Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018)

This forum is for tournament announcements, updates, and results (official or otherwise).

Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018)

Postby AGoodMan » Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:14 am

Hello everyone,

On behalf of the Harvard Quiz Bowl team, I am pleased to announce that we will be hosting a mirror of Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) on Saturday, March 31st, 2018.

Logistics:
The tournament will be held in Sever Hall in historic Tercentenary Theatre, which is located right next to Harvard Yard. We recommend using the MBTA Red Line to get to the tournament, since parking options are limited in Harvard Square and the traffic can be quite unpredictable. We are aiming to start the first round at 9:00 AM and having most rounds finish by 6:00 PM at the latest (teams in finals or tiebreakers may need to stay until 6:30 PM). There will be preliminary and playoff rounds, with re-bracketing in between. A lunch break will take place when most convenient; teams will have access to a variety of food options in Harvard Square.

We will provide more logistics information as we finalize the details.

Eligibility:
The field size will be preliminarily capped at 18 teams; both high school and undergraduate college teams are welcome to participate. Teams composed of players from different schools ("chimera" teams) are only allowed for high school students. Graduate students may not participate unless they receive special permission from Young Lee at youngflee99@gmail.com.

Registration:
To register, email me at myung_suh@college.harvard.edu or post in this thread. Please include "SMT Registration: [Team Name]" in the email subject, and specify the number of teams and any relevant discounts. Registrations are not complete until I respond in some fashion saying so.

Fees:
Tournament fees/discounts are the following:
+$110 per attending team
-$5 per working buzzer system (must have power cord and 8 functional buzzers, maximum three buzzer systems per organization)
-$15 per experienced moderator (must be familiar with quiz bowl rules/scoring, and have good pronunciation, speed, and reading skills)
-$10 if your team has to travel more than 200 miles one way, according to Google Maps

Set Details:
Details for SMT can be found here. The set is written by former and current members of the Adlai Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, IL and head edited by Jordan Brownstein.

Final Comments:
Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions relating to the tournament!
Last edited by AGoodMan on Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jonathan Suh
Wheaton Warrenville South '16
Harvard '20
User avatar
AGoodMan
Wakka
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:25 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby AGoodMan » Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:11 pm

Current Field (Team/Buzzer/Staff/Distance):
NYU (3/1/0/Y)
Bowdoin (1/0/0)
Yale (3/1*/0)
"Team Vincent" (1/2/0)
Rutgers (2/0/0/Y)
"The Big Four" (1/0/0/Y)
"The James Family" (1/2/1*/Y)
MIT (1/1/0)
"Downingtown High School" (1/2/0/Y)
Penn (2/1/0/Y)
Harvard (House) (2/many/many)
Amherst (1/0/0)
Boston College (1/1/0)

Waitlist (Team/Buzzer/Staff/Distance):
Last edited by AGoodMan on Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:50 pm, edited 10 times in total.
Jonathan Suh
Wheaton Warrenville South '16
Harvard '20
User avatar
AGoodMan
Wakka
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:25 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby AGoodMan » Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:29 pm

We are almost nearing our initial cap of 16 teams. Once we reach the cap, all other teams will be put on a waitlist as we work out the staffing situation.
Jonathan Suh
Wheaton Warrenville South '16
Harvard '20
User avatar
AGoodMan
Wakka
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:25 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby AGoodMan » Sun Mar 04, 2018 3:43 pm

AGoodMan wrote:We are almost nearing our initial cap of 16 teams. Once we reach the cap, all other teams will be put on a waitlist as we work out the staffing situation.

The field is now tentatively capped at 18.
Jonathan Suh
Wheaton Warrenville South '16
Harvard '20
User avatar
AGoodMan
Wakka
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:25 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby AGoodMan » Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:46 pm

AGoodMan wrote:
AGoodMan wrote:We are almost nearing our initial cap of 16 teams. Once we reach the cap, all other teams will be put on a waitlist as we work out the staffing situation.

The field is now tentatively capped at 18.

We are now at 20.
Jonathan Suh
Wheaton Warrenville South '16
Harvard '20
User avatar
AGoodMan
Wakka
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:25 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby AGoodMan » Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:09 pm

Thanks to everyone who came out - I hope you had an enjoyable experience. Stats are here. We lost record of one prelim game due to Neg5 being Neg5. I apologize for that.

MIT beat Yale A 320-315 in a thrilling one-game advantaged final.
Jonathan Suh
Wheaton Warrenville South '16
Harvard '20
User avatar
AGoodMan
Wakka
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:25 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby Cherrybell Miramonte » Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:50 pm

AGoodMan wrote:Thanks to everyone who came out - I hope you had an enjoyable experience. Stats are here. We lost record of one prelim game due to Neg5 being Neg5. I apologize for that.

MIT beat Yale A 320-315 in a thrilling one-game advantaged final.


"Neg5 being Neg5" isn't an adequate explanation. If this program can spontaneously eat game results and leave no record behind, then any host who uses it must also keep backup records using real scoresheets, whether paper or electronic. If a host doesn't do that, loses results, and then throws up its hands as if nothing could have been done, that's a very obvious case of negligence. Regardless of this, hosts need to be using SQBS to generate statistics, because the hsqb database only accepts SQBS reports. For a variety of reasons* hosts must put statistics on the hsqb database; this is why any time you post a new tournament announcement, you immediately get an e-mail notification telling you to make a page on the hsqb database. Using the hsqb database isn't optional; it's a requirement for hosts, and it's unacceptable for hosts not to put in the bare minimum of effort involved in uploading stats.
*Specifically, when statistics are posted on the hsqb database, it's very simple to find them by searching the database and clicking on the stat reports, whereupon they are presented in a standard format. By contrast, if the only stats provided are a link on the forums, anyone looking for stats has to be able to find the forum thread first, which is particularly inconvenient when trying to aggregate statistics from multiple tournaments. This is why Harry White's database of players and teams only includes results from the NAQT website and the hsqb database. Furthermore, results hosted on a third-party website are only good for as long as that website exists; as soon as the website is lost, so will all records hosted there. Many older tournaments that were held prior to the creation of the hsqb database have had their statistics lost in this precise way. This is the very reason that the hsqb database was implemented. You don't get to not use it just because you don't feel like it.
Sam Rombro
Arizona '20
Maryland '18
Writer, NAQT
User avatar
Cherrybell Miramonte
Lulu
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:43 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby brycehwang » Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:04 pm

Thank you to Jonathan and Harvard for hosting the tournament today!
Bryce Hwang
MIT
brycehwang
Lulu
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby The Billiards Fool » Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:36 am

I want to start this by saying that by and large I had a good time today (as did all of my teammates). The tournament was run well and efficiently. Thanks Jon for all the work!

That said, there were a few issues:

1. The bye round situation. I know this has been discussed in the thread Max Smiley started (which is a good post and more in depth than I will go in right now). While I understand what happened, it seems worth stressing that for the teams in the bye-having bracket, it was incredibly frustrating to get to play less games because of a decision made to benefit Harvard students at the expense of those paying to come play. The number one focus of a tournament should be the teams coming from outside, and by hosting a tournament the host school takes on the responsibility of prioritizing the tournament's interest over its own house team's fun. The House team's primary purpose at a tournament should be to aid in the effective running of the tournament. If that coincides with providing a fun/helpful experience for in-house players, awesome, but this should never be the priority.

I understand its not ideal to have two two-man teams that may lose some games, but it's way more irritating to be an outside team and play less games because the house team's ability to win games is prioritized over providing everyone else with an optimal tournament (For example, when hosting Regionals Penn State fielded two two-man teams to keep an even 20 teams and those teams finished at the bottom of the tournament. I'm sure this wasn't an ideal situation, but it made the tournament much better for everyone.) It also seems worth noting that statistically, it is highly unlikely that split house teams from Harvard would have finished last. These weren't freshmen playing for experience and they were one of the best teams at the tournament and finished fourth. I highly doubt that a 2/2 split would have landed both teams in the bottom bracket (this is of course beside the point, since the house team's winning shouldn't be the priority, but it helps with the comparison).

When Max asked, he (and thus everyone there) was never given a more substantive response than "no" to his suggestions that a house team be dropped, the house team be split, or another house team be formed (all moves that would have rid the tourney of bye rounds or equalized the rounds). I don't mean to put words in other people's mouths, but I can't imagine people would have minded waiting while the tourney staff talked it over for 3 minutes if time would have helped to consider the proposition. Not having any stated understandable reason for the bye round made the situation all the more frustrating and made it appear (as it ended up being) that this was being done for no "overall tournament helping" reason. That brings me to my next point:

2. Almost definitely worse is that when Max brought up these points at the tournament, he was called a "douche" and told to "shut up" so the meeting could continue (Jon did not say this and I don't know who did except that it appeared to be a Harvard staffer up front whose name I don't know). This is incredibly unprofessional, especially at a tournament that had high school students and their parents. Even if it was all college kids, it would still be inappropriate to insult a player from another team for raising a legitimate point about a situation that could have been easily remedied. I get that Max was maybe a bit abrupt, but he was largely civil and making a good point, and this is no way to respond. This is not meant to blame Jon, who is unable to censor the mouths of the other people on his team, but this is absolutely not something that any team hosting a tourney should be doing. (If this was not a Harvard staffer, but rather someone else standing in the front by the Harvard team for some reason, I am obviously sorry. Based on where he was and who he was standing with, it appeared to me and those around me that it was a Harvard staffer.)

Today was still good overall: the readers were solid and nice, the set was fun, the tournament ran smoothly, etc. That said, it was incredibly frustrating to see a decision to prioritize the fun of some in-house players at the expense of half of the teams coming to play be made quickly and with disrespect for the plausible solution being offered by a player in the crowd.
Emmett Laurie
East Brunswick '16
Rutgers University '20
The Billiards Fool
Wakka
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 2:09 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby AGoodMan » Sun Apr 01, 2018 3:00 am

DuPhos wrote:
AGoodMan wrote:Thanks to everyone who came out - I hope you had an enjoyable experience. Stats are here. We lost record of one prelim game due to Neg5 being Neg5. I apologize for that.

MIT beat Yale A 320-315 in a thrilling one-game advantaged final.


"Neg5 being Neg5" isn't an adequate explanation. If this program can spontaneously eat game results and leave no record behind, then any host who uses it must also keep backup records using real scoresheets, whether paper or electronic. If a host doesn't do that, loses results, and then throws up its hands as if nothing could have been done, that's a very obvious case of negligence. Regardless of this, hosts need to be using SQBS to generate statistics, because the hsqb database only accepts SQBS reports. For a variety of reasons* hosts must put statistics on the hsqb database; this is why any time you post a new tournament announcement, you immediately get an e-mail notification telling you to make a page on the hsqb database. Using the hsqb database isn't optional; it's a requirement for hosts, and it's unacceptable for hosts not to put in the bare minimum of effort involved in uploading stats.
*Specifically, when statistics are posted on the hsqb database, it's very simple to find them by searching the database and clicking on the stat reports, whereupon they are presented in a standard format. By contrast, if the only stats provided are a link on the forums, anyone looking for stats has to be able to find the forum thread first, which is particularly inconvenient when trying to aggregate statistics from multiple tournaments. This is why Harry White's database of players and teams only includes results from the NAQT website and the hsqb database. Furthermore, results hosted on a third-party website are only good for as long as that website exists; as soon as the website is lost, so will all records hosted there. Many older tournaments that were held prior to the creation of the hsqb database have had their statistics lost in this precise way. This is the very reason that the hsqb database was implemented. You don't get to not use it just because you don't feel like it.

Sam, you bring up good points here. To be honest, I have no experience ever using SQBS (never ran a tournament or kept score in high school). That is obviously not an excuse to not use SQBS now. I'll download it in the near future and get familiar with it so that I can start using it for future tournaments Harvard will host.

As for the prelim game we lost, the situation was quite unfortunate and I also apologize for the flippant/unclear wording in my original post. The game was specifically Yale C vs. Rutgers B which Yale C won by 105 points. Considering that Neg5 was generally good today compared to HFT (except for when a mod tried to keep score on the mobile Neg5 website), I'm thinking that the moderator may have kept score and then simply forgotten to click "Submit" before changing the webpage of the tab. By the time I realized that we were missing a round and checked in with the moderator, the game data was gone; I assume he just kept on keeping score for the next round in the same tab or something of that nature.

tl:dr Will learn SQBS. I apologize once again for losing the prelim match data.
Jonathan Suh
Wheaton Warrenville South '16
Harvard '20
User avatar
AGoodMan
Wakka
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:25 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby AGoodMan » Sun Apr 01, 2018 3:24 am

Neggman wrote:I want to start this by saying that by and large I had a good time today (as did all of my teammates). The tournament was run well and efficiently. Thanks Jon for all the work!

That said, there were a few issues:

1. The bye round situation. I know this has been discussed in the thread Max Smiley started (which is a good post and more in depth than I will go in right now). While I understand what happened, it seems worth stressing that for the teams in the bye-having bracket, it was incredibly frustrating to get to play less games because of a decision made to benefit Harvard students at the expense of those paying to come play. The number one focus of a tournament should be the teams coming from outside, and by hosting a tournament the host school takes on the responsibility of prioritizing the tournament's interest over its own house team's fun. The House team's primary purpose at a tournament should be to aid in the effective running of the tournament. If that coincides with providing a fun/helpful experience for in-house players, awesome, but this should never be the priority.

I understand its not ideal to have two two-man teams that may lose some games, but it's way more irritating to be an outside team and play less games because the house team's ability to win games is prioritized over providing everyone else with an optimal tournament (For example, when hosting Regionals Penn State fielded two two-man teams to keep an even 20 teams and those teams finished at the bottom of the tournament. I'm sure this wasn't an ideal situation, but it made the tournament much better for everyone.) It also seems worth noting that statistically, it is highly unlikely that split house teams from Harvard would have finished last. These weren't freshmen playing for experience and they were one of the best teams at the tournament and finished fourth. I highly doubt that a 2/2 split would have landed both teams in the bottom bracket (this is of course beside the point, since the house team's winning shouldn't be the priority, but it helps with the comparison).

When Max asked, he (and thus everyone there) was never given a more substantive response than "no" to his suggestions that a house team be dropped, the house team be split, or another house team be formed (all moves that would have rid the tourney of bye rounds or equalized the rounds). I don't mean to put words in other people's mouths, but I can't imagine people would have minded waiting while the tourney staff talked it over for 3 minutes if time would have helped to consider the proposition. Not having any stated understandable reason for the bye round made the situation all the more frustrating and made it appear (as it ended up being) that this was being done for no "overall tournament helping" reason. That brings me to my next point:

2. Almost definitely worse is that when Max brought up these points at the tournament, he was called a "douche" and told to "shut up" so the meeting could continue (Jon did not say this and I don't know who did except that it appeared to be a Harvard staffer up front whose name I don't know). This is incredibly unprofessional, especially at a tournament that had high school students and their parents. Even if it was all college kids, it would still be inappropriate to insult a player from another team for raising a legitimate point about a situation that could have been easily remedied. I get that Max was maybe a bit abrupt, but he was largely civil and making a good point, and this is no way to respond. This is not meant to blame Jon, who is unable to censor the mouths of the other people on his team, but this is absolutely not something that any team hosting a tourney should be doing. (If this was not a Harvard staffer, but rather someone else standing in the front by the Harvard team for some reason, I am obviously sorry. Based on where he was and who he was standing with, it appeared to me and those around me that it was a Harvard staffer.)

Today was still good overall: the readers were solid and nice, the set was fun, the tournament ran smoothly, etc. That said, it was incredibly frustrating to see a decision to prioritize the fun of some in-house players at the expense of half of the teams coming to play be made quickly and with disrespect for the plausible solution being offered by a player in the crowd.

First, as the TD, I take full responsibility for inappropriate behavior of one of our club members, especially given the presence of high schoolers in the room. I don't remember who the individual was, but will definitely address that issue with the members. I am truly sorry that this occurred under my watch.

And for the larger seeding issue, I again want to sincerely apologize for our selfishness. When I made the decision to go down to 19, I honestly did not fully grasp the magnitude of the fact that I was effectively robbing some teams of rounds that they deserve. It was the ill-advised folly of a novice TD; I have learned a painful lesson here, and can guarantee such a mistake will not happen again.
Jonathan Suh
Wheaton Warrenville South '16
Harvard '20
User avatar
AGoodMan
Wakka
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:25 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby UlyssesInvictus » Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:05 pm

I haven't been reading the forums for a day, but now that I have, I'm pretty sure I'm at least one of the people in question that acted rudely to Max. I want to go ahead and apologize for this, because there's really no reason for me to have behaved the way I did. The only excuses I can make are that it was early in the morning, after I'd been working late last night, and obviously my judgement was clouded. In addition, I do think Max was completely out of line. He interrupted the morning announcements mid-sentence, after we were already slightly delayed by the lateness of some teams, and then when politely responded to by Jon, refused to bring the issue up afterwards privately. If my memory is correct, Max's comments started to veer toward the personal before I felt compelled to at least defend Jon and then my emotions got the better of me.

However, Max has already apologized for the circumstances in how he chose to bring the issue up, and he's acted more than cordial in trying to discuss the bye round issue in a fair and respectful manner since then. Max, if you'd like to reach out to me personally as well, I'd really like that so that I can apologize additionally to you directly.

In the same vein, I'm sorry to the Harvard team and any of the attending players for any comments I made that reflected poorly on the Harvard team. Nothing I said should be construed as representing that team, only my personal opinions.

I have some thoughts about some of the other points brought up, but I'll address them in another post.
Raynor Kuang
quizdb.org
Harvard 2017, TJHSST 2013
Ex-Writer for NAQT
User avatar
UlyssesInvictus
Tidus
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:38 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby UlyssesInvictus » Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:29 pm

To reiterate before saying anything else, any opinions here are solely my own, and have nothing to do with the Harvard team.

First, to Sam, I do think you're being a little unfair with regard to Neg5. I remember using paper scoresheets for years before Neg5, and there was just a great a chance with paper as with Neg5 that stats would be lost for mechanical reasons: dropped scoresheets, illegible handwriting, or at least once, a scorekeeper just plain forgetting to keep individual stats. For obvious reasons, none of these things can happen with Neg5. I'm also slightly astounded that you just glossed over how much time Neg5 saves: having to input paper scoresheets into SQBS is incremental, but it adds up extremely, and having to finish it all by the time that rebracketing needs to be done means that the TD effectively has no time to deal with other issues. Based on my time TDing, I would use Neg5 every time even if there were a consistent 10% chance that every time I used it, stats would be lost just because of magic. However, the risks are clearly not that high, and though I think there's a slight learning curve to using Neg5, as well as tech bugs to be worked out, I really don't think we should be luddites about its advantages.

I do, nevertheless, agree with you that the QB resource center represents the better chance of lasting a long time. However, that's addressable by converting Neg5 stats to SQBS after the tournament is over, as Jon's done--which, I'll note, is really already very selfless, given that accusations like "unacceptable for hosts not to put in the bare minimum of effort involved in uploading stats" are extremely misrepresentative of how much work TDs already do. Additionally, I can only put my money where my mouth is by re-volunteering my efforts to try and contribute to Neg5 by adding an SQBS export function that will generate HSQB DB useable stats.

On the note of the bye round, Jon's already made his own statement. One thing I wish had been brought up is that more and more is increasingly being asked of tournament hosts over the years. I remember my days in high school when people would basically cobble together a tournament and call it a day if it didn't run more than an hour late. And every year, there seems to be an issue that, as TD, feels out of your control, but you just know people will blame you for anyways. A lot of the time, it is your fault, so you take it as a learning experience; but other times, people just seem happy to excoriate you for things that they, quite literally, weren't there for, and it can be extremely demoralizing to know that you're basically being tried in a court of public opinion for one particular day after you just spent the previous week skipping sleep so you could implement preventative measures for all those rare, unfortunate circumstances, only to have something no reasonable person could expect happen anyway.

My point is, Harvard was asked to host SMT, as an act of charity to the circuit. From my understanding, Harvard didn't want to, because they would have much rather played it. But they did host it. As many people have said already, a host's primary responsibility should be to the teams attending, because at the end of the day, a tournament is a product, and people are purchasing your product. However, TDs aren't doing this just for money. Being TD is an extremely exhausting job, and most of the money you "earn" you never get to spend personally, since it just gets frittered away by the club as a whole. None of this excuses effectively taking away a round from attending teams by chance, but it can feel -- and again, I'm not speaking for Harvard, only my experience in general -- very defeating to hear language like you "owe" this to someone. Again, you know what? You do owe it. Tournaments cost a lot of money. But as I believe Max mentioned in his forum post, sometimes it's your last tournament of the year, and you just want to play as a team.

I'm very sorry to Jon for distracting from what was, contentious issues aside, a well run tournament. For a sophomore, I thought he did a very good job organizing his first tournament, and I'm sad that I was in any way a negative aspect of that tournament.
Raynor Kuang
quizdb.org
Harvard 2017, TJHSST 2013
Ex-Writer for NAQT
User avatar
UlyssesInvictus
Tidus
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:38 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby CPiGuy » Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:43 pm

As someone who will defend Neg5's utilty for tournaments to a great degree, don't let the unequivocal wrongness of the second half of this post detract from the fact that Raynor is correct about Neg5 being both good and useful, as long as you are aware of its (exceedingly well-documented) deficiencies (specifically, that its built-in scorekeeping is bad).

[edit to add, because I realized I should actually contribute to the discussion rather than shoot off one-liners:]

I remember my days in high school when people would basically cobble together a tournament and call it a day if it didn't run more than an hour late.


"oh yeah, the good old days when people would run bad tournaments! weren't those great?"

And every year, there seems to be an issue that, as TD, feels out of your control, but you just know people will blame you for anyways. A lot of the time, it is your fault, so you take it as a learning experience; but other times, people just seem happy to excoriate you for things that they, quite literally, weren't there for, and it can be extremely demoralizing to know that you're basically being tried in a court of public opinion for one particular day after you just spent the previous week skipping sleep so you could implement preventative measures for all those rare, unfortunate circumstances, only to have something no reasonable person could expect happen anyway.


this is a fair point, or at least it would be, if "having an even number of teams" were something that was wild, out of nowhere, and not in the TD's control. I can sympathise with this, having had to deal with teams going to the wrong rooms at multiple tournaments I've directed this month. But, the knowledge that "quizbowl is more fun without byes and therefore our house teams should produce an even number of teams" is something that hosts should understand -- and if Jonathan didn't, something I am, again, rather sympathetic to, because he's spent as much time around collegiate quizbowl as me, you certainly should know this, and not go off on a bizarre strawman argument that has nothing to do with the situation.

My point is, Harvard was asked to host SMT, as an act of charity to the circuit. From my understanding, Harvard didn't want to, because they would have much rather played it. But they did host it. As many people have said already, a host's primary responsibility should be to the teams attending, because at the end of the day, a tournament is a product, and people are purchasing your product.


Michigan also hosted SMT on 4 weeks' notice after the previous hosts backed out (for mostly legitimate reasons). We did so with an explicit agreement that as many of us would get to play as possible, and until a last minute drop, I was STILL prepared to field four house teams with a total of ten people -- which would have been substantially less enjoyable for us -- in the name of avoiding byes. It's not hard.

None of this excuses effectively taking away a round from attending teams by chance


Correct.
Conor Thompson
Bangor HS (Maine) '16
Michigan '20
User avatar
CPiGuy
Rikku
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:19 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby High Dependency Unit » Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:04 pm

UlyssesInvictus wrote: My point is, Harvard was asked to host SMT, as an act of charity to the circuit. From my understanding, Harvard didn't want to, because they would have much rather played it. But they did host it.


Considering this seems to be the case for basically every tournament in New England, it might be worthwhile to set up some level of staffing network of teams, former players, and maybe even high schoolers so that one team like Harvard, Yale, etc. don't have to commit most of their roster at any given event.
Michael Borecki
Middlesex Middle '13,
Darien (co-captain) '17,
Bowdoin College '21
NHBB Regional Coordinator
www.ctquizbowl.org
High Dependency Unit
Rikku
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby Monstruos de Bolsillo » Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:28 am

UlyssesInvictus wrote:To reiterate before saying anything else, any opinions here are solely my own, and have nothing to do with the Harvard team.

First, to Sam, I do think you're being a little unfair with regard to Neg5. I remember using paper scoresheets for years before Neg5, and there was just a great a chance with paper as with Neg5 that stats would be lost for mechanical reasons: dropped scoresheets, illegible handwriting, or at least once, a scorekeeper just plain forgetting to keep individual stats. For obvious reasons, none of these things can happen with Neg5. I'm also slightly astounded that you just glossed over how much time Neg5 saves: having to input paper scoresheets into SQBS is incremental, but it adds up extremely, and having to finish it all by the time that rebracketing needs to be done means that the TD effectively has no time to deal with other issues. Based on my time TDing, I would use Neg5 every time even if there were a consistent 10% chance that every time I used it, stats would be lost just because of magic. However, the risks are clearly not that high, and though I think there's a slight learning curve to using Neg5, as well as tech bugs to be worked out, I really don't think we should be luddites about its advantages.

I do, nevertheless, agree with you that the QB resource center represents the better chance of lasting a long time. However, that's addressable by converting Neg5 stats to SQBS after the tournament is over, as Jon's done--which, I'll note, is really already very selfless, given that accusations like "unacceptable for hosts not to put in the bare minimum of effort involved in uploading stats" are extremely misrepresentative of how much work TDs already do. Additionally, I can only put my money where my mouth is by re-volunteering my efforts to try and contribute to Neg5 by adding an SQBS export function that will generate HSQB DB useable stats.


I agree that Sam's post failed to take into account the fact that paper scoresheets can also disappear into thin air. However, I really do question how much time you claim Neg5 saves. Unless you are running a very large tournament (let's say 40+), inputting scoresheets should not really take that long. For a 19 team tournament, that's 9 scoresheets a round. By the time the last scoresheet from the last round before rebracketing comes in, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes tops to start the rebracketing process. You're also right that the TD might have a lot of other important issues to deal with. This is precisely why the TD should not be the one doing stats, so that way they can run around and deal with those other pressing issues.

Regarding your other point, yes, it's good that the stats will be put up on the DB from SQBS, but I think you have the wrong mindset if you are thinking that this is going above and beyond. It's not really selfless, it's an expectation from the community and part of the job of hosting a tournament.

And yes, a Neg5 to SQBS export would save a lot of time and be extremely helpful.
Alex Sankaran
West Chester '17-present
Henderson (PA) '12-'16
Monstruos de Bolsillo
Lulu
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:45 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby Benin Rebirth Party » Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:15 pm

Uploading stats to the database after a tournament in a timely manner should be what is expected of hosts.
Joe Su
Lisgar 2012, McGill 2015, McGill 20--

FINALIST -- 2017 ILQBM MEME OF THE YEAR
User avatar
Benin Rebirth Party
Tidus
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Farhaven, Ontario

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby AGoodMan » Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:15 pm

SQBS stats will be up by the end of the weekend. Please bear with me here, as I navigate exams and general unfamiliarity with the program.
Jonathan Suh
Wheaton Warrenville South '16
Harvard '20
User avatar
AGoodMan
Wakka
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:25 pm

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby 1992 in spaceflight » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:11 pm

Until Neg5 stops crashing at tournaments (thanks, PACE NSC 2017!), stop using the program.
Jacob O'Rourke
Washington (MO) HS Assistant Coach (2014-Present); MOQBA Secretary (2015-Present); HSAPQ Host Contact; NASAT Outreach Coordinator (2016 and 2017)
Formerly: Kirksville HS Assistant Coach (2012-2014); Truman State '14; and Pacific High (MO) '10


"And here we are as on a darkling plain, Swept by confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night."
Matthew Arnold, Dover Beach.
User avatar
1992 in spaceflight
Auron
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: St. Louis-area, MO

Re: Stevenson Memorial Tournament (SMT) @ Harvard (3/31/2018

Postby Your Genie Felon, Me » Tue May 01, 2018 9:22 pm

A private discussion forum has been opened for everyone who played an SMT mirror. To join the private forum, go to User Control Panel -> Usergroups -> Select "2018 SMT Discussion" -> Click "Submit". We'd love your input on the set before the last few mirrors in May, so please join the discussion forum if you haven't already! Thank you!
Young Fenimore Lee
Stevenson High School 2017
Stanford 2021
"A small Korean boy with a big heart" - Ali Saeed
youngflee.xyz
User avatar
Your Genie Felon, Me
Wakka
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:33 am
Location: Buffalo Grove, Illinois


Return to Collegiate Announcements & Results

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ThisIsMyUsername and 5 guests