2014 PACE NSC Logistics Discussion

Dormant threads from the high school sections are preserved here.
Locked
User avatar
Mike Bentley
Auron
Posts: 5781
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

2014 PACE NSC Logistics Discussion

Post by Mike Bentley » Sun May 25, 2014 10:30 pm

Thanks everyone for attending the 2013-2014 NSC. We'd like to thank all of the teams, coaches, parents and staffers who attended.

If you have any feedback about how the tournament was run, please use this thread to discuss it. Please use the other thread to discuss the content of the questions.

If you'd like to share your feedback over e-mail, feel free to e-mail me at mbentleypace@gmail.com.
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008

User avatar
Quantum Mushroom Billiard Hat
Rikku
Posts: 435
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:16 pm
Location: Midland, MI

Re: 2014 PACE NSC Logistics Discussion

Post by Quantum Mushroom Billiard Hat » Mon May 26, 2014 7:43 pm

From my perspective as a staffer, it seemed like this tournament ran very smoothly for such a large event. I really liked the location, since it was easy to reach the hotel from the airport and there was a lot of food in easy walking distance. If that neighborhood ever gets connected to the subway lines, I think the location would be just about ideal.

It felt a bit weird to have packets distributed in the hallway as teams were moving from room to room, though I don't think it caused any problems. Including scoresheets in the stapled packets (instead of just on top) would also help save some effort and potential for misplaced papers, as well as making it harder for any answer lines to be visible to any teams in the hallway. Those are both very minor points, and I think the organizers did an outstanding job.
Michael Hausinger
Coach, Bay City Western High School
formerly of University of Michigan and East Lansing High School

Reesefulgenzi
Lulu
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:44 pm

Re: 2014 PACE NSC Logistics Discussion

Post by Reesefulgenzi » Mon May 26, 2014 8:19 pm

Everything ran well during the morning, but the delay after lunch caused our last round to finish right around 7 (instead of 6).
Overall, I was very happy with how well the tournament ran!

Reese
Reese Fulgenzi
Loudoun County High School, 2015
University of Virginia, 2019
University of Chicago, 202x

Invisible Rail
Lulu
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 2014 PACE NSC Logistics Discussion

Post by Invisible Rail » Mon May 26, 2014 9:17 pm

Apart from the long break following lunch which pushed back the end time almost an hour, I was really impressed by the smoothness with which the tournament was run. The only comment I have is that one of the rooms we were playing in, I think it was called the "tech foyer", was actually just a hallway with a small divider put up to separate the table of the rest of the hallway - this did cause some noise issues when teams were coming in and out of the nearby tech foyer, but this was overall a really minor complaint among a tournament that was otherwise extremely well-run.

Albemarle had a lot of fun at this tournament, and we were pleasantly surprised by how smoothly things ran, even in the later rounds which seemed logistically more complicated. Great job, and thank you, to all the staffers that made this possible!
Luke H.

Albemarle High School, Virginia
Class of 2016

User avatar
Galstaff, Sorceror of Light
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 2240
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:40 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: 2014 PACE NSC Logistics Discussion

Post by Galstaff, Sorceror of Light » Mon May 26, 2014 9:35 pm

We'd originally planned to have physical control rooms and not to use the converted hallways; Grand Ballroom D was supposed to be 3 rooms, and Regency A and B were each intended as 2. Unfortunately, we discovered that these options were not soundproof, so we moved to the remaining spaces at that point. That will definitely be fixed for next year by adding a few more converted bedrooms.

The delay after lunch was caused by assuming two people could enter 48 scoresheets a round (24 each) much faster than is in fact possible; next year we will have 3 or 4 people entering stats.
Sam (Sarah Angelo) Luongo,
Maggie L. Walker Governor's School 2010 / UVA 2014 / VCU School of Education 2016
President, PACE
Subject Editor, NAQT
Member, ACF

User avatar
Irreligion in Bangladesh
Auron
Posts: 2067
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:18 am
Location: Winnebago, IL

Re: 2014 PACE NSC Logistics Discussion

Post by Irreligion in Bangladesh » Mon May 26, 2014 10:49 pm

The Laughing Cavalier wrote:We'd originally planned to have physical control rooms and not to use the converted hallways; Grand Ballroom D was supposed to be 3 rooms, and Regency A and B were each intended as 2. Unfortunately, we discovered that these options were not soundproof, so we moved to the remaining spaces at that point. That will definitely be fixed for next year by adding a few more converted bedrooms.

The delay after lunch was caused by assuming two people could each enter 48 scoresheets a round much faster than is in fact possible; next year we will have 3 or 4 people entering stats.
Why that few? I'd think you'd want, just for comfort's sake, enough statskeepers to divide it up to 16-20 sheets per round (or fewer if possible). Bouncebacks alone would warrant going with more stats crew than NAQT would run for a similarly sized event.
Brad Fischer
Head Editor, IHSA State Series

Winnebago HS ('06)
Northern Illinois University ('10)
Assistant Coach, IMSA (2010-12)
Coach, Keith Country Day School (2012-16)

User avatar
Galstaff, Sorceror of Light
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 2240
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:40 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: 2014 PACE NSC Logistics Discussion

Post by Galstaff, Sorceror of Light » Mon May 26, 2014 10:59 pm

in on these shenanigans wrote:
The Laughing Cavalier wrote:We'd originally planned to have physical control rooms and not to use the converted hallways; Grand Ballroom D was supposed to be 3 rooms, and Regency A and B were each intended as 2. Unfortunately, we discovered that these options were not soundproof, so we moved to the remaining spaces at that point. That will definitely be fixed for next year by adding a few more converted bedrooms.

The delay after lunch was caused by assuming two people could each enter 48 scoresheets a round much faster than is in fact possible; next year we will have 3 or 4 people entering stats.
Why that few? I'd think you'd want, just for comfort's sake, enough statskeepers to divide it up to 16-20 sheets per round (or fewer if possible). Bouncebacks alone would warrant going with more stats crew than NAQT would run for a similarly sized event.
At least 3-4, that is, with an additional dedicated person or two for performing the bounceback calculations. I don't mean to commit us to an exact number right now; the best way to do this is still under discussion. At this point I just mean to assure people that we've realized we need to add more people to the stats crew and that it will be taken care of.
Sam (Sarah Angelo) Luongo,
Maggie L. Walker Governor's School 2010 / UVA 2014 / VCU School of Education 2016
President, PACE
Subject Editor, NAQT
Member, ACF

User avatar
jonpin
Forums Staff: Moderator
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: BCA NJ / WUSTL MO / Hackensack NJ

Re: 2014 PACE NSC Logistics Discussion

Post by jonpin » Mon May 26, 2014 11:03 pm

in on these shenanigans wrote:
The Laughing Cavalier wrote:We'd originally planned to have physical control rooms and not to use the converted hallways; Grand Ballroom D was supposed to be 3 rooms, and Regency A and B were each intended as 2. Unfortunately, we discovered that these options were not soundproof, so we moved to the remaining spaces at that point. That will definitely be fixed for next year by adding a few more converted bedrooms.

The delay after lunch was caused by assuming two people could each enter 48 scoresheets a round much faster than is in fact possible; next year we will have 3 or 4 people entering stats.
Why that few? I'd think you'd want, just for comfort's sake, enough statskeepers to divide it up to 16-20 sheets per round (or fewer if possible). Bouncebacks alone would warrant going with more stats crew than NAQT would run for a similarly sized event.
Slight correction to what Sarah said above: The two of us had to enter a total of 48 scoresheets; each of us had 24 to enter. With a crew of 3 people on computers (entering 16 games per round) plus a 4th with a pen, plus the TD and ATD (who can in those rare dull moments help with the written calculations), my expectation is things would run a whole lot smoother.
Jon Pinyan
Coach, Bergen County Academies (NJ); former player for BCA (2000-03) and WUSTL (2003-07)
HSQB forum mod, PACE member
Stat director for: NSC '13-'15, '17; ACF '14, '17, '19; NHBB '13-'15; NASAT '11

"A [...] wizard who controls the weather" - Jerry Vinokurov

User avatar
Galstaff, Sorceror of Light
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 2240
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:40 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: 2014 PACE NSC Logistics Discussion

Post by Galstaff, Sorceror of Light » Mon May 26, 2014 11:05 pm

jonpin wrote:
in on these shenanigans wrote:
The Laughing Cavalier wrote:We'd originally planned to have physical control rooms and not to use the converted hallways; Grand Ballroom D was supposed to be 3 rooms, and Regency A and B were each intended as 2. Unfortunately, we discovered that these options were not soundproof, so we moved to the remaining spaces at that point. That will definitely be fixed for next year by adding a few more converted bedrooms.

The delay after lunch was caused by assuming two people could each enter 48 scoresheets a round much faster than is in fact possible; next year we will have 3 or 4 people entering stats.
Why that few? I'd think you'd want, just for comfort's sake, enough statskeepers to divide it up to 16-20 sheets per round (or fewer if possible). Bouncebacks alone would warrant going with more stats crew than NAQT would run for a similarly sized event.
Slight correction to what Sarah said above: The two of us had to enter a total of 48 scoresheets; each of us had 24 to enter. With a crew of 3 people on computers (entering 16 games per round) plus a 4th with a pen, plus the TD and ATD (who can in those rare dull moments help with the written calculations), my expectation is things would run a whole lot smoother.
This is why Jon handles the numbers...apologies for any confusion.
Sam (Sarah Angelo) Luongo,
Maggie L. Walker Governor's School 2010 / UVA 2014 / VCU School of Education 2016
President, PACE
Subject Editor, NAQT
Member, ACF

User avatar
heterodyne
Rikku
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:47 am

Re: 2014 PACE NSC Logistics Discussion

Post by heterodyne » Mon May 26, 2014 11:10 pm

The Laughing Cavalier wrote:
The delay after lunch was caused by assuming two people could enter 48 scoresheets a round (24 each) much faster than is in fact possible; next year we will have 3 or 4 people entering stats.
Our team at least was not bothered by the delay. We had time to go get kebabs and play a bit of Imaginary Landscape, and it didn't lead to a ridiculous finish time, especially since we didn't have far to go.
Alston [Montgomery] Boyd
Bloomington High School '15
UChicago '19
UChicago Divinity '21
he/him/his or they/them/their

User avatar
the return of AHAN
Auron
Posts: 1910
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: 2014 PACE NSC Logistics Discussion

Post by the return of AHAN » Mon May 26, 2014 11:44 pm

in on these shenanigans wrote:
The Laughing Cavalier wrote:We'd originally planned to have physical control rooms and not to use the converted hallways; Grand Ballroom D was supposed to be 3 rooms, and Regency A and B were each intended as 2. Unfortunately, we discovered that these options were not soundproof, so we moved to the remaining spaces at that point. That will definitely be fixed for next year by adding a few more converted bedrooms.

The delay after lunch was caused by assuming two people could each enter 48 scoresheets a round much faster than is in fact possible; next year we will have 3 or 4 people entering stats.
Why that few? I'd think you'd want, just for comfort's sake, enough statskeepers to divide it up to 16-20 sheets per round (or fewer if possible). Bouncebacks alone would warrant going with more stats crew than NAQT would run for a similarly sized event.
I ran a 52-team middle school tournament with bouncebacks this year and employed 3 statisticians.
Jeff Price, Barrington Station Middle School Coach (2013 MSNCT Champions, 2013 & 2017 Illinois Class AA State Champions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Locked