Moderator Speed (from Panasonic Thread)

[Auroni]

Questions can be read quickly and still with great clarity -- case in point, ZOT bowl was able to cover each round in under 30 minutes, and these were 20 ACF-style questions.

[ClemsonQB]

How many readers were needed at ZOT? Two? Almost anyone can find two competent readers.

[First Chairman]

So, a good moderator can be summarized in the following quotes:

"Be quick, but don't hurry." - John Wooden
"Speak clearly, if you speak at all; carve every word before you let it fall." - Oliver Wendell Holmes
"Know how quiz bowl works, have some understanding of basic rules of pronunciation, and for God's sake, be able to adjust to typos because those are always going to happen." - Fred Morlan

My quote is from Rush Hour:
Do you speaka any English? DO-YOU-UNDERSTAND-THE-WORDS-THAT-ARE-COMING-OUT-OF-MY-MOUTH?

[jrbarry]

Personally I cannot stand readers who read fast, faster than they normally speak. That is one of my major objections to NAQT Nationals. Timed matches encourage people to rush which is problematic to me.

The comments in this thread about cutting down on extraneous comments between questions are excellent ones.

[Sir Thopas]

Personally I cannot stand readers who read fast, faster than they normally speak. That is one of my major objections to NAQT Nationals. Timed matches encourage people to rush which is problematic to me.

What's wrong with speeding up somewhat? If they're perfectly intelligible, it's good to keep the game and tournament moving along.

[Ben Dillon]

What's wrong with speeding up somewhat? If they're perfectly intelligible, it's good to keep the game and tournament moving along.

Keeping the game moving along is definitely within the moderator's control by not veering off the subject; speeding up does help with that but isn't a necessity. Keeping the tournament moving along is largely not within the moderator's control; after all, the game is timed to end.

Here's a new direction for discussion: What if the game were to end EITHER when time expired at 18 minutes or when a 18-tossup limit was reached, whichever was first? Perhaps extend this to be n tossups or n minutes? I think most coaches and players would believe that covering one tossup plus bonuses per minute wouldn't be objectionable. This would also set a standard for moderators, as the best readers out there can get through 18 tossups in less time. There wouldn't be a movement by players and coaches to complain about not getting enough PPG except when the readers were substandard.

(To some extent this is already in effect because NAQT sets have 24 questions, but the only time I've ever had a reader run out of questions was in a match when the reader was too fast for the players AND several tossups went dead.)

Not advocating this, just spitballing it :)

[Matt Weiner]

Here's a new direction for discussion: What if the game were to end EITHER when time expired at 18 minutes or when a 18-tossup limit was reached, whichever was first?

Why would you want to end the game on 18 tossups if you have a moderator who can get through more in the allotted time?

[Sir Thopas]

(To some extent this is already in effect because NAQT sets have 24 questions, but the only time I've ever had a reader run out of questions was in a match when the reader was too fast for the players AND several tossups went dead.)

Dude, the later rounds in HSNCT often get through all 26 in 18 minutes, and Hentzel as a reader is nowhere near too fast.

[The Time Keeper]

Here's a new direction for discussion: What if the game were to end EITHER when time expired at 18 minutes or when a 18-tossup limit was reached, whichever was first?

Why would you want to end the game on 18 tossups if you have a moderator who can get through more in the allotted time?

Obligatory and unnecessary "Why shouldn't every game end on 20 tossups?!" question.

[Ben Dillon]

I picked 18, but feel free to substitute another number of questions as the limit. And of course the reason the later rounds get through all 26 is that the players power more.

Combine Matt's question with metsfan's answer: Why end on 26 tossups if Hentzel can get through more than 26?

This is the way the NAQT game is now. The game ends early if the reader gets through all the tossups before the time limit expires. I was just picking a lower number than 26; I've got no problem with 26 other than to point out that some readers who can't speed up without losing comprehensibility try to anyway because there seems to be a culture of "must get to 26 to establish my bona fides as a reader".

What we're discussing is a compromise (or is it a battle?) between two different camps: fixed-interval (time limit) and fixed-ratio (question limit). Most tournaments demand the former in order to run on time; most players want the latter in order to get more play.

Try another question: What if the game were to end EITHER when time expired at 18 minutes or when a 18-tossup limit was reached, whichever was last? In other words, if you haven't gotten through 18 tossups by the time expired, you keep going until you've reached it. That certainly would expose the slow readers, who would find out rather rapidly just how much they were slowing down a tournament.

[dtaylor4]

The problem is, the slow readers are already exposed via low TU/round rates.

I see it as a battle, and I side with the ACF standard: 20/20, standard distribution per round, not per tournament. The fewer opportunities for gamesmanship, the better.

[Matt Weiner]

Try another question: What if the game were to end EITHER when time expired at 18 minutes or when a 18-tossup limit was reached, whichever was last? In other words, if you haven't gotten through 18 tossups by the time expired, you keep going until you've reached it. That certainly would expose the slow readers, who would find out rather rapidly just how much they were slowing down a tournament.

Yeah, this makes a lot more sense than handicapping the quicker readers. It might make more sense to set the number at 20 or 22 rather than 18, though.

[Ben Dillon]

It might make more sense to set the number at 20 or 22 rather than 18, though.

It could be variable by type of tourney. For regular tournaments, the number could be 18. For tournaments that are state championships/qualifiers, the number could be 20. And for nationals, make it 22. (And for each of these, make them the minimum number. If the TD wants to have 22 for a qualifier, their choice.)

[Ben Dillon]

The problem is, the slow readers are already exposed via low TU/round rates.

Not in an untimed tourney with, say 20 tossups. Unless a particular room is always the slow one, a TD can't tell whether the game is slow because of the reader skill or the player skill.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

20 should be the aim for every tournament. Not 18, no matter what kind it is.

[Matt Weiner]

Well, there's no reason necessarily that 20 is the standard. Given that NAQT HSNCT packets have 26 tossups, and they are shorter, I'd prefer their minimum be 22. That way, you still have questions left over for a tiebreaker if needed, and you get a little more shot at hearing more academic content.

[First Chairman]

I'm guessing 20 is the standard because that's the standard ACF number of tossups.

Does Hentzel and most of the NAQT readers kill every packet of 26/26 at HSNCT? Personally I would like the championship playoffs and meaningful games leading up to championship to have more questions in the packet (30/30 or 32/32). Otherwise, I would think ending a game because you ran out of tossups rather than ran out of time is like ending a game of Monopoly because you ran out of money.

[Down and out in Quintana Roo]

How could you possible get through 30 or even 32 questions in that amount of time? Read faster? It's already about as fast as i can possibly understand a human speak clearly.

[Sir Thopas]

I'm guessing 20 is the standard because that's the standard ACF number of tossups.

Does Hentzel and most of the NAQT readers kill every packet of 26/26 at HSNCT? Personally I would like the championship playoffs and meaningful games leading up to championship to have more questions in the packet (30/30 or 32/32). Otherwise, I would think ending a game because you ran out of tossups rather than ran out of time is like ending a game of Monopoly because you ran out of money.

Well, from my experience at least, the clock runs out on the 26th cycle. I'd rather see them put more effort into the other questions in the packet/set than to write a few extra.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

I'd rather see them put more effort into the other questions in the packet/set than to write a few extra.

That.

[Captain Sinico]

How could you possible get through 30 or even 32 questions in that amount of time? Read faster? It's already about as fast as i can possibly understand a human speak clearly.

Yeah, there are certainly very few people who could get through that many questions in 18 minutes. Maybe if they're all destroyed in the lead-in (which might be indicative of a problem with the questions, I'd say.)
Also, I don't think it's fair (from a gameplay standpoint) to change the number of questions in certain rounds. The rules should be consistent from round to round.

MaS

[Mechanical Beasts]

Also, I don't think it's fair (from a gameplay standpoint) to change the number of questions in certain rounds. The rules should be consistent from round to round.

MaS

I agree. Just on a very basic level, too, if we think that the teams need to play 30 questions to best determine a match in the finals, then we should put as much care into making all the other rounds as well-determined as possible, too--you can have a ten thousand question final and it doesn't mean a thing if the prelims were coin tosses. Find the number of questions that is enough to produce good results, and use it for each game.

If packets have six fewer questions because they're each a line and a half longer and more pyramidal, I consider that a victory--they'll probably distinguish properly more often, not less.

[vcuEvan]

I'm guessing 20 is the standard because that's the standard ACF number of tossups.

Does Hentzel and most of the NAQT readers kill every packet of 26/26 at HSNCT? Personally I would like the championship playoffs and meaningful games leading up to championship to have more questions in the packet (30/30 or 32/32). Otherwise, I would think ending a game because you ran out of tossups rather than ran out of time is like ending a game of Monopoly because you ran out of money.

BOARD GAME ANALOGY ITT

Actually though I think using a timer simply to show readers how slow they're going is a poor reason to go to the trouble to get timers. I prefer a fixed question limit.