Reviving some HSNCT discussion

[Stained Diviner]

You're right, Lee. It looks like athletes were consistently 1/0 or 0/1. I remembered remarking to my team after a few rounds that I was surprised sports had come up so little. It was because we didn't get to a bonus or two that were late in the packet and missed Bettis due to a bye.

[killbill_07]

I noticed that the difficulty of the NAQT HSNCT question sets seem to have been dropping over the last couple of year or that the question distribution has shifted at the very least. My basis for this belief was our team's experience when we were playing exhibition matches the night before this year's HSNCT and the questions appeared to be dramatically harder than the ones that we encountered the following day. We encountered Ethelred the Unready, Devil's Advocate, the Alhambra Decree, the Hellspont, etc. in our exhibition set and these types of tough history/religion/mythology questions seem to have virtually disappeared from the distribution at the HSNCT's over the past 2 years and have been instead replaced with an overdose of obscure current events topics(King David hotel?), lame pop culture(AJ and Aly?), and watered down biology/science(Emperor Penguin?).

[Gonzagapuma1]

I would completely disagree with that statement. There never would have been a question on Soyinka a few years ago and in 2006 and 07 nats there were plenty of hard questions. Also, those old questions were much shorter and were worse in quality than more recent nationals.

[Sir Thopas]

obscure current events topics(King David hotel?)

What the hell. Thanks for letting me know; from now on any questions I write about World War II will be filed under "current events".

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

FYI the King David hotel bombing is definitely important in, like, the creation of Israel. At least I heard a rumour that Israel's kinda important right now, I dunno. Although this backs up my point more that Israel got some big distribution because I forgot about this tossup.

[pray for elves]

obscure current events topics(King David hotel?).

You obviously didn't grasp the question. This bombing happened 61 years ago, and the hotel was the headquarters for the British authority in the Mandate. It's the equivalent of asking about the Boston Tea Party, so yeah, Chuq's right that it's important.

[Matt Weiner]

watered down biology/science(Emperor Penguin?).

What is it with NAQT and fake science questions on penguins, anyway?

[Matthew D]

Someone must have been watching March of the Penguins and gotten an idea..

[Stat Boy]

What is it with NAQT and fake science questions on penguins, anyway?

Or fake science questions on elephants, polar bears, humpback whales, and mongeese, for that matter?

[Bigfoot isn't the pr]

one was a popular genre of literature

Dude, that's trash!

I'm not defending the academic validity of Harry Potter. I am simply saying that under the system that NAQT uses to categorize questions Harry Potter could easily fall into the "Popular Genres" category, as would stuff like Tom Clancy or Stephen King.

About animals. Zoology is a science. Of course there are other elements to Zoology than simply identifying species. Though I enjoy these questions, I do admit that they were very common at nationals

[DumbJaques]

I'm not defending the academic validity of Harry Potter. I am simply saying that under the system that NAQT uses to categorize questions Harry Potter could easily fall into the "Popular Genres" category, as would stuff like Tom Clancy or Stephen King.

About animals. Zoology is a science. Of course there are other elements to Zoology than simply identifying species. Though I enjoy these questions, I do admit that they were very common at nationals

It makes little difference to the person playing the set how the question writer classifies tossups. Questions on Harry Potter or Tom Clancy or whatever are trash, and are even more egregious if they're counted as the literature distribution.

Also, those questions weren't really zoological. I powered the humpback whale question because when I was in kindgergarten we read about Humphrey the Humbpack swimming into San Francisco Bay during story time. I'd say if I power a question based on kindergarten knowledge it probably shouldn't be in the science distribution.

[Matthew D]

or at the least the power mark was misplaced..

[The Atom Strikes!]

I second whoever said that more mythology/religion was needed. There was very little of it at Nats.

[First Chairman]

I second whoever said that more mythology/religion was needed. There was very little of it at Nats.

Next time, prepare for PACE Nationals.

[Mike Bentley]

I'm not defending the academic validity of Harry Potter. I am simply saying that under the system that NAQT uses to categorize questions Harry Potter could easily fall into the "Popular Genres" category, as would stuff like Tom Clancy or Stephen King.

About animals. Zoology is a science. Of course there are other elements to Zoology than simply identifying species. Though I enjoy these questions, I do admit that they were very common at nationals

It makes little difference to the person playing the set how the question writer classifies tossups. Questions on Harry Potter or Tom Clancy or whatever are trash, and are even more egregious if they're counted as the literature distribution.

Also, those questions weren't really zoological. I powered the humpback whale question because when I was in kindgergarten we read about Humphrey the Humbpack swimming into San Francisco Bay during story time. I'd say if I power a question based on kindergarten knowledge it probably shouldn't be in the science distribution.

To be fair, I think they wanted you to power that based on whether you paid attention to that recent story of the attempt to drive the humbpack whale out of San Francisco Bay with all sorts of dumb ideas. They kept repeating it every 30 minutes when I was forced to watch Headline News while waiting for my plane to Chicago.

But yeah, that's still an example of NAQT's somewhat annoying "expand categories that already have too much distribution into other areas". For example, see tossups at Sectionals on the geography of Naboo and the political leaders of Naboo. If some zebra escapes from a zoo next spring, I'd put a lot of money on the 2008 HSNCT having a zoology tossup on Zebras that mentions them escaping from zoos rather early.

[grapesmoker]

To be fair, I think they wanted you to power that based on whether you paid attention to that recent story of the attempt to drive the humbpack whale out of San Francisco Bay with all sorts of dumb ideas. They kept repeating it every 30 minutes when I was forced to watch Headline News while waiting for my plane to Chicago.

Why would anyone not from San Francisco be paying attention to this story?

[Mike Bentley]

To be fair, I think they wanted you to power that based on whether you paid attention to that recent story of the attempt to drive the humbpack whale out of San Francisco Bay with all sorts of dumb ideas. They kept repeating it every 30 minutes when I was forced to watch Headline News while waiting for my plane to Chicago.

Why would anyone not from San Francisco be paying attention to this story?

Why does Headline News need to scare me every 30 minutes about POT HOUSES INVADING MY WHITE SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD? Because apparently Americans care about this crap, or at least the small subset that watch cable "news".

By the way, in case it wasn't clear: I do not support that whale tossup. Pot Houses, though...

[grapesmoker]

Why does Headline News need to scare me every 30 minutes about POT HOUSES INVADING MY WHITE SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD? Because apparently Americans care about this crap, or at least the small subset that watch cable "news".

By the way, in case it wasn't clear: I do not support that whale tossup. Pot Houses, though...

I'd like to think that quizbowl should aim for a somewhat higher standard of relevance than so-called cable news.

[Matthew D]

Well it has been hard in the past to get the kids to listen on NPR's All Things Considered

[Captain Sinico]

I'd like to think that quizbowl should aim for a somewhat higher standard of relevance than so-called cable news.

That seems a good principle for me but, unfortunately, some disagree... However, that odd whale story got mentioned other places; for example, BBC World Service had nightly updates on those dumb bastards and the various Rube Goldberg means used to scare them away.
A deeper issue, though, is that current events: whales does not a sound science tossup make, and that generalizes to whatever you want to talk about. That's hardly a new issue to NAQT, though, and I think it's gotten systematically better, if slowly, over time.

MaS

[grapesmoker]

I'd like to think that quizbowl should aim for a somewhat higher standard of relevance than so-called cable news.

That seems a good principle for me but, unfortunately, some disagree... However, that odd whale story got mentioned other places; for example, BBC World Service had nightly updates on those dumb bastards and the various Rube Goldberg means used to scare them away.
A deeper issue, though, is that current events: whales does not a sound science tossup make, and that generalizes to whatever you want to talk about. That's hardly a new issue to NAQT, though, and I think it's gotten systematically better, if slowly, over time.

Of course, current events:wales is not a good science tossup. But I think it's also a terrible current events tossup (generously assuming that this is what it was). It's a total non-story. Back at Berkeley, we had a term for this: we called it a "baby-in-the-well question" for obvious reasons. There are things even in current events which are unquestionably more relevant than whales in the San Francisco bay or whatever that story was about. It's not like there's a shortage of important stuff happening all over the world; almost any area is bound to be experiencing something of greater significance than chasing away whales.

[theattachment]

Okay, I know, beating a dead horse, but with the trash bashing that this thread devolved into earlier on, I just wanted to scream.

As a trash specialist (seriously, it's about all that I can do, but I do it very well) I can agree to a point that some of the time, NAQT overdoes and incorrectly does trash. That said, cool it. If your team thinks they can't prepare for trash, tell them to watch MTV, read Rolling Stone, and, on occasion, ask their younger siblings what's on the Disney Channel. It's not very hard. Could the trash be more relevant than Aly and AJ? Sure, but keep in mind that the trash distribution can't be totally perfect, especially if Akon and Wolfmother show up in prior tournaments. As I say, knowledge of Stravinsky is important, but also remember that on modern culture his Rites of Spring aren't even the most influential. That goes to the DC emo band from the late '80s.

As for current events (which I also specialize in), I think it's more important to know those than obscure OChem or minute plot details of Mansfield Park. This doesn't mean knowing Lisa Nowak. It means knowing the reason Hugo Chavez wants to isolate himself from the United States and the basic points of Middle East diplomacy. If NAQT suffers in trash most, it's that their idea of current events is more pop culture than news, which may be a societal problem. That's a different discussion...

Here's the major thing: Trash is a good equalizer. A great team is one that is able to balance their academic knowledge (which is necessary to understand culture and life through and through) with the sprinkling of stuff that anyone who pokes their head out of a book would likely hear. Quiz bowl gives kids like me a great excuse to live out of a history or physics textbook. This can't be. What trash exemplifies is that to be above average, you need the above (i.e. the academic only questions) and the average (i.e. "trash"). Your team isn't good if they complain that trash kills them.

Colin O'Donnell

[BuzzerZen]

=Trash is a good equalizer.

You know what're also good equalizers? Hoses and buzzer races. The point of a quiz bowl match is the exact opposite of "equalizing." It's to determine which of two teams is better. In fact, as I have argued elsewhere, by its very nature, trash questions in academic formats tend to unbalance the game, since the reasonable answer space, especially in NAQT, is pretty much unlimited. Even if a team did attempt to "study" pop culture in the ways that you mentioned, you can get a question on something like the V-smile (see: HSNCT 2006). Having a trash distribution opens the door to people writing FUNN questions on things like the V-smile or Cap'n Crunch or whatever indie band they just got into or the 4chan (the bad website) meme of the week. This is a bad thing. So, yes, trash can be a legitimately fun part of the distribution that people care about, but it's not an "equalizer." And it shouldn't be FUNN.

[Sir Thopas]

While I don't agree that trash should be excised entirely from the HS canon, I do think it should not be let run rampant, and that attitudes about trash's place need to be changed. Right now, it's seen as, like Colin said, an equalizer, something that, I agree with Evan, is not good. In the mentality, it's something worse teams know and the best teams will invariably have as a gap.* On the whole, I think this is a problem, because it really sort of perpetuates the stereotype that people who know stuff ("nerds") don't have lives or knowledge relevant to "the real world" (of high school, at least). While I doubt anyone actually in the upper echelons of quizbowl is trying to perpetuate this,† it is entirely possible that some inherent bias still persists, and I guess the inclusion of trash as a clutch would facilitate this.


*After we went out on Sunday, we decided to play a couple of consolation matches. In the latter of the two, I had kind of lost it by that point, and was negging on like every single question, such that the score was 30-30 or something like that (the team we were playing went something like 3-7 on Saturday) fairly well on in the game. Up next was the question on Guitar Hero, which Charlie Dees has discussed, with some vitriol, perhaps, already. Our moderator, in all likelihood just trying to be kind and encouraging, said, "Oh, here's one you'll know." I was offended that, as a "bad" quizbowl player, I was expected to know only trash, or perhaps that that notion is so ingrained that I was simply perceived to be called a "bad" quizbowl player and patronized like that.
†Coincidentally, the aforementioned match was in the same room as our previous one was, and our opponents that game had acted like they would much rather have been touring Chicago. I played well that game, but when we sat down at the table they had played from, I found out that they (well, at least 2 of them) had been passing notes, to the effect of "That's OK, at least we have a life." Not only is this a total low (and cheap) blow, but clearly work still needs to be done about the image of good quizbowlers, or maybe just knowledgeable people, or whatever, on the whole.

[Bigfoot isn't the pr]

As both an Academic and TRASH player I would like to see more questions with answers like "Citizen Kane" or "The Beatles" or (Heaven forbid) "Micheal Jackson". I feel that trash should have the same conversion rate as other topics and at the lower levels I feel it does but when you get up to higher levels (Nationals for instance) I think that rate drops considerably.

The problem with the trash questions at nationals this year was that they were too trashy. Jared Leto and Ally and AJ would fly in a TRASH packet but should not be in a NAQT packet. One of my favorite pop-culture questions I heard this year was about Raiders of the Lost Ark. Its a well known movie, I'll go as far as saying that most AB players have seen it, the question was structured in a way that someone who knew pop-culture would be able to get it early and that someone who did not would probably be able to get it at the end. We need more of those. I think a good place to start would be that list of movies that Congress deemed "culturally significant". For the most part they are well known and most people would be able to identify with them. Stuff like that should be questions not whatever-the-movie-was-with-Tom Cruise-in-the-taxi.

Mind you, easier answers do not make easier questions. I am sure a nationals level question about Raiders of the Lost Ark could be written. I would much rather see stuff like Citizen Kane, Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Apocalypse Now show up in the pop-culture distribution that Ally and AJ or Jared Leto*.

Perhaps my train of thought was derailed. Its late.


*I am picking on those questions because they came up during two very crucial matches my team had against high-caliber teams. I feel we lost to RM A (or maybe it was State College A) because a question about Jared Leto was asked, compared to a question more appropriate. But pop-culture is a harsh mistress and I accept it. I am not complaining about the existence of trash, but the quality of that question. But my teammates that were in didn't know Caber toss so perhaps we deserved to loose

[The Atom Strikes!]

One of the things that I noticed at Nationals was that the distribution of questions, while balanced across the entire tournament, was not balanced within each packet. I must wonder "how hard can this be?" I doubt that it would be incredibly difficult for NAQT to create packets that are balanced according to their tournament distribution. We really should not hear 4 trash questions or 2 pre-Socratic philosophy questions in one packet.

[STPickrell]

I would perhaps ask that teams seek to expunge 'current' pop culture from the canon, and include 'classic' pop culture from 1989 and before.

I see no reason to exclude figures such as Elvis Presley, Hank Aaron, Lucille Ball, and Superman (all of whom are remembered today and are likely to be remembered 100 years from now) simply out of a distaste for questions on the V-Smile, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, etc.

Other figures, such as Edith Piaf and Ingmar Bergmann fall squarely on the line between fine arts and trash -- the only 'trashiness' they possess is in their comparative recentness.

[DumbJaques]

Your team isn't good if they complain that trash kills them.

MAGGIE WALKER 07: WORST TEAM IN QUIZBOWL HISTORY!

[TheCzarMan]

Personally, as both an Academic and (from most accounts) great Trash player, the trash in tournaments us usually only answerable if you're a huge Pop Culture savant (Such as me) or immerse yourself into the internet (Me again). I remember in a tournament where the answer was Bullitt and only me and the moderator had ever seen the movie. Personally, I see it as ignorance on players parts for not enjoying Steve McQueen

But I can see how that is obscure to most.

[leapfrog314]

All this talk about trash (trash talk, perhaps?) is bringing back fond memories of 2006 HSNCT, where the first tossup was on (censored) Snakes on a (censored) Plane.

[theattachment]

Your team isn't good if they complain that trash kills them.

MAGGIE WALKER 07: WORST TEAM IN QUIZBOWL HISTORY!

In response to people misconstruing my statements...

SHUT UP!

Honestly, has Maggie Walker ever had a reason to complain? Trash causes their PPG to go down by 20. When they're ahead by 400, it doesn't matter. Trash doesn't kill a team like Maggie Walker.

The point of my statement was to tell people that trash should be something you embrace. I love it in recruitment packets (aka when I'm doing packets with friends of mine not in QB) when they murder on the Wolfmother questions because it shows them that QB isn't as impossible as it seems. However, it appears some in the rank and file think that all QB should be too far elite for the unwashed masses. Until people like Hentzel start thinking that, you're stuck with it, and until you start writing the trash for NAQT to improve the lacking quality of it (writing-wise, topic-wise, etc.) you may want to just suck it up and go to IMDB, allmusic, Billboard, or Pitchfork.

[theMoMA]

The legitimacy of trash aside, I don't think the it-exists-now-therefore-it-should-don't-question-it argument is acceptable.

[Bigfoot isn't the pr]

I would like your opinions on the survey they passed out at nationals regarding what kind of trash players are actually interested in.

[DumbJaques]

In response to people misconstruing my statements...

SHUT UP!

Honestly, has Maggie Walker ever had a reason to complain? Trash causes their PPG to go down by 20. When they're ahead by 400, it doesn't matter. Trash doesn't kill a team like Maggie Walker.

The point of my statement was to tell people that trash should be something you embrace. I love it in recruitment packets (aka when I'm doing packets with friends of mine not in QB) when they murder on the Wolfmother questions because it shows them that QB isn't as impossible as it seems. However, it appears some in the rank and file think that all QB should be too far elite for the unwashed masses. Until people like Hentzel start thinking that, you're stuck with it, and until you start writing the trash for NAQT to improve the lacking quality of it (writing-wise, topic-wise, etc.) you may want to just suck it up and go to IMDB, allmusic, Billboard, or Pitchfork.

Nobody is misconstruing your statements, they just don't make sense. Also, this board requires you to use reason in your arguments instead of shouting "shut up" like a preschooler.

I don't think that anyone really complains that "trash kills them." But, as Evan pointed out, this is a competition and things that are the "great equalizer" are bad in competitions. Your arguments so far have been laughable and, from what I can tell, have approximately consisted of:

1) Trash is good because it makes the competition's ability to measure team skill less viable.
2) Trash somehow forces good teams to work hard to beat mediocre teams (see absurd Depauw v. UChicago argument). As if those teams don't put in significant amounts of work anyway.
3) Trash is "good" because it rewards the action of "just poking your head out of a book" over actual knowledge and research.
4) Quizbowlers are a bunch of, in the words of the immortal D. Rollins, a bunch of pasty white skolnicks whose sole chance at social salvation is trash.
5) Trash distributions should exist heavily in mainstream packets meant to decide the best team at an academic tournament because they can be used several years later to slightly improve recruiting, despite the existence of countless packets that are pure trash and are available to anyone with an internet connection.

Your arguments don't have to be misconstrued, they don't make any sense as it is. Also, the whole "quizbowlers have no lives" thing is retarded and irrelevant (not to mention largely inaccurate). Equating people who say "why the hell does this tournament have a giant trash distribution with answers like Aly and AJ and Jared fucking Leto" with elitists who want quizbowl to "oppress" the "masses" or whatever the hell you were trying to say is ridiculous. Seriously, what does that even mean? Last time I checked the only place knowledge that's necessary for quizbowl was concealed from anyone is in books and on the internet. Sadly, I do think people who can't use either of those things probably shouldn't be rewarded over those who can in an academic competition. But that's just me.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

Honestly, has Maggie Walker ever had a reason to complain? Trash causes their PPG to go down by 20. When they're ahead by 400, it doesn't matter. Trash doesn't kill a team like Maggie Walker.

directly conflicts with-

A great team is one that is able to balance their academic knowledge (which is necessary to understand culture and life through and through) with the sprinkling of stuff that anyone who pokes their head out of a book would likely hear. Quiz bowl gives kids like me a great excuse to live out of a history or physics textbook. This can't be. What trash exemplifies is that to be above average, you need the above (i.e. the academic only questions) and the average (i.e. "trash").

I'm just sayin...
And don't yell "SHUT UP" to me, it just makes your argument even weaker and shall incur my wrath.

[theMoMA]

Trash is good because it's fun and because people should actually know things outside of academic fields and be rewarded for that knowledge. I don't think you'll find too many people opposed to those premises. In fact, most really good academic players that I know will play trash tournaments even if their PPG is divided by ten by doing so.

So I don't think anyone is arguing that trash sucks. But there is a legitimate concern that trash comprises too much of the NAQT distribution. This is legit because trash is different from academic both in the fact that trash has no canon, and that the overlap between academic skill (which quizbowl purports to test for) and trash skill is not perfect by any means.

Now that we have some understanding, I hope...carry on.

[naturalistic phallacy]

Quiz bowl gives kids like me a great excuse to live out of a history or physics textbook. This can't be. What trash exemplifies is that to be above average, you need the above (i.e. the academic only questions) and the average (i.e. "trash"). Your team isn't good if they complain that trash kills them.
Colin O'Donnell

I am surprised that you call your expertise "average", for it does take just as much desire and memorization effort to learn all of the pre-Socratic philosophers as is does to learn 1980's punk rock bands. The latter is indubitably trash, the former academic, but that doesn't lessen the knowledge to average. Average would be something along the lines of knowing who the President is or who is the lead singer of U2 by being asked a straight questions. Trash takes just as much effort for some as academia.

That being said, it has been an abused category by NAQT the past year, with a large number of questions involving it. Trash, unless otherwise designated, should be kept to a minimum, just as any other category outside of the big three.

[Bigfoot isn't the pr]

That being said, it has been an abused category by NAQT the past year, with a large number of questions involving it. Trash, unless otherwise designated, should be kept to a minimum, just as any other category outside of the big three.

I agree. I wouldn't want pre-Socratic philosophers poking their butts into my Nina-Pirate-Zombie-Robot themed trash packets.