Tees-Exe Line wrote:For those interested in the sillier aspects of this story, I present the GJR-GARCH email:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have little proclivity to place myself as the proximal cause of a consortio interruptus twixt this redoubtable coupling of editors. Indeed, it seems inimical to the intellectual harmony requisite for the production of a high quality tournament for me to spend the next few months plying my facility with GJR-GARCH models in liegelike service to the volatilities of mind of editors who have crystallized amenable allocations of responsibility.
Should such practical considerations seem insufficient, I shall establish my deeper misgivings. For if we defecate upon the principle of prima facie claims I know not what order might be imposed but that of vatic utterance. Gentlemen, you must therefore pardon my bafflement and my abjuration, for if a man's claim be silently usurped on the overeager velleities of a blackguard, he is surely less compromised in stupefied observation than in ductile abettings of sibilant machinators.
The excessive length of my silence is no doubt deserving of objurgation, but so far as the salient role was believed mine as recently as M. Bailey's missive of August 17, the problem of opacity now lies squarely upon you as does the burden of the impropriety I allege. It is possible I am so abhorrent, so obstinate yet erratic before the right and proper judgment of oracles whom I know not, that merely to inform me (or anyone else) of my deposition would have been vicious. But again I must beg your pardon, for I think such perfidious conduct more characteristic of some incontinent being, ranine and flatulent.
All of this is now past, and to all besides myself, irrelevant. Thus I prefer indifference; I am sure the tournament, though its genesis be too maculate for my taste, will be excellent.
Good day,
Shantanu
Apparently Shantanu wrote:I have little proclivity to place myself as the proximal cause of a consortio interruptus twixt this redoubtable coupling of editors. Indeed, it seems inimical to the intellectual harmony requisite for the production of a high quality tournament for me to spend the next few months plying my facility with GJR-GARCH models in liegelike service to the volatilities of mind of editors who have crystallized amenable allocations of responsibility.
Should such practical considerations seem insufficient, I shall establish my deeper misgivings. For if we defecate upon the principle of prima facie claims I know not what order might be imposed but that of vatic utterance. Gentlemen, you must therefore pardon my bafflement and my abjuration, for if a man's claim be silently usurped on the overeager velleities of a blackguard, he is surely less compromised in stupefied observation than in ductile abettings of sibilant machinators.
The excessive length of my silence is no doubt deserving of objurgation, but so far as the salient role was believed mine as recently as M. Bailey's missive of August 17, the problem of opacity now lies squarely upon you as does the burden of the impropriety I allege. It is possible I am so abhorrent, so obstinate yet erratic before the right and proper judgment of oracles whom I know not, that merely to inform me (or anyone else) of my deposition would have been vicious. But again I must beg your pardon, for I think such perfidious conduct more characteristic of some incontinent being, ranine and flatulent.
All of this is now past, and to all besides myself, irrelevant. Thus I prefer indifference; I am sure the tournament, though its genesis be too maculate for my taste, will be excellent.
Good day,
Shantanu
Shantanu wrote:I have little proclivity to place myself as the proximal cause of a consortio interruptus twixt this redoubtable coupling of editors. Indeed, it seems inimical to the intellectual harmony requisite for the production of a high quality tournament for me to spend the next few months plying my facility with GJR-GARCH models in liegelike service to the volatilities of mind of editors who have crystallized amenable allocations of responsibility.
Should such practical considerations seem insufficient, I shall establish my deeper misgivings. For if we defecate upon the principle of prima facie claims I know not what order might be imposed but that of vatic utterance. Gentlemen, you must therefore pardon my bafflement and my abjuration, for if a man's claim be silently usurped on the overeager velleities of a blackguard, he is surely less compromised in stupefied observation than in ductile abettings of sibilant machinators.
The excessive length of my silence is no doubt deserving of objurgation, but so far as the salient role was believed mine as recently as M. Bailey's missive of August 17, the problem of opacity now lies squarely upon you as does the burden of the impropriety I allege. It is possible I am so abhorrent, so obstinate yet erratic before the right and proper judgment of oracles whom I know not, that merely to inform me (or anyone else) of my deposition would have been vicious. But again I must beg your pardon, for I think such perfidious conduct more characteristic of some incontinent being, ranine and flatulent.
All of this is now past, and to all besides myself, irrelevant. Thus I prefer indifference; I am sure the tournament, though its genesis be too maculate for my taste, will be excellent.
Good day,
Shantanu
marnold wrote:"RANINE AND FLATULENT" FREE TO THE FIRST TAKER!
Muriel Axon wrote:marnold wrote:"RANINE AND FLATULENT" FREE TO THE FIRST TAKER!
This raises a good question: Can frogs fart?
Tees-Exe Line wrote:For those interested in the sillier aspects of this story, I present the GJR-GARCH email:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have little proclivity to place myself as the proximal cause of a consortio interruptus twixt this redoubtable coupling of editors. Indeed, it seems inimical to the intellectual harmony requisite for the production of a high quality tournament for me to spend the next few months plying my facility with GJR-GARCH models in liegelike service to the volatilities of mind of editors who have crystallized amenable allocations of responsibility.
Should such practical considerations seem insufficient, I shall establish my deeper misgivings. For if we defecate upon the principle of prima facie claims I know not what order might be imposed but that of vatic utterance. Gentlemen, you must therefore pardon my bafflement and my abjuration, for if a man's claim be silently usurped on the overeager velleities of a blackguard, he is surely less compromised in stupefied observation than in ductile abettings of sibilant machinators.
The excessive length of my silence is no doubt deserving of objurgation, but so far as the salient role was believed mine as recently as M. Bailey's missive of August 17, the problem of opacity now lies squarely upon you as does the burden of the impropriety I allege. It is possible I am so abhorrent, so obstinate yet erratic before the right and proper judgment of oracles whom I know not, that merely to inform me (or anyone else) of my deposition would have been vicious. But again I must beg your pardon, for I think such perfidious conduct more characteristic of some incontinent being, ranine and flatulent.
All of this is now past, and to all besides myself, irrelevant. Thus I prefer indifference; I am sure the tournament, though its genesis be too maculate for my taste, will be excellent.
Good day,
Shantanu
Tees-Exe Line wrote:For those interested in the sillier aspects of this story, I present the GJR-GARCH email:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have little proclivity to place myself as the proximal cause of a consortio interruptus twixt this redoubtable coupling of editors. Indeed, it seems inimical to the intellectual harmony requisite for the production of a high quality tournament for me to spend the next few months plying my facility with GJR-GARCH models in liegelike service to the volatilities of mind of editors who have crystallized amenable allocations of responsibility.
Should such practical considerations seem insufficient, I shall establish my deeper misgivings. For if we defecate upon the principle of prima facie claims I know not what order might be imposed but that of vatic utterance. Gentlemen, you must therefore pardon my bafflement and my abjuration, for if a man's claim be silently usurped on the overeager velleities of a blackguard, he is surely less compromised in stupefied observation than in ductile abettings of sibilant machinators.
The excessive length of my silence is no doubt deserving of objurgation, but so far as the salient role was believed mine as recently as M. Bailey's missive of August 17, the problem of opacity now lies squarely upon you as does the burden of the impropriety I allege. It is possible I am so abhorrent, so obstinate yet erratic before the right and proper judgment of oracles whom I know not, that merely to inform me (or anyone else) of my deposition would have been vicious. But again I must beg your pardon, for I think such perfidious conduct more characteristic of some incontinent being, ranine and flatulent.
All of this is now past, and to all besides myself, irrelevant. Thus I prefer indifference; I am sure the tournament, though its genesis be too maculate for my taste, will be excellent.
Good day,
Shantanu
the happiest boy wrote:Requesting that this be known as the "fun with a thesaurus so I sound so fancy" email.
Cheynem wrote:Lost in all the Shantanu assholery is Marshall's accusation that NAQT was effectively trying to sweep the Shantanu cheating thing under the rug. Does anyone from NAQT wish to comment further on this?
Tees-Exe Line wrote:For those interested in the sillier aspects of this story, I present the GJR-GARCH email: [snip]
marnold wrote:TEAM NAMES! GET YOUR TEAM NAMES, HERE! "RANINE AND FLATULENT" FREE TO THE FIRST TAKER!
Anonymous wrote:naqt is much worse than plagiarism could ever hope to be
On April 2, 2012 Andrew Yaphe wrote:So, here's how I would summarize my sense of the situation:
(1) I feel almost certain that Shantanu engaged in activity that should be characterized as "cheating."
(2) However, the cheating he engaged in appears to have been extremely incompetently done, not to mention somewhat pointless.
(3) In addition, the evidence we actually have of the cheating is extremely scant and circumstantial, and would not--in my view--justify taking any formal action against Chicago as a team.
In particular, I just don't see the "smoking gun" here that I would want to see -- where such a "smoking gun" would be something along the lines of Shantanu saying "remember that in The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas they talk about having a car named 'Godiva'" (to take an example of a lead-in clue that appeared at the tournament, and which, to my knowledge, has not been used in quizbowl previously, insofar as I wrote the tossup directly after reading the book and without reference to any quizbowl archive). If we had evidence of such a "smoking gun," I would perhaps be inclined to reevaluate the situation.
Of course, this isn't to say that we should continue to allow Shantanu to be involved with NAQT in any way. I think we have good cause to terminate him from the organization, and to inform him that he will not be invited to any future NAQT events in an official capacity of any kind. (I don't think we can ban him from showing up to a tournament if he wants merely to spectate at one.) But I don't see good cause to take any official action in response to this stuff, at least on the basis of the present evidence. (What Chicago may choose to do internally is, in my view, their own business.)
On April 2, 2012 Seth Teitler wrote:[To Matt Menard and Jimmy Ready --JTH]
Hey guys,
here's Andrew's response to the email I sent. I did mention the Dutilleux cello concerto and the "Henry thinks he may have killed a woman in the Dream Songs" bit, which seemed like the most suspicious examples to me, but Andrew knows way more than I do about music and poetry, and he doesn't seem to think there's a clear smoking gun here.
I'm pretty tired, so I'll stop here for now, but I think there are some options for a club response to this that fall short of "banning Shantanu from the club" that may be worth exploring.
Tees-Exe Line wrote:Thank you for your response and clarification, Jeff. Two immediate points come to mind:
1. This is the first I've heard, ever, that anyone at NAQT confronted Shantanu at that ICT, and I'm pretty sure the same is true of my teammates. What was Shantanu's explanation there? Why was it inadequate?
Regarding the timeline of the server investigation
the happiest boy wrote:What role did Andrew play in all of this?
In my opinion, the NAQT upper management, and Andrew Yaphe specifically, were trying (rather ham-fistedly) to use their age, experience, and quizbowl standing to intimidate the younger Chicago board members into not revealing that their company's trust was grossly misplaced and their tournament's security compromised.
setht wrote:II think Marshall has misread Andrew's email: my take on it is that point 1 indicates personal belief, and points 2 and 3 speak to whether the tournament results were compromised, and whether there was clear evidence of complicity by players or the Chicago club. In short, "I believe Shantanu cheated, it looks like it didn't change game results, and it looks like the players and the club as a whole were innocent." I don't want to put words in Andrew's mouth—that is my take on what his email said, and it agreed with my take on the matter. I thought Andrew's email nicely summarized our thoughts (certainly my thoughts), and our likely course of action (since the official post hadn't been made yet). That's why I thought it would be useful to pass along.
Birdofredum Sawin wrote:First, Seth's factual summary of the events of that fateful weekend is entirely correct
Packet 10 of the 2012 ICT wrote:He concluded that “Our days put on such reticence / These accents seem their own defense” in the title poem of his second collection. For 10 points each—
A. Name this man, who won the Yale Younger Poets Prize in 1956 for his book Some Trees and a Pulitzer Prize for his book Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror.
answer: John Ashbery
B. Ashbery wrote a thesis at Harvard on this British poet, who selected Some Trees for the Yale Younger Poets Prize. This man's works include “September 1, 1939” and “Musée des Beaux Arts.”
answer: W(ystan) H(ugh) Auden
C. Ashbery's book Other Traditions includes a section on this poet who collaborated with her lover Robert Graves on A Pamphlet Against Anthologies and A Survey of Modernist Poetry.
answer: Laura Riding (accept Laura Riding Jackson or Gottschalk or Reichenthal)
Furthermore, regarding this business of "intimidation," let me say you were the one "member" of NAQT who communicated with us at the time.
according to my record one such clue was that Shantanu mentioned in the car that John Ashbery won the Yale Younger Poets Prize in 1956 because Auden was giving them out
according to my record one such clue was that Shantanu mentioned in the car that John Ashbery won the Yale Younger Poets Prize in 1956 because Auden was giving them out,
Birdofredum Sawin wrote:The basic underlying principle of your posts is that you appear to hold me personally responsible for not having conducted the kind of inquisition you presumably would have been happy to lead, had you been in my shoes. Again, I deeply regret my failure to lead the torchbearers at the 2012 Shantanu auto-da-fe. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. As I have explained at great length, I was presented with a specific set of facts by Seth and asked for my opinion, which I provided him. Obviously you are unable, or unwilling, to recognize that I was working from the limited information I had available to me; you likewise appear unwilling to accept that I was acting in good faith, though what I would have had to gain by writing my email the way I did is, to put it mildly, unclear.
Tees-Exe Line wrote:EDIT: I don't think Seth was in fact a member of NAQT at that time. Again, I think your email was the only communication we received from anyone who was. It's certainly the only such communication the board and I discussed when we were making our decision.
Tees-Exe Line wrote:I don't know exactly what transpired at NAQT regarding their eventual announcement, but I heard that at Chicago's team practice on the Thursday evening, Seth, Selene, and the board drafted Chicago's response to NAQT's rather cryptic initial announcement.
Return to Quizbowl History Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests