The Quizbowl Resource Center

So I've been thinking about this since that A-set thread back in December, but I haven't had the chance to post about it. A number of people are dissatisfied with A-sets in that they don't seem to really be significantly less difficult than IS sets and would prefer to see something like HAVOC happen in the fall to better suit that audience or at least provide another option. HAVOC was a spring tournament last year and is again this year only because its existence was decided upon after GSAC. I've toyed with the idea of moving HAVOC to early in the season, but GSAC's long-standing December date would have to get pushed back and I'm not sure I like that idea.

So, my thought became, why not see if there's interest in running a fall high school novice tournament as a collaboration with a number of different people? With enough people, I could run a site of it at MLWGS and still get GSAC done for December. I'd love to see this happen either in September or the first weekend of October or so and be mirrored in lots of places, with contributors having priority in hosting, obviously.

If you're interested, let me know. An appropriate distribution needs to be decided upon and editors need to be found. I personally have experience editing everything but math and science, but since I'll be editing for GSAC as well, I'd rather not be editing 2/3rds of this. If enough people are interested, we can the workload down to under a packet a person, which would be awesome.

If you're interested in contributing or hosting should no one else from your area help write, let's hear it. Also, if you have thoughts on a distribution or even a name for this, that would be good too. Consider your prior commitments carefully; if you're only going to be able to write if enough people are interested to make the workload rather small, please make that known. If this does end up happening in the fall, HAVOC III will remain a spring tournament.

Thoughts?

Interested people:
myself (writing, editing, hosting at Gov)
Charlie Dees (supervising)
Nick Petrili (writing, hosting)
Jonah Greenthal (writing)
Charlie Rosenthal (writing)
Andy Watkins (supervising science)
Gaurav Kandlikar + Neil (writing, hosting at Eden Prairie)
Gautam Kandlikar (supervising)
George Berry (writing)
Sandy Huang (writing)
Cameron Orth (writing, editing science or music, maybe hosting)
Doug Graebner (writing)
Donald Taylor (supervising)
William Horton (writing)
Gazi Rashid (writing)
Mr. Riley (hosting in IL)
Chuhern Hwang (writing)
George Stevens (editing history)
Zhao Zhang (co-editing science)
Ian Eppler (writing?)

We're now over 12 writers. Any more people who want to work on this are awesome, since that will continue to shrink the workload.

I actually think HAVOC in the spring is perfectly fine where it is, although it might do some good to move it up a month or so to allow more mirroring. WHat I would like to see though is someone besides Maggie Walker produce another of these types of sets. I think it would be pretty ideal if there were one of these JV sets for people to use in the fall and one in the spring, and we shouldn't have to expect one school to be the only person setting this up. It would be a pretty ideal opportunity for a current high school team to shore up their knowledge, and I would like to make an all call about this to try and get some other relatively experienced team try to craft the fall version. I will say though more than just a couple JV tournaments per year probably is getting excessive, but having 2 a year could be a real positive thing.

I'd be interested in helping. Hopefully I might be able to mirror this next year (If I have everything running by then) and even then I'd just like to help write.

Idea for tournament name.

A Novice Tournament (A.N.T.)

MLWGS-Gir wrote:if you're only going to be able to write if enough people are interested to make the workload rather small, please make that known

I am possibly interested in doing a bit of writing, and am making the above known. I could do math, physics, and maybe a bit of chemistry and British literature.

As far as distribution goes:

4/4 History
4/4 Lit
4/4 Science
2/2 Art
2/2 Social Science
2/2 RMP
1/1 Trash/CE/General Knowledge/What-have-you
1/1 Geography

Thoughts? I think, if anything, Soc. Sci. might be a little high. However, I don't know where the extra question(s) would go.

Also, I'd be pretty willing to help out with this, though I am not sure if I'll have enough time. I'll let the editor(s) know in a little bit.

EDIT: Yeah, this is a great idea.

You won't be able to manage 2/2 social science; there isn't really enough for the college novice canon to fill that comfortably. Unless you want 1/1 common links on common nouns that happen to be featured in some titles.

I don't know if you'd want to split that 1/1 between the big three, or the big three and arts and rmp, or what. But it shouldn't go to SS.

I'd probably knock the Social science down at least 1/1 and use that to increase the big three.
I've been thinking about this a little more, and I think I wouldn't mind organizing this fall JV set and try and get some kind of group of high schoolers on board to produce it and then try and mirror it at different sites across the country for free. If you are a young player who would like to try and take on this project, let me know, and if we can get like 12 people on board it really shouldn't be very hard at all for each of us to write 1 packet over the summer and produce something good, and I can get you guys a lot more valuable editing experience. If you are interested, post here with contact information and I'll get back to you.

everyday847 wrote:You won't be able to manage 2/2 social science; there isn't really enough for the college novice canon to fill that comfortably. Unless you want 1/1 common links on common nouns that happen to be featured in some titles.

I don't know if you'd want to split that 1/1 between the big three, or the big three and arts and rmp, or what. But it shouldn't go to SS.

I advocate a bump in RMP.

In response to Dees' recent post: if you're serious, use subject editors, not just people writing a full pack.

That Social Science is definitely too high, imo. The extra 1/1 might have to go to splitting CE/General Knowledge off from trash, but I'm not sure.

Thanks to everyone who has expressed interest in helping with this so far. I'm not sure I can edit for this if we get fewer than 12 or so people due to my responsibilities for GSAC XVII, and it seems like it would be best for everyone if we could get enough people to divide the writing up into fairly small amounts, so hopefully that will happen.

Edit: saw Dees and Donald's posts. Increases in the big three I'm kind of iffy on, since using only that 1/1 it wouldn't be consistent. An increase in RMP is what we're trying with HAVOC and we're struggling a bit, so I suppose I don't entirely know about that either.

MLWGS-Gir wrote:Edit: saw Dees and Donald's posts. Increases in the big three I'm kind of iffy on, since using only that 1/1 it wouldn't be consistent. An increase in RMP is what we're trying with HAVOC and we're struggling a bit, so I suppose I don't entirely know about that either.

I think a rotating 9/9/8 to each of the big three is academically fairer than giving 1/1 to CE/GK and 1/1 trash. There may be more packet-to-packet consistency in what you're getting, but what you're getting is less academic.

Hey,

My teammate Neil and I had decided write an IS Level tournament for November 2009 (the season in MN starts pretty late for some reason), and I had planned on making an announcement for it some time soon after trying to decide if we could actually pull off writing a whole tournament. Now, it looks like we won't have to make that decision - collaborating with people that are active on the high school circuit to write an A-set level tournament sounds like a lot of fun. I would be more than willing to contribute to this set (and I am pretty sure my teammate would be willing too), and host a mirror of it at Eden Prairie high school. I had talked to my brother Gautam earlier about this kind of thing earlier, and we thought that the following would be an appropriate distribution:

4/4 Lit
4/4 History
4/4 Science
2/2 Fine Arts
2/2 RMP
1/1 Social Science
1/1 Geography
1/1 Trash
1/1 Current Events/General Knowledge/etc.
1/1 Big Three

Upon rereading the posts, it looks like this is almost exactly what has been suggested. I guess don't see too big of a problem with having a "1/1 Big Three" category, as long as all the packets aren't leaning too much towards one or two of the big three.

I wouldn't mind writing anything except trash, history, and current events, and I would love writing literature and science (I probably could write a majority of lit and a smaller portion of science). My teammate Neil is most comfortable with writing history.

Gaurav

Alright, this looks like I will be acting as an advisor with an editing team led by Sarah Angelo, so look out kiddies!

As long as you guys are planning on finishing this set before September, I am willing to work on this tournament, by which I mean that I can write a few questions, make sure people write questions on time, and even out repeats/difficulty.

Let me know if this sounds interesting to you guys.
Gautam

Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:Alright, this looks like I will be acting as an advisor with an editing team led by Sarah Angelo, so look out kiddies!

And it seems that I'll be in the same advice-level position, though specifically for science.

Pondering further, 1/1 big three now makes more sense to me. I'll edit a list of interested parties who have posted or spoken to me elsewhere into the first post so we can try and track this somewhat.

I can chip stuff in/edit over the summer, although I will want to ask someone to vet my answer selection. I am not sure how much; it depends on employment and what else happens over the summer.
EDIT: Yeah, subject editors/contributors seems better to me.

I'm interested in making some contributions to this.

Why isn't some version of a well-written, actually-pyramidal, competent "A" set being considered by HSAPQ? With the high(er) quality of their sets already, i would think these writers would also be pretty adept in writing a "novice" set as well that could be used around the country.

I'd volunteer to contribute up to a packet; my stronger points are lit and fine arts. Also, doesn't Guarav's suggestion have 21/21? My suggestion would be to move the extra 1/1 to art, giving it 3/3 like in ACF. Of course, there might not be that much art to ask at that level.

AlphaQuizBowler wrote:I'd volunteer to contribute up to a packet; my stronger points are lit and fine arts. Also, doesn't Guarav's suggestion have 21/21? My suggestion would be to move the extra 1/1 to art, giving it 3/3 like in ACF. Of course, there might not be that much art to ask at that level.

Wait, what? If you have 1/1 extra, wouldn't you want to cut that much?

I still hold that 3/3 RMP is doable at the high school level.

dtaylor4 wrote:

AlphaQuizBowler wrote:I'd volunteer to contribute up to a packet; my stronger points are lit and fine arts. Also, doesn't Guarav's suggestion have 21/21? My suggestion would be to move the extra 1/1 to art, giving it 3/3 like in ACF. Of course, there might not be that much art to ask at that level.

Wait, what? If you have 1/1 extra, wouldn't you want to cut that much?

I still hold that 3/3 RMP is doable at the high school level.

Yeah, that was two separate thoughts not expressed well. From the original suggestion, I would move 1/1 SS to Fine Arts. From Guarav's, I would collapse the Trash and CE/GK into 1/1 total, cuttting it down to 20/20, and then move the 1/1 Big Three to Fine Arts.

AlphaQuizBowler wrote:I'd volunteer to contribute up to a packet; my stronger points are lit and fine arts. Also, doesn't Guarav's suggestion have 21/21? My suggestion would be to move the extra 1/1 to art, giving it 3/3 like in ACF. Of course, there might not be that much art to ask at that level.

We tried 3/3 art for HAVOC I. It did not go over well.

Okay. That said, I'm not a big fan of having more of some of the Big 3 or having more than 1/1 GK/CE/Trash. Maybe go 2/3 RMP, 2/1 Geo?

What is wrong with having an extra 1/1 of the big 3 scattered in? I'm pretty sure that occasionally having 5 tossups instead of 4 in a big 3 category is how most tournaments do it.

I would be interested in hosting an Illinois mirror in October.

I really like Gaurav's distribution. You can keep the 4/4 of the big three as the major subcategories that have large stick categories that cant come up at 1/1 a packet at this level due to answer space constraint in that 1/1 extra big three. Your extra big three could be the usable parts of the World lit canon, which for this level is most definitely too small for 1/1. If this is a 12 packet set, then you have 24 total extra big three, 8 of which will be lit.

One issue I notice is that 1/1 SS will require a large amount of stretching either laterally by expanding what is defined as social science or vertically by reaching deeper on social science. Neither of these are really good ideas so perhaps constricting the social science allotment or merging it with philosophy (another area I see potential issues). Perhaps 2/2 RM and 1/1 P-SS would break that better.

I'll write some stuff that's not trash.

Frater Taciturnus wrote:One issue I notice is that 1/1 SS will require a large amount of stretching either laterally by expanding what is defined as social science or vertically by reaching deeper on social science. Neither of these are really good ideas so perhaps constricting the social science allotment or merging it with philosophy (another area I see potential issues). Perhaps 2/2 RM and 1/1 P-SS would break that better.

I would support this. It is similar to what I was thinking with respect to TJ's hypothetical middle school tournament.

This is a fantastic idea. As for the SS question, I might even suggest 0/1 or 1/0 per packet, since the canon for this stuff really isn't that large.

As far a social science goes, I think that you can just really broaden the definition of it. In addition to "real" social science (ex. economics, sociology, anthropology, etc.), you can add in stuff like government (I believe most people take Civics in 8th grade, so this should be rather broad).

Also, Gaurav's distribution is really sweet. I like it a lot.

Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:What is wrong with having an extra 1/1 of the big 3 scattered in? I'm pretty sure that occasionally having 5 tossups instead of 4 in a big 3 category is how most tournaments do it.

I guess I just like having a set per-packet distribution.

To explain:
Let's say that Team A and Team B are equal, except Team A>Team B on lit and Team B>Team A on science.
Given the proposed distribution, consider the following results:
In the round with 1 more science TU, Team B wins.
In the round with 1 more lit TU, Team A wins.

It seems unfair to have the results of matches change due to distribution and not the gameplay.

AlphaQuizBowler wrote:

Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:What is wrong with having an extra 1/1 of the big 3 scattered in? I'm pretty sure that occasionally having 5 tossups instead of 4 in a big 3 category is how most tournaments do it.

I guess I just like having a set per-packet distribution.

To explain:
Let's say that Team A and Team B are equal, except Team A>Team B on lit and Team B>Team A on science.
Given the proposed distribution, consider the following results:
In the round with 1 more science TU, Team B wins.
In the round with 1 more lit TU, Team A wins.

It seems unfair to have the results of matches change due to distribution and not the gameplay.

Ah, this is right, but that marginal science TU might be on a subject team A covered in class last week, and the marginal lit TU might be on a book its star player finished reading that morning! You can't make that argument any stronger than I can make the argument for rounds of 500/500 to minimize the influence of standout situations like having just read a book.

I totally agree that closer to even is always better (so I wouldn't suggest permanently giving science an extra tossup, lit an extra bonus, and history nothing, nor would I just give science 1/1 more).

I don't believe, however, that it'd be better to keep the big three even if you have to add 1/1 to a category for which there's really only 2/2 canon. You in fact would create more random results via dead tossups, unmanaged bonus difficulty, and so forth.

So in posting about this, making sure it actually happened was my first priority, since it seems like it would do good for some teams. I took a look at my summer schedule and I've discovered that I have 65 open days in which to work a part-time job, work on this, and write about 4 rounds for GSAC, since I stuck one of my compadres with an unfair writing burden this year due to time management failures on my part and intend to not let that happen again.

In light of that, I'm taking a look at my commitments and need to end up editing a third of this or less in order to be responsible. Charlie Dees is in charge of deadline enforcing at this point, which should be helpful to everyone. I do not feel like I can competently edit science, geography, or non-opera music. I'm also not great at history. If people would like to edit, especially in those areas, speak up.

everyday847 wrote:

AlphaQuizBowler wrote:

Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:What is wrong with having an extra 1/1 of the big 3 scattered in? I'm pretty sure that occasionally having 5 tossups instead of 4 in a big 3 category is how most tournaments do it.

I guess I just like having a set per-packet distribution.

To explain:
Let's say that Team A and Team B are equal, except Team A>Team B on lit and Team B>Team A on science.
Given the proposed distribution, consider the following results:
In the round with 1 more science TU, Team B wins.
In the round with 1 more lit TU, Team A wins.

It seems unfair to have the results of matches change due to distribution and not the gameplay.

Ah, this is right, but that marginal science TU might be on a subject team A covered in class last week, and the marginal lit TU might be on a book its star player finished reading that morning! You can't make that argument any stronger than I can make the argument for rounds of 500/500 to minimize the influence of standout situations like having just read a book.

Using your logic, we should have no per-round distribution because we have no idea which team knows what about each category. My point is that, assuming we have a distribution by subject (which is an assumption I think is accepted), it should be even per-round, mainly because that is something that, unlike players class curricula or favorite books, we can control.

I don't believe, however, that it'd be better to keep the big three even if you have to add 1/1 to a category for which there's really only 2/2 canon. You in fact would create more random results via dead tossups, unmanaged bonus difficulty, and so forth.

Which is why I suggested, as an alternative, 2/1 Geo, which I would argue has a large canon at this level, and 2/3 RMP, which I think would be at least possible to manage.

I think you need at least 3 editors on a set like this. Someone told me this was the best way to do something like this. Give each editor a major category and a minor (not saying these are less important, just in terms of amount) category.

Major
-Lit
-Science
-History

Minor
-Arts
-RMP
-Everything Else (Geo, SS, trash/CE)

Alternatively you can make Arts/RMP one editing block for a fourth editor and divide the remainder up as needed.

I am perfectly willing to coordinate the writers/assignments for this set if need be in addition to writing a share.

AlphaQuizBowler wrote:Using your logic, we should have no per-round distribution because we have no idea which team knows what about each category. My point is that, assuming we have a distribution by subject (which is an assumption I think is accepted), it should be even per-round, mainly because that is something that, unlike players class curricula or favorite books, we can control.

...I suggested, as an alternative, 2/1 Geo, which I would argue has a large canon at this level, and 2/3 RMP, which I think would be at least possible to manage.

Okay, here's the thing: I believe that a distribution that is slightly skewed but that evens out in the long run is better than one that is consistent and thereby more skewed by net. I'd prefer a twelve round tournament to have 52/52 of each of the big three rather than simply declaring "science gets more" and giving 60/60 science and 48/48 history and lit. There's nothing inherently wrong with 2/1 geo, sure; the reason I wasn't employing that (or 2/3 RMP) was because I was trying to preserve the spirit of the mACF distribution, keeping the canon size in mind: that is, I was trying to keep geography 5%, not 7.5% (especially because three questions is a big increase over two, more than nine is over eight), and I was trying to keep RMP and arts down because there's just not enough there for them.

What you say makes sense; I think it's just a matter of preference than anything. Point is, at lower levels, you have to deviate from mACF in some way. In which way(s) and to what extent is hard to decide.

EDIT:Punctuation

I will offer my services as a history editor.

I have been thinking about getting my writing career started for a while, and when this popped up, I thought it would be a pretty cool chance to do something not-sosososo-challenging but still stimulating over the summer and with some good tutelage, but then I realized that I would kinda want to actually play this, as I'm just going to be a sophomore next year, and we have a pretty young team. So, is there any way I could do something that would allow me to both assist in this project and enjoy its fruits?

EDIT: So basically what's a good way to start writing?

Frater Taciturnus wrote:I think you need at least 3 editors on a set like this. Someone told me this was the best way to do something like this. Give each editor a major category and a minor (not saying these are less important, just in terms of amount) category.

Major
-Lit
-Science
-History

Minor
-Arts
-RMP
-Everything Else (Geo, SS, trash/CE)

Alternatively you can make Arts/RMP one editing block for a fourth editor and divide the remainder up as needed.

I am perfectly willing to coordinate the writers/assignments for this set if need be in addition to writing a share.

So, I am open to Science editing outright or partly. I am good for any Music (and at this level arts in general) editing that might go unclaimed. If there are enough volunteers, I have no problem with subdistribution editors even, (like Sarah editing British Literature or Me editing Mathematics or something) as long as there is some kind of hierarchical structure (perhaps this could be aduty of the nebulous overseers Dees and Watkins?). As I have no idea what my college burdens starting in September will be and I hope to be completely done with CaTO/TaCO and Music singles by mid-July, I would be doing most of my work in August, for reference.
EDIT: I would recommend placing the SS with the P as a separate minor, as they go better together than the current minor distribution. I could alternatively edit that SS/P combination instead of arts.

If Cameron doesn't mind, I can co-edit science with him.

I'm fine with the idea of subdistribution editors as well, particularly if there are people who want to get some editing experience but are afraid of taking on too much. I agree that it does need to be structured, but so long as we keep track of who is responsible for what this could work well. Putting SS with P makes sense, but letting people claim subdistributions they are good at/understand might work as well. For example, I'm not comfortable editing music but I have a better handle on visual art. Say someone's great at World Literature and Physics, for a more extreme example.

Caesar Rodney HS wrote:Why isn't some version of a well-written, actually-pyramidal, competent "A" set being considered by HSAPQ? With the high(er) quality of their sets already, i would think these writers would also be pretty adept in writing a "novice" set as well that could be used around the country.

HSAPQ tries to write our regular questions so everyone ranging from younger to veteran players can have a meaningful playing experience in which they can score points and have fun. We would direct anyone specifically interested in a JV set to consider mirroring HAVOC or a similar event because we will not be writing such a set ourselves.

Tower Monarch wrote:If there are enough volunteers, I have no problem with subdistribution editors even, (like Sarah editing British Literature or Me editing Mathematics or something) as long as there is some kind of hierarchical structure (perhaps this could be aduty of the nebulous overseers Dees and Watkins?).

I like heirarchy when I'm at the top. So, sure, that sounds fine.

Sarah: I don't think Cameron meant the "SS/P should be one unit" claim to be logically connected to subdistribution editing claims. I believe it makes sense for the same person to edit SS/P if that person knows both things/ wants to do a lot of learning over the summer until they do. His belief that SS/P should be one unit (and R/M another) is a fine idea, and a separate one.

So, this is what I see as a plausible structure:
Dees/Watkins ('nuff said)
Distribution editors (Science, lit, history, arts, RMP, and everything else are each assigned to a person or group of persons. The science editor edits all science questions [or the two science editors do, combined]).
Subdistro editors (Every topic that gets 1/1 [or slightly less, if we go 2/2 RMP] gets a subdistro editor.)
Writers (People write questions. In all likelihood, they're assigned x/x in all one category or a reasonable distribution of categories they're best at.)

If you're a distribution editor, you're also a subdistro editor and a writer; if you're a subdistro editor, you're also a writer. But you can be a writer without being a subdistro editor, etc.

Since we're unlikely to have 20 people, subdistro editors will need to edit more than one subdistro. Distro editors will need to be another set of eyes, so at some point Zhao-as-distro-editor should be looking at Cameron-as-subdistro-editor's math and vice-versa.

ihavenoidea wrote:If Cameron doesn't mind, I can co-edit science with him.

This would be more than fine with me.
Per Andy, my editing subdistributions of choice would, in order, be something like Mathematics, Physics, Music, Chemistry, Social Sciences, Biology, Philosophy, Earth/Space Sci, American Literature. I'd be up for any subset of these (including all, if necessary). I think it's best if prospective editors make similar lists and someone (George appears to have made a similar offer) can chose the final divisions.

So your "distribution editors" are basically the group of subdistro editors for that subject who act as a second pair of eyes for each other. Am I getting this, Andy, or is it more complicated than that? As I understand it, it sounds like an excellent idea.

I would prefer to edit American Lit, World Lit, Brit/Euro Lit, Visual Art, Mythology, Religion, or any combo of those. I am also willing to edit trash if no one else would like to. I don't have a particular preference for any of those listed over another, with the exception that Religion is last on my list.


edit: added preference

So, is there any way I could do something that would allow me to both assist in this project and enjoy its fruits?

My best guess is to arrange things such that everything you write is in 1-2 packets, then ask that the schedule give you byes during those packets.
Anyhow, I'd like to learn how to edit a bit. I would probably be most helpful with Literature, visual arts, and Religion.

Physics, Chemistry, Math, Biology, Fine Arts, Mythology, US History, European History (not ancient).

I can pretty much write for anything except geography and trash.

MLWGS-Gir wrote:So your "distribution editors" are basically the group of subdistro editors for that subject who act as a second pair of eyes for each other. Am I getting this, Andy, or is it more complicated than that? As I understand it, it sounds like an excellent idea.

I would prefer to edit American Lit, World Lit, Brit/Euro Lit, Visual Art, Mythology, Religion, or any combo of those. I am also willing to edit trash if no one else would like to. I don't have a particular preference for any of those listed over another, with the exception that Religion is last on my list.


edit: added preference

That's one way to think of it, at least. I was illustrating it for the case where the science distro editors (Cameron and Zhao) are also probably going to subdistro-edit something in science. Suppose Cameron's doing math and Zhao chem; their role as distro editors isn't just to collaborate on editing everyone else's bio/physics/other sci; their role includes editing the other person's stuff.

Alternatively, we could just tell all the subdistro editors in a field (in the big three, at least) to act collaboratively; they first edit their category, and then reality check everyone else. (The reason I'm not sure about this is because being a subdistro editor should involve less of a commitment, and moreover because that would give someone editing bio, world lit, and world history the responsibility to at least check other people's work in twelve categories--that's not feasible.)

I'd really like to edit a tiny portion of the history distribution. Any sort but ancient history. I could also possibly do things like visual arts or American Literature.

EDIT: I have absolutely no experience editing, but I'd sure like to get some!