The Quizbowl Resource Center

I think the issue of set distribution deserves more serious attention than it seems to have right now. I think Marshall doesn't articulate his position as well as he could, and he generally has some misguided ideas about reality, so it's tempting to dismiss the policy of non-open distribution by pointing to the unreasonableness of his arguments. Let's step back from Peaceful Resolution for a second, though.

There are several reasons that the editors of a tournament might not want to make their product immediately available to the public. Perhaps a team wants to maintain competitive advantage by having questions that only it has access to; as far as I know, some teams practiced this policy and were extremely successful, before question databases became more useful. Perhaps they wrote a shitty set and don't want to have their questions scrutinized. Perhaps they don't like some members of the community and want to just share the set with friends. Or perhaps they think the policy would serve as an incentive for more teams to attend their tournament. Whatever the reason might be, there is just one reason that you should respect their decision: the question set is their product, the outcome of countless hours of their work, and they therefore have the right to do whatever they please with it. I think the assumption that we as members of the quizbowl have an automatic right to any question set produced is a dangerous one, if only because such an assumption might lead us to not appreciate editors and writers of tournaments as much as we should. I disagree with most things that Marshall does, but I find it rather unfortunate that someone (I am referring to hosts of mirror sites and writers, who were aware of the policy) decided to ignore an explicit request to respect the editors' property rights.

I suppose that there are reasons the community has chosen to adopt a policy of public question distribution. However, I do want to remind you guys that it was not that long ago that I paid money (out of my pocket) for question sets - and I'm not that old. Whatever the status of this policy right now, it certainly wasn't the norm when I started playing quizbowl. I obviously enjoy having access to lots of good question sets, but I also feel that this policy is partly responsible for the tremendous speed of canon expansion (clues become obsolete much, much faster) - a phenomenon that I do not necessarily welcome.

Perhaps they wrote a shitty set and don't want to have their questions scrutinized. Perhaps they don't like some members of the community and want to just share the set with friends.

I'm sorry, but these are not valid reasons. If you wrote a bad tournament, you deserve every bit of criticism you can get and your attempt to censor that criticism will do nothing but tarnish your reputation.

Blanford's Fringe-fingered Lizard wrote:

Perhaps they wrote a shitty set and don't want to have their questions scrutinized. Perhaps they don't like some members of the community and want to just share the set with friends.

I'm sorry, but these are not valid reasons. If you wrote a bad tournament, you deserve every bit of criticism you can get and your attempt to censor that criticism will do nothing but tarnish your reputation.

If I wasn't sufficiently clear, I agree that they are crappy reasons. I wanted to emphasize that regardless of their motivation, you still should respect their decision.

The one unquestionably good thing that I think "making packet sets available" are is as a way to avoid the "rich get richer" style of quizbowl in which flourishing programs who either have access to the in crowd or infinity resources get more questions to practice on and study, while everyone else is thrashing around, wasting money on IS-sets and reading 1992 packets. So in that sense, I think it is a good, moral thing for tournament editors to make their sets publicly available.

That said, I don't really think it's the end of the world if questions are not made immediately publicly available. Nobody should have an expectation of the immediate ability to critique and access questions to a tournament they did not attend. I do think it's kind of nice to respect people's wishes, although I also felt it was a little stupid not to get the set when we attended and paid money to play the tournament.

I think that disseminating quiz bowl questions is generally a good idea. As Mike mentioned, it allows teams of all sizes and abilities to have access to quality material. Making questions publicly-available also helps with question critiquing for those who do not recollect of a tournament as well as they might (though I do think it's a bit extreme for people who did not attend a tournament to expect access to questions mere hours after the tournament's completion for the express purpose of negatively-framed criticism).

Ultimately, what I think is important is a clear statement of expectations. It is widely-accepted that questions are going to become available sometime, usually meaning after the last-completed mirror. If people write a tournament, it is their work, and they should do as they please, but clearly explaining when, how and if a tournament will become available is a lot easier than not being clear about it. We can debate the merits of tournament dissemination as much as we want (and I'm sure that if someone said "I'm not making my tournament available", there would be a public (and in my opinion, well-deserved) outcry), but I ultimately do believe it's the prerogative of the editors and writers of questions to do with them what they want.

There are more good practice sets out there than any team could possibly practice on for multiple years. Saying that somehow evil Chicago people are going to hoard sets is fucking asinine. How the fuck has Chicago EVER used the budget to hoard packets?

marnold wrote:There are more good practice sets out there than any team could possibly practice on for multiple years. Saying that somehow evil Chicago people are going to hoard sets is fucking asinine. How the fuck has Chicago EVER used the budget to hoard packets?

That's probably true, but it's true mainly because of the open packet attitude that has pervaded quizbowl in the past few years. In ye olde days, teams that had large packet archives had advantages. Obviously today, Chicago can hoard its packets all it wants without affecting teams that have lots of practice material remaining in the open packet market. But it's also worth noting that Chicago is free riding on everyone else opening up their packets to address packet inequity.

It's also worth noting that many players have heard literally every good packet set out there. I guess you could argue that these people are the ones who would play the tournament if they knew that was the only way to ever hear the questions. But I would argue that those people already, for the most part, do try to attend every tournament worth attending. (For my part, I was set to come to play with Laferbrook until it became impossible because of my schedule.) Barring them from getting the set is basically punishing random tournament unavailability.

theMoMA wrote:

marnold wrote:There are more good practice sets out there than any team could possibly practice on for multiple years. Saying that somehow evil Chicago people are going to hoard sets is fucking asinine. How the fuck has Chicago EVER used the budget to hoard packets?

That's probably true, but it's true mainly because of the open packet attitude that has pervaded quizbowl in the past few years. In ye olde days, teams that had large packet archives had advantages. Obviously today, Chicago can hoard its packets all it wants without affecting teams that have lots of practice material remaining in the open packet market. But it's also worth noting that Chicago is free riding on everyone else opening up their packets to address packet inequity.

It's also worth noting that many players have heard literally every good packet set out there. I guess you could argue that these people are the ones who would play the tournament if they knew that was the only way to ever hear the questions. But I would argue that those people already, for the most part, do try to attend every tournament worth attending. (For my part, I was set to come to play with Laferbrook until it became impossible because of my schedule.)

(1) Who gives a shit about the old days? The proliferation of practice materials has little to do with changes in attitudes and a lot to do with the rise of internet archives. Chicago isn't "free-riding" because even if no more good tournaments were produced for the next 5 years there would be more than enough practice material in those archives for any team to get good. I guess packet-memorizing fake-knowledge obsessives want to make sure they have "the latest" in lead-ins and want to know what the current Danticat craze is, but I don't see why their concerns matter.

(2) But what I'm really annoyed by is Mike's claim that somehow Chicago's budget gave them (or, without crushing any no-release dissenters, will give them) access to the supposedly scarce "good packets." I want him (or you, or someone) to provide any kind of substantiation for that. Since it's just some random fucking bullshit potshot, I'm guessing substantiation is not forthcoming.

To clarify, I mean "who gives a shit about the old days" not to dismiss the historical concerns and the reason for the attitudes, but just to note that the potential bad effects that motivated the attitude then are not a concern at all now, so I don't see why we need to obsess over defending the pro-disclosure orthodoxy.

Okay, I didn't really say that "Chicago's budget gives them access to the good packets." By "rich," I was referring to "already successful" teams, using "rich" in the idea that successful teams will continue to be successful.

For instance, in the scenario described here, with PR originally not going to be publicly released--teams on the circuit who are ignorant, who don't have access to "in crowd people," or didn't have the resources to get to the tournament are just not going to end up with the set. That's a fact.

Teams who are "rich" in the sense that they have capital will do other things. They will call, e-mail, or PM their friends who played the tournament or other people on the packet grapevine and get the packets that way. If they had the resources, maybe they went to the tournament. In some cases, perhaps they just paid the head editor to give them the set (I have done this).

I did not intend this comment as a potshot against UChicago, accusing them of hoarding the good packets with their resources. I did intend this as a comment that in a world in which packets are not freely disseminated, successful ('richer') teams will continue to get more successful, while teams lacking social or physical capital cannot. I do not intend this as a moral slam on Chicago or any other successful program, I am just stating what I think happens based on what I have seen. My apologies for inadvertantly besmirching Chicago's reputation.

I will also note that I really didn't have a problem with Marshall not publicly distributing the set, as it was his set.

Well, yes, I guess if

"flourishing programs who either have access to the in crowd or infinity resources get more questions to practice on and study"

was referring to all those other schools that are regularly described as having "infinity resources," or was referencing infinite amounts of social capital, that makes perfect sense. Whatever. I obviously agree connected people will be able to get the packets for tournaments that don't get publicly released, but that also cuts against the people who desperately want the PR packets to be released: it's mainly just select Virginians who just want to mock Marshall more and who have access to the tournament anyway.

I should have probably chosen different words other than "infinity resources" to avoid the connotation with Chicago. I would place Chicago in the wealthy, successful program category in the sense that I think they (along with like almost every other 25 school) would have an advantage in getting packets that Doo Dah U would not. That was all I meant.

I mean, let me put it this way (for Tulane specifically, but maybe also for other fledgling programs like ours):

There was no possible way we were coming to Chicago, both for logistical reasons and also because our being there wouldn't have really benefited anybody. As president of our club, I feel like it's my responsibility to get my hands on as much material as possible so I can share it with the rest of my guys, especially if it's recent and if I think it will be helpful. I'm not trying to pirate anything, and definitely not trying to pile on any more criticism; I'd just like to do what I think is in the best interest of my club. The set is UChicago's property, so I respect their opinion--I just wish it were different.

marnold wrote:(1) Who gives a shit about the old days? The proliferation of practice materials has little to do with changes in attitudes and a lot to do with the rise of internet archives.

I don't think this is entirely true. Historically, most tournaments were traded or sold by the teams that produced them, even though the Stanford Archive has existed for a long time. Teams like Carleton and Michigan with large packet archives did actually have a big advantage, and I don't think it was just the ease of putting things on the internet that changed the way things work. People also had to consent to the idea that their packets were no longer a source of money/trade value after their use at a tournament. For the most part, those who produce tournaments have realized this, which is probably why it's hard for Marshall or anyone to go against the grain.

Chicago isn't "free-riding" because even if no more good tournaments were produced for the next 5 years there would be more than enough practice material in those archives for any team to get good.

"Contradicting a collective norm for individual profit" is pretty much what free riding is ("everyone does it, so there's enough to go around even if I don't" seems like a pretty classic formulation to me). To the extent that open packet exchange is a mechanism to combat packet inequity, Chicago is definitely free riding on that collective solution. Obviously there are other concerns than practice material that may tip the scales in favor of whatever Marshall's doing, which I probably sympathize with more than others in this thread, but I'm just pointing out that for this specific purpose, he would be taking advantage of a community norm to profit.

To the extent that open packet exchange is a mechanism to combat packet inequity, Chicago is definitely free riding on that collective solution.

I suppose that what you mean is IF the tournament had not been proliferated, Chicago would have been "free-riding" on the fact that teams have other tournaments with which to practice.

That's ridiculous.

The actual free-riding that's going on is when teams get access to tournaments without paying for them. Usually the "public goods problem" is that because free-riding exists, public goods won't be provided since the providers can't discriminate between people who pay and people who don't, so no one will pay. But what Gillian Welch and I are complaining about is that we are providing the goods and will do so in the future, notwithstanding we're being free-ridden. That means there's no public goods problem, but also that Gillian Welch and I are getting screwed.

To re-interpret that with us, the people who provide the public good without contingency, as the free riders, is totally wrong and slightly offensive.

Tees-Exe Line wrote:

To the extent that open packet exchange is a mechanism to combat packet inequity, Chicago is definitely free riding on that collective solution.

I suppose that what you mean is IF the tournament had not been proliferated, Chicago would have been "free-riding" on the fact that teams have other tournaments with which to practice.

That's ridiculous.

The actual free-riding that's going on is when teams get access to tournaments without paying for them. Usually the "public goods problem" is that because free-riding exists, public goods won't be provided since the providers can't discriminate between people who pay and people who don't, so no one will pay. But what Gillian Welch and I are complaining about is that we are providing the goods and will do so in the future, notwithstanding we're being free-ridden. That means there's no public goods problem, but also that Gillian Welch and I are getting screwed.

To re-interpret that with us, the people who provide the public good without contingency, as the free riders, is totally wrong and slightly offensive.

Except that in the current quizbowl norm, people pay to play tournaments, not to have access to practice material. You can argue that that norm should change, although I doubt many people will agree with you. If you don't release your packets publicly, then I would argue that you're not providing a public good.

Let's stop trying to pigeonhole each other into inapplicable economic models. The point isn't that Chicago is free-riding or that they're bad people or anything like that. As I've mentioned before, there's a reason why we have this norm in place. I respect people's right to go against it, but at the same time I wish they wouldn't do so. There's no real benefit to it (if you seriously think that it somehow gives you a competitive advantage, that's kind of ridiculous) and it makes people annoyed with you.

Tees-Exe Line wrote: The actual free-riding that's going on is when teams get access to tournaments without paying for them. Usually the "public goods problem" is that because free-riding exists, public goods won't be provided since the providers can't discriminate between people who pay and people who don't, so no one will pay. But what Gillian Welch and I are complaining about is that we are providing the goods and will do so in the future, notwithstanding we're being free-ridden. That means there's no public goods problem, but also that Gillian Welch and I are getting screwed.

Though I understand why you're upset, these points stick out to me as reasonable objections that other people haven't said already:

(1) You're not actually selling the question set for independent use. So it makes no economic sense to hold on to them indefinitely - you wouldn't gain or lose any money either way from holding it or releasing it.

(2) People don't pay tournament entry fees to hear the questions; they pay the entry fee to get a chance to play real games that matter on uncleared questions against multiple other teams. They then have a chance at winning, showing off what they know, having fun, etc. in the company of those other teams in a legitimate environment. The "other teams" part is operative here, and is not replicable for free in hearing a cleared set by oneself or with one's own team.

(3) Regardless, you yourself were planning to post the set publicly at some point in the future (after a grammar-check), at which point people will have free access without paying. So all the stuff about "free riding" will become true anyway regardless.

I completely second Brian McNamara in that anyone who wants to hold their set past the last mirror date should announce beforehand, on these forums, their intention to do so and their rationale for it.

Cheynem wrote:The one unquestionably good thing that I think "making packet sets available" are is as a way to avoid the "rich get richer" style of quizbowl in which flourishing programs who either have access to the in crowd or infinity resources get more questions to practice on and study, while everyone else is thrashing around, wasting money on IS-sets and reading 1992 packets. So in that sense, I think it is a good, moral thing for tournament editors to make their sets publicly available.

That said, I don't really think it's the end of the world if questions are not made immediately publicly available. Nobody should have an expectation of the immediate ability to critique and access questions to a tournament they did not attend. I do think it's kind of nice to respect people's wishes, although I also felt it was a little stupid not to get the set when we attended and paid money to play the tournament.

Actually, back when tournament sets were not always released online for public consumption (or only released after long delays), I think most clubs built up their packet hoards primarily by sending in freelance packets in exchange for sets, and secondarily by trading housewritten sets. I believe it was relatively rare for clubs to buy packet sets. I don't really know how much of a factor being part of the in-crowd was. The UC Berkeley club was decidedly not part of the quizbowl in-crowd, and we almost never (perhaps literally never*) paid for packet sets: we fed our ravenous appetite for new practice material by writing lots freelance packets. I think the prevalence of freelance packets was one good feature of the old system, and I don't think there's any problem with rewarding clubs that are "richer" in the resource of "people who write packets for tournaments, including tournaments they're not attending." I'm also fine with the current system; I'm just not sure it's better in every possible way.

Edit to add: * except NAQT sets, I guess.

-Seth

I think that's a good point and one that I had neglected. I would agree that what you are describing was a good benefit of that system (I've tried to do that recently at least with trash tournaments by writing freelance packets in exchange for sets I wanted to play).

It's more often the case now, though, that we have a standardized calendar where every team is submitting packets to the same events and those events are mirrored in every circuit. (At least at a macro level, that seems to be the trend.) So it's unlikely that such a "freelance" system is going to return, since it's more likely that dedicated clubs will get to hear every question set of a given calendar year. (Though there are exceptions and sets that don't get heard in some smaller circuits, leading to awesome things like Auroni Gupta contributing a full solo packet to BARGE this year and the like.) If this sort of freelancing goes downhill, the one advantage of the old system, as pointed out by Seth, seems to evaporate.