Set Requests

[Huang]

Feel free to shoot me an e-mail so I can send you the set. It may take a few days since I've already received feedback from a few people today.

[Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr.]

I'd like to see the set; my email is mlybollinger@gmail.com .

Thanks.

[... and the chaos of Mexican modernity]

I too would like to see the set commshepn2@yahoo.com

[Ukonvasara]

Me too; strifeheart@gmail.com

[Horned Screamer]

charlie16@gmail.com

[Kenneth Widmerpool]

auronigupta@gmail.com

[jonah]

This should save a bit of trouble. (These are the packets used at Earlybird; I don't know if a more recently-modified copy exists that has been used in tournaments.)

[SirT]

voighta@vcu.edu , please.

[Huang]

This should save a bit of trouble. (These are the packets used at Earlybird; I don't know if a more recently-modified copy exists that has been used in tournaments.)

I have a slightly updated set that fixed a few errors mentioned by Ryan and Tanay, some of which include a few of the ones you mentioned in packet 11.

[Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr.]

I'll preface this critique by offering my thanks to Sandy and his co-writers for creating this set. Clue-ordering and difficulty seem mostly good. The work they put into this set deserves some recognition.

From what I've seen, however, it seems like these questions could use a bit more context and a few less names/titles. Take this question from packet 4:

[10] This English writer wrote The Inheritors, A Sea Trilogy, Pincher Martin, Darkness Visible, and Lord of the Flies.
ANSWER: William Gerald Golding

I don't think you need to list all five of these titles here--maybe take two works and describe what happens in them instead. This lack of context seems to become more problematic in tossups, especially philosophy questions. From packet 6:

9. This philosopher describes how to think clearly in one work, while another work was written to Philipp van Limborch. The former work was written by this philosopher as a complement to a work explaining the benefits of health, virtue, and academia. He describes the mind as a blank slate in one work while another work refutes Robert Filmer’s defense of absolute monarchy. For 10 points, name this English philosopher who wrote Of the Conduct of Understanding, A Letter Concerning Toleration, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, and Two Treatises of Government.
ANSWER: John Locke

A description like "This philosopher describes how to think clearly" won't help many players out, especially since I doubt many players know about Of the Conduct of Understanding, anyway. The clue about Philipp van Limborch is moderately buzzable; a more complete description of Locke's argument would be better, but as it stands it's OK. The next clue, however, applies to a whole lot of people (ANSWER: Dr. Oz); this is another place where a detailed description of Locke's argument could be useful. Pretty much everything after that is uniquely-identifying, but by then we've left power and almost reached the giveaway. In other words, because of these vague descriptions, someone who knows Locke but not the name "Phillip van Limborch" can't buzz until "blank slate," at which point pretty much everyone with any philosophy knowledge is buzzing too. To improve the question, I'd just scrap the parts about Of the Conduct of Understanding and Some Thoughts Concerning Education, since high schoolers are unlikely to know those; instead, I'd find some interesting theory of Locke's on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (or some other reputable source) and make sure to give an accurate, thorough description. Additionally, I'd move some of the titles in front of the giveaway, since A Letter Concerning Toleration is probably less well-known than the theory of the "blank slate." Back loading those titles compounds the vagueness problem of this tossup.

Similarly, try to give better descriptions of plot and historical context in addition to the names of characters and battles. Take the first half of the Alexander the Great tossup in packet 1:

This ruler captured Levant after a seven month Siege of Tyre and had earlier defeated Orontobates at the Battle of Halicarnassus. At Biga Cayi, this ruler defeated Arsames and later captured Punjab from King Porus, while at another battle this ruler killed Bubaces, Atizyes, Reomithres, and Arsames. This ruler won the battles of Granicus, Hydaspes, and Issus.

First of all, lists of names are pretty boring to listen to. Moreover, it's difficult for someone who's interested in Alexander the Great, but who hasn't put in the effort to memorize all those obscure names, to buzz on this tossup. By taking out a couple of these names and replacing them with a better description of the historical importance of the others, you can provide someone interested in history with enough context to see what's going on.

Again, I'd like to thank Sandy for all the work he put into this set. I believe that by taking these critiques into account, however, he can make his work even better.

[Madagascar Serpent Eagle]

Yeah, I did notice that there seemed to be a lot of bonus parts that were along the lines of book from plot and characters/author from random long list of books/other book or character. Also, there were several bonuses along the lines of person/work/what field was this person in? which were rather strange and kind of annoying.

[Alliance in the Alps]

In round 8, Darius the Great was not listed as an acceptable answer line to Darius I. It caused a problem in my room.

Also, for the set in general...I think with RMP it's a good idea to try to balance out each part a little more equally. I forget what the distribution for RMP in this set was, but assuming it's 2/2, don't have two tossups on, say, religion in the same round. Probably not a major thing, but at Ohio State people were complaining about the supposed higher amount of philosophy in the set.

Also, the bonuses were still everywhere in terms of difficulty. I see a large, or at least, significant gap in difficulty between:

16. This politician called the Washington Naval Conference. For 10 points each:
[10] Name this twenty-ninth U.S. president who promised a return to normalcy after defeating James M. Cox in the 1920 presidential election.
ANSWER: Warren Gamaliel Harding
[10] Thomas J. Walsh investigated this American bribery scandal in which oil reserve leases were given to Harry F. Sinclair and Edward L. Doheny thereby resulting in the destruction of the public reputation of Warren G. Harding.
ANSWER: Teapot Dome scandal
[10] The Teapot Dome scandal occurred because of this politician, Warren G. Harding’s first Secretary of the Interior.
ANSWER: Albert Bacon Fall

and

6. This theory’s logical form argues that metaphysical theories are strictly meaningless. For 10 points each:
[10] Name this theory, advocated by philosophers like Rudolf Carnap, that argues that metaphysics and theology are imperfect modes of knowledge compared to its namesake form of knowledge that can be verified by the scientific method.
ANSWER: positivism [prompt on empiricism]
[10] In Cours de Philosophie Positive, this French philosopher explained the principles of positivism.
ANSWER: Auguste Comte
[10] Positivism is studied in this social science, also founded by Auguste Comte, that analyzes how humans interact with each other.
ANSWER: sociology

Also the latter is an example of Joe Nutter's field of study questions. Given the other bonus parts in which they were found in, I can see that they were done to avoid zeros on bonuses, but it kinda makes the bonus look like hard/hard/easy. Lastly, I agree with Matt in that while you did a good job in avoiding title-dropping in the tossups, it was hard for anyone to be able to make out an author from nothing but descriptions until the end of the tossup. The only notable exception to this was the Walt Whitman tossup which had "Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking" in the first sentence.

Also: I wish I could have played so I could have powered the **** out of the Tennessee Volunteers tossup. Neyland stadium is a notable thing though so I don't think it should have been in power, but that's just me. :P

Edit: Fixed a quote

[SoLegit12]

I don't think

population increased, improvements were made in agricultural/industrial methods and a revolution in transportation was spurred by economic growth

is a helpful clue at all for a monarch, considering that is the power

[Horned Screamer]

I looked through packet 1, and as I expected there are some real problems here, but you know what? Almost all of them boiled down to inexperience. The misplaced clues, the excess difficulty, the poor descriptions are all things that basically every writer has done sometime or another. The single best way to fix these things are just to keep writing lots of questions and then keep trying to incorporate external feedback and eventually you hit a groove where you know difficulty and you know where to find good clues and you know how to make clear descriptions. This set isn't there yet but it gets a lot of things right. It's a huge step up from last year and there is no reason to think that Sandy won't continue to improve until he's making really good sets.

With that in mind, then, I will again call out the incredible response from Illinois people. I think Dan Donohue's refusal to privately help Sandy in favor of airing his intense and unwarranted negativity in a public forum so that everyone can see him be mean speaks for itself, but I never got around to Brad Fischer and his appalling Facebook statuses equating the amount of fun to be had playing Sandy Huang's questions with shooting oneself in the head. An adult writing that in a forum where most of the quizbowl community is bound to see it, not to mention one where the high schooler you singled out by name can't even respond directly, is one of the most disgusting things I have seen from people who claim to be on the side of good quizbowl. I find it sad that people are unable to figure out the distinction between adults who are actively hurting quizbowl, and the high schoolers who are clearly the future of quizbowl and can't modulate their behavior accordingly. People will argue about whether people yelling at Chip Beall supporters is right until the cows come home, but I think it's pretty obvious to everyone in quizbowl that if grown men are singling out the most promising writers and players by name in vicious Glenn Beck-style rhetoric then there really couldn't be a faster way to kill quizbowl. I hope your contingent that has made perfect the enemy of the very good can realize why this sort of behavior is out of line before it has real consequences and drives off our brightest young editors and players.

[jonah]

For whatever it's worth, as the person whose quoting by Brad partly(?) inspired Charlie's diatribe, I was not referring only to the set; the absurdity of having four protests in a super-close finals match, regardless of whose error caused said protests, did too, as well as other factors of which Brad was aware that were not relevant to quizbowl.

[Horned Screamer]

Then that makes it even worse for your Illinois clique if both of you are saying this horrible drivel.

[Horned Screamer]

Also, I don't see how the statement "Suicide is bad, kids; Sandy Huang written questions are, too." could really mean much else.

[jonah]

Also, I don't see how the statement "Suicide is bad, kids; Sandy Huang written questions are, too." could really mean much else.

The quote from me was the one about putting the gun in my mouth, and that's the one I was explaining above. It wasn't a good statement to have made; I concede that. The one you just quoted was Brad's, and I don't think it was well said either.

[Alliance in the Alps]

The answer 'Rococo" came up twice in bonuses in different rounds. Was this a mistake?

[in on these shenanigans]

I regret saying what I said. There's no excuse for belittling the hard work that goes into head-editing/writing a set, and there's certainly no excuse for doing anything in the unfortunate manner that I did in that quote. Sandy - I apologize for the unfair judgment I carried out on your work, as well as (more importantly) the remarkable lack of thought I put into that statement.

My statement was made from the position of not having been at the tournament and hearing the set in full, but rather listening to liveblogs from people (including but not limited to Jonah) at UIUC. Liveblogs have a negative selection bias - liveblogs are kneejerk reactions, and we don't laud good questions on a kneejerk reaction at nearly the same way we criticize bad ones. So I've only got the negative aspects of the set processing in my head. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is a problem - and I've said "I'll hold off critique until I see the whole thing" numerous times in the past! - so it was a lamentable lapse of any sort of rational thought that led me to think commenting on my secondhand accounts was a good idea. My mischaracterization of the problems of Jonah's day as the problems of the set was a similar mistake, although obviously not as egregious as my implied analogy.


In an attempt to get something positive out of this fiasco, let me discuss something that's been in my head since that day. UIUC Earlybird was not the first time that DAFT had been played, and Sandy was counting on Princeton to have sent him edits. There is a very rational expectation that, viewing Princeton's tournament as a playtest, feedback could have been given. Sandy was counting on that feedback, and did not get it. This is a very, VERY common occurrence today. The SCOP Novice set had three mirrors prior to its use at NIU, and I found errors/problems while moderating that I was surprised I didn't hear about from those sites. That said, I'm not going to throw any such tournaments under a bus here, because I've been in the same situation myself - when I moderated ACF Novice earlier this year, I promised Andrew Hart feedback that I didn't find time to complete. Compiling feedback requires a large amount of time, and usually, post-tournament time is spent catching up on the things you put aside to prepare for/attend the tournament. The best method of fixing errors and typos is playtesting, and early mirrors provide a ridiculous amount of playtesting for later mirrors. Not tapping this resource is a problem, but the very present obstacle of not having time after a tournament to do this needs to be addressed.

Let this serve as a reminder to experienced moderators, myself included: as you read a match, have a notebook with you to write down the notes you want to see fixed. Between matches/at lunch, type up your notes. Immediately after the tournament, email the document that you now already have written. Even if it doesn't come complete with the after-tournament-full-retrospective view that would be optimal, it's better than nothing, and nothing sucks.

[Huang]

Brad: no problem

People who have posted in this thread: sorry for not getting the new set up on Sunday. I didn't realize how much stuff I had to correct before working on it yesterday. Thanksgiving might be a more reasonable deadline. Before then, please continue posting criticism of the set. And to those who have sent me e-mails, thank you (I have them tagged in my inbox).

[Huang]

Went through the suggestions mentioned in this thread before moving on to the packet-specific ones. Fixed everything except for:

I don't think

population increased, improvements were made in agricultural/industrial methods and a revolution in transportation was spurred by economic growth

is a helpful clue at all for a monarch, considering that is the power

What round and question number is this?

[SoLegit12]

Went through the suggestions mentioned in this thread before moving on to the packet-specific ones. Fixed everything except for:

I don't think

population increased, improvements were made in agricultural/industrial methods and a revolution in transportation was spurred by economic growth

is a helpful clue at all for a monarch, considering that is the power

What round and question number is this?

10 -- tb