned before, some moderators needed to be
constantly reminded to award power points. I can't imagine anything
slowing up the game more than (a) the official scorekeeper asking about
power points after every tossup, or (b) the teams having to ask constantly
about the actual score near the end of a close game.
> The timeout rule. When it was first
mentioned at the pre-tournament
>meeting, I thought it sounded pretty useless... then I discovered it was
>really handy when we needed to stop in the middle of a half and ask the
>people in the hall to quiet down. Every school that we played found some
>use for it. Now I can't imagine how we've survived without it. :-)
IMHO, you should _never_ have to use a timeout to get people to quiet
down. This is the moderator's responsibility, and she should keep order
in the room without having to be asked to do so.
The only use I've ever seen for a timeout is to break your opponent's
momentum if they go on a roll. And although my teams have never done
this, I've never seen it work. But if other teams like it, I can't
complain. It is a useless rule, but also a harmless one.
>
Question quality. While I do have some quibbles about the structure
>and distribution of the questions, there were no trick questions, no puzz-
>lingly easy questions, and an excellent degree of accuracy. We only had one
>round where we simply didn't know any of the answers, and since that was
>against the red-hot Harvard team, I don't know that we'd have had a chance
>to buzz in anyway.
[SNIP]
>
>Stuff I didn't like:
>
> Distribution. The rest of my team complained about too much science,
>but I can barely remember any. In other areas, I felt the questions concen-
I thought the science was badly balanced. On the whole, it seemed that
the biochemistry questions were very ACF-oriented (that is, oriented
towards people who have taken classes in it), while every other area
seemed to be CBI-style questions for the nonspecialist. As a
non-specialist myself, I won't complain too hard about this one. :)
>trated on small parts of those subjects too much. Literature questions
>seemed to be mostly 19th century novels, music was mostly opera plots and
>characters (which IMHO isn't really about music in that case), trash was
>mostly sports. Though I do like the idea of lumping sports in with regular
>trash.
These areas, I thought, were done well. I didn't notice any difference in
the sports/pop culture balance, compared to other invitationals at least.
And I did not notice any tilt towards 19th-c. novels or opera.
> Bonus lengths. 18 minutes is a long time, but I don't think we ever
>got through as many as 20 tossups in a match. Some boni had awfully long
>introductions, and IMHO there were way too many 4 to 6-part boni for timed
>play.
> This form of question:
>
>"Bill and Ted are lumberjacks in Nova Scotia. Freddy is a green penguin
>that they raise as a pet and is later kidnapped by the ghost of Elvis, while
>Shamrock the elf represents the universal human craving for coffee. This is
>the plot of, FTP, what 1830 play by Joe Blow?"
>
> I realize there are a limited number of ways one can write good lit
>questions, but I got really, really tired of this one.
>
Again, I thought there was a good mix in the lit questions between
questions about writers, plots, and characters. And this type of question
is infinitely preferable to the lit tossup of the form, "Born on April 14,
1823, in X, his first work was Y. For ten points, name this author of the
minor works A, B, and C, best known for Z."
>Overall feelings:
>
> Considering this was one of the first ever tournaments in a new
>form, good work! NYU is planning to be at Nationals.
>
-John
--
Mark Staloff
John Sheahan (jshe...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: IMHO, you should _never_ have to use a timeout to get people to quiet
: down. This is the moderator's responsibility, and she should keep order
: in the room without having to be asked to do so.
Hrm. Once again, speaking as Petrea's moderator for these specific
rounds where the crowds in the hallway were being loud, I would stop the
clock and shut them up (or ask someone to do it) without deducting a
time-out from either side. Like the Power TU scoring, this reads like it
was a problem, but in practice the events she spoke about were benign.
Mark
Frederic Bush
: Actually, teams I have played on have made good use of timeouts in
: end-game situations. In the 1994 Terrier Tussle, my team came from
: behind in the final minute to win two times, and each time we called
: timeouts in tense situations to get back our composure. Personally, I
: have always seen this as the best use for a TO; I've never bought the
: "break your opponents' momentum" argument, but maybe that's just me :)
: Another good use of a TO: in NAQT play, you're allowed to put in
: substitutes during a timeout.
It's also a good opportunity for a final score check. We had one match at
NAQT where the halftime score was wrong; we thought we were ahead going
into the last two tossups, where actually the score was tied. If we had
taken a timeout to check, and found the error, it would have substantially
changed our strategy.
Basically, the only time I use timeouts is near the endgame, to try to get
ready for a final rush. And to check score.
Petrea Mitchell
Timothy J Young (tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu) wrote:
> What do you mean by not announce? Did moderators tell you that you had
> gotten 15 when you did? I would think that non-disclosure would make
> scorekeeping aggravating.
I mean we weren't told before a question, "This is a power tossup."
It was nice to not know and then hear the moderator say, "15 points."
Timothy J Young
I guess I'll start by offering my own opinion on the power tossup concept.
I was initially very skeptical, and my skepticism was tempered a little
bit by actually playing on the questions. However, I still don't see what
this gimmick adds to the game. Quickness is already rewarded in regular
play, so it seems superfluous to provide an extra 5 points. Plus, it
doesn't seem to affect risk-averse behavior at all (though I wonder if
that was the intent of the rule).
I'm going to need a little more persuasion on this front. Though I don't
think they're the disaster I thought they might constitute.
John Sheahan (jshe...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: In article <57f8m5$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
: Joseph K Wright <wri...@pitt.edu> wrote:
: >The one problem that came up all the time was that people would constantly
: >bug moderators, on the clock, whether or not a question was a power
: >tossup. Or moderators would sit and dither, or would say "ooh, you just
: >missed a power tossup on that one," or something like that. I think this
: >was because of the novelty of the PTU, and will hopefully go away once
: >it is well integrated into the game, but sitting there and discussing such
: >things is a Very, Very Bad Thing in timed play.
: Agreed. Commentary, whether by the teams or by the moderator, has no
: place in a timed tournament.
One would hope that was due to the novelty aspect of the PTU. Commentary
on the clock is foul. Fortunately, I saw none of that at
Maryland. (This was another potential problem I saw in the PTU, I'm not
sure if I managed to articulate that or not on this group.)
: [Tim Young wrote:]
: >>: Bonus lengths. 18 minutes is a long time, but I don't think we ever
: >>: got through as many as 20 tossups in a match. Some boni had awfully long
: >>: introductions, and IMHO there were way too many 4 to 6-part boni for timed
: >>: play.
: >>
: Do you remember any specific examples? At least in the games that I
: played, I don't recall even one 5- or 6-parter.
BTW, I didn't write that. Petrea did. I seem to remember a 5-6 parter or
two, but certainly not many of them.
: The real problem with timing, however, is prompting. A lot of moderators
: were giving teams far too much time to scratch their heads for answers oin
: bonuses, and waiting too long at the end of an unanswered tossup to call
: time. Some seemed to be counting off seconds, which works great for ACF
: play, but not for a timed round. IMHO, all NAQT moderators should follow
: the Pat Matthews technique: natural pause only, and if you don't know it
: immediately, you don't know it.
That kind of stuff happens of every tournament, though. Develop a rule,
and stick to it. That's the best advice I have for any would-be TD.
["Sukarno" editing deleted]
: Otherwise, though, a great tournament. Congratulations to Frazee & Co.,
: as well as the hosts at Michigan.
Same to Arthur, Jesse, and all the Daves at Maryland.
: >Joe Wright, Communications Assistant, Office of Admissions and Financial Aid
: >wri...@pitt.edu Phone: (412)-624-7187
: >President and founder, Partnership for a Partnership for a Drug-Free
: >America Free America
--
Timothy J Young
Mark Staloff (sta...@fas2.fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
: Timothy J Young (tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu) wrote:
: : : The much-debated power tossups barely changed the game at all. I
: : : liked not having the moderators announce them; when we didn't get the 15
: : : points, we didn't know, and when we did, it was a pleasant surprise.
: : What do you mean by not announce? Did moderators tell you that you had
: : gotten 15 when you did? I would think that non-disclosure would make
: : scorekeeping aggravating.
: Down boy. :)
Better "woof" than "meow." :)
: I moderated some of Petrea's rounds, and if someone got the power toss-up, I
: would say "Correct-15 points" or "15 points", etc., followed by oohs and
: ahhhs from the crowd. Her point, I think, was that the absence of a power
: TU/failure to get in on time wasn't noted.
Aaaaah, I see. Maryland functioned in the same manner.
: Mark
Jennie Rosenbaum Matthews
Pat, not jennie.
John Sheahan (jshe...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
[cut before and after]
&The only use I've ever seen for a timeout is to break your opponent's
&momentum if they go on a roll. And although my teams have never done
&this, I've never seen it work. But if other teams like it, I can't
&complain. It is a useless rule, but also a harmless one.
Actually, teams I have played on have made good use of timeouts in
end-game situations. In the 1994 Terrier Tussle, my team came from
behind in the final minute to win two times, and each time we called
timeouts in tense situations to get back our composure. Personally, I
have always seen this as the best use for a TO; I've never bought the
"break your opponents' momentum" argument, but maybe that's just me :)
Another good use of a TO: in NAQT play, you're allowed to put in
substitutes during a timeout.
Pat
Jonathan Lazar
When will the process for deciding who gets to come to NAQT nationals be
announced???
Jon
Carrie Pruett
We used timeouts frequently at Penn Bowl, for substitutions,
score checks, or just to make sure everybody was on the same
page strategy-wise. I think it's a fine rule and I would have
liked to have it on several occasions while playing CBI.
Carrie
--
Many a peer of England brews/ livelier liquor than the muse/,
and malt does more than Milton can/to justify God's ways to man.
-A.E. Housman
Ray Nitzschke
If you have to ask, Jon, I doubt that anyone is going to tell you.
Jennie Rosenbaum Matthews
Pat, not Jennie.
Jonathan Lazar (jla...@gl.umbc.edu) wrote:
&When will the process for deciding who gets to come to NAQT nationals be
&announced???
The list of teams that have been given automatic berths in the NCT field
is now available on NAQT's web site (http://www.naqt.com), as well as in
the NCT announcement posted here and to the quizbowl mailing list.
gr3n...@aol.com
meow
meow
meow
meow