Re: Centennial It's Academic Tournament (12/13)
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:01 pm
Post the questions
Sponsored by the Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence (Twitter: @PACENSC)
https://hsquizbowl.org/forums/
I'd like to say that I particularly don't really understand what you mean by this considering everybody that has mentioned this tournament had the obscure Mughal bonus. Isaac Hirsch who did attend this tournament said the difficulty of some of these bonuses lead to games of 130-0 on average with some of the elite teams in this field, I don't think by putting ACF Nationals bonuses in a house-written high school tournament is testing the knowledge of the weaker teams who prodominantly occupied this field. If you want to use nationals level questions in a high school tournament, then advertise it as so.flylikeaneagle wrote: I've heard bonuses on the Mughals, VSEPR theory and many of the questioned topics in national packets, yet those having questions like that is perfectly acceptable, but a house-written tournament using questions like that is wrong in some way?
Your convenience should not be the goal in organizing a tournament, but rather the ability to offer the fairest event possible. To use the argument that a 3-2 team can stay in the hunt for the championship is for one thing misleading - I directed a tournament a week ago where, after seven rounds, a team with 3 losses still was still mathematically in contention to win using a round robin playoff format. It is also not any argument for why single elimination is superior, since the whole point of a tournament is to weed out the teams that lose games, not to keep rewarding them.#4. Frankly, the 16-team antiquated play-off format got the students running the tournament and the finalists at a decent time so that we could finish up homework. This also ensured that a 3-2 team had a shot at winning first place, believe it or not.
Then you should do something to point them to hsquizbowl, or at least advertise to them that they are in driving range of a very competitive, extremely top notch circuit. You have the power to effect some change in this situation.#5. Most of the teams are coming to this tournament to improve their performance on the TV show. We've been approached several times asking how it's like, whether it's like three teams playing against each other with three people on each team. Most of the people we advertise to are the Baltimore area TV contestants. These people rarely know that hsquizbowl exists.
See, this is what you're not getting. The reason we're being so hard on you guys is not because we hate you and want you to never write questions again. It's because we think you guys can and should produce better questions. Look at the flaws listed with this tournament-vague clues and impossible bonus parts(incidentally, nationals packets are purposefully more difficult than regular season packets and thus make a terrible index of what should be in a regular season packet). They're serious flaws, but they're also very elementary flaws that are quite correctable.flylikeaneagle wrote:Thanks to everyone who came to the tournament! I'd like to congratulate:
#2. While I agree that some questions weren't ideally pyramidal, I don't understand how an average question length of 5.27 lines can be considered a "speed" question. (This does not include computations, which were naturally shorter). Another point I heard mentioned was "answerability" of some bonuses. I understand that the Celtic mythology was difficult and obscure, but I felt that most others were relatively well-balanced. If some teams, even the better ones, had difficulty with specific bonuses, is it really our fault? The members on the team represent a variety of interests, from science and math to literature and the arts and social sciences. Some topics were crazy obscure and other bonuses were not well written but, in general, the bonuses were well balanced. I've heard bonuses on the Mughals, VSEPR theory and many of the questioned topics in national packets, yet those having questions like that is perfectly acceptable, but a house-written tournament using questions like that is wrong in some way?
This is a straw man. Almost all well-run tournaments today use some kind of round-robin playoff and they normally finish at a reasonable time.#4. Frankly, the 16-team antiquated play-off format got the students running the tournament and the finalists at a decent time so that we could finish up homework. This also ensured that a 3-2 team had a shot at winning first place, believe it or not.
TheKingInYellow wrote:Post the questions
Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:TheKingInYellow wrote:Post the questions
I've either made my point poorly or I've been misunderstood, I think. I'd say that probably the top teams were least well served by this year's tournament, but looking at the turnout and the specific teams in attendance, I don't necessarily see that as a problem, either. It hasn't always been that way in the past, either. I seem to recall one year it was skewed toward the top teams.Aldo Montoya wrote:One thing that bothered me about Mr. Gilbert's post was the assertion that this tournament benefitted less-experienced teams while still satisfying upper-level squads. Instead, I find that the tournament this year has settled into a sort of uncomfortable middle ground where neither sorts of teams are entirely happy with the end result.
Yes, please.Doink the Clown wrote:Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:TheKingInYellow wrote:Post the questions
Hey, there's a winning attitude! Seriously, a number of people who have been critical of this tournament in the past took care to identify the ways it has improved - John Gilbert even claimed (erroneously or not) that you guys had been specifically attentive to listening to criticism, and making changes for next year. Then you just drop by as the presumed chief editor, and announce that you just don't give a crap what anyone thinks. I'm not even sure if you are the person identified in the signature (and, if you're not, you should be aware that it's a violation of forum rules), but this is an avowedly terrible model to set for the players you're supposedly trying to bring along.#1. I really don't care if you thought our questions were bad but I want you to know this: all the questions were written by students as a means of applying the knowledge that they know best. The main goal of having a house-written tournament is to teach the younger members some of the facts that show up repeatedly on the TV show and tournaments.
I mean, you should probably practice more than that. At the very least, you aren't going to be making up for it by writing bad questions. I promise.We practice maybe 1.5 hours a week and even over several years, they end up not learning about some "key Quizbowl items."
Well, even by this bizarre logic you're using, why couldn't you have people write questions to learn (as many programs, high school and collegiate, do), and if the product ends up being substandard, have your senior members shoulder the writing responsibility or just use the NAQT or HSAPQ sets or whatever (as, again, most programs also do)?By using the better NAQT and HSAPQ(?) packets, this does not achieve our purpose.
I'm not sure what these things have to do with each other. Requiring people to write questions to do something doesn't dictate what the questions should be like. Look, the real issue here is that you're either unwilling or unable to teach people to write good questions. There's nothing wrong with the latter, but you guys should probably stop REFUSING ALL THE HELP THAT IS CONTINUALLY OFFERED WITH WRITING THIS EVENT if you expect to legitimately argue that you're doing your best.While naming the President given the name of the dog is not the best choice for a bonus, it reflects some of the atrocious questions heard on TV. Since we use question writing as a requirement for trying out for the TV/A team, many of the questions produced reflect what one might hear on TV.
By including 4.27 lines of unbuzzable garbage, or failing to identify what kind of answer is being sought. It's clear that, minimum, more than zero questions at this tournament did this, so I'm not sure why you don't understand.#2. While I agree that some questions weren't ideally pyramidal, I don't understand how an average question length of 5.27 lines can be considered a "speed" question. (This does not include computations, which were naturally shorter).
I heard this tournament had a bonus asking for Shah Jahan (without giving the Taj Mahal), Aurangzeb, and Dara Shikoh. That you don't see these as a problem is unsurprising and not particularly a shortcoming; that you continue to ignore advice from and refuse help offered to your program by people who would not ask tv-only teams to identify Mughal Emperor also-rans is the actual problem.Another point I heard mentioned was "answerability" of some bonuses. I understand that the Celtic mythology was difficult and obscure, but I felt that most others were relatively well-balanced.
Actually, the presence of very hard, very obscure, and poorly written bonuses - even if many bonuses are quite well-written - is precisely what makes your tournament's bonuses unbalanced. This argument is very confusing to me.If some teams, even the better ones, had difficulty with specific bonuses, is it really our fault? The members on the team represent a variety of interests, from science and math to literature and the arts and social sciences. Some topics were crazy obscure and other bonuses were not well written but, in general, the bonuses were well balanced.
I mean, there's the whole underlying issue of how you write questions at play here - a Mughal bonus is not inherently bad, but if you're writing for a mostly tv-audience (or any high school audience) and asking about Dara Shikoh, you're doing it wrong. But I wonder: How is this an argument for your tournament being well-written? Unless you intended to hit Nationals difficulty, why would you justify what you asked about by such a reference?I've heard bonuses on the Mughals, VSEPR theory and many of the questioned topics in national packets, yet those having questions like that is perfectly acceptable, but a house-written tournament using questions like that is wrong in some way?
As someone who has worked quite hard to make a number of tournaments attended by Centennial substantially better than they would have otherwise been, I find this statement somewhat insulting. So you're too ignorant to differentiate between good questions and bad ones?* It doesn't make you noble, it just makes you ignorant, and you're free to not spend money on those tournaments. But what in the world does this have to do with the quality of your tournament? I mean, are you acknowledging that you're writing a crappier set, but claiming it's ok because you charge less than (some) better sets?We charge $55 so that we can spend hundreds of dollars sending multiple teams to more, "better" tournaments.
See, this is where you break into a weird 3rd-person narration (according to your signature, you are a student running the tournament, after all) that causes me to think you're actually the coach or something. Again, if you are, stop breaking forum rules and posting under a student's name; surely you can tell that's pretty poor form. If you're actually Anupama, then quit referencing yourself in the 3rd person! It's weird!#4. Frankly, the 16-team antiquated play-off format got the students running the tournament and the finalists at a decent time so that we could finish up homework. This also ensured that a 3-2 team had a shot at winning first place, believe it or not.
This statement really makes you look rather awful, I think. As one of the few teams in your area that often attend circuit events beyond the tv show, shouldn't you be trying to encourage these teams to do so as well, take a few minutes to tell them how they can tap into the larger community, etc.? Unless, of course, your primary concerns are making money and doing well yourself on the tv show, and you just don't give a crap about anyone el- oops, wait, nevermind.#5. Most of the teams are coming to this tournament to improve their performance on the TV show. We've been approached several times asking how it's like, whether it's like three teams playing against each other with three people on each team. Most of the people we advertise to are the Baltimore area TV contestants. These people rarely know that hsquizbowl exists.
Well, it sounds as though your tournament failed to be very good prep for the tv show, either. I mean, you aren't going to prep teams for the tv show with 5 line tossups and a 20/20 format; write an it's ac format in the real way those questions are if what you're doing is providing that service to teams; write a good 20/20 tournament if you decide you want to do things that way. Don't pretend that by appealing to those various camps (or rather, as seems to have been the case, failing to appeal to either), you can justify lazy or bad question writing. You're also essentially saying that as long as any of the top teams are not absolutely perfect in some ambiguous number of ways, it's invalid for people to correctly critique your questions. Logic! I didn't hear your questions, but I will judge based on the few examples I've heard that at least some of them sucked. If it seems to you like I'm being unreasonable caustic in this post, it's because I'm deliberately responding to the callousness implicit in everything you've said.#6. If you didn't hear the questions, don't judge them. Every year, we've spent more time training people how to write questions and we've gotten better. While there is room to improve, there is even for the best of teams.
Have Langley attended other tournaments? I know there are some years when they are highly competitive.flylikeaneagle wrote:Thanks to everyone who came to the tournament! I'd like to congratulate:
First Place: Walter Johnson
Second Place: Blake
Third Place: Langley
Fourth Place: Eleanor Roosevelt
They were at Rumble on the Pike and TJIAT, I believe.STPickrell wrote:Have Langley attended other tournaments? I know there are some years when they are highly competitive.flylikeaneagle wrote:Thanks to everyone who came to the tournament! I'd like to congratulate:
First Place: Walter Johnson
Second Place: Blake
Third Place: Langley
Fourth Place: Eleanor Roosevelt
Thanks. Nice to know there are legit teams coming out of NoVA in addition to TJ.FredMorlan wrote:Langley qualified for NSC at TJIAT.
Yeah they were pretty good at that tournament, honestly. They beat a couple good Gov B and Wilson teams and had some other quality wins. They deserved to qualify. I hope we get to see them again.STPickrell wrote:Thanks. Nice to know there are legit teams coming out of NoVA in addition to TJ.FredMorlan wrote:Langley qualified for NSC at TJIAT.
If you reread my post, you'll see nowhere that I said criticizing the tournament was unjust. You'll see that I said the tournament had received much unjust criticism in the past, even referring to criticism that complained after the fact that a previous tournament was in the format advertised. Furthermore, it was in response to a post that seemed to imply no one should bother attending this tournament. I find it difficult to believe that any tournament could be so poorly constructed as to not be of benefit to some reasonable subset of teams. I've certainly never experienced one.Matt Weiner wrote:At some point, I think there is little that you can do when teams just like bad questions. The Centennial tournament is not in It's Academic format; it's in 20/20 format. It's not more accessible than other tournaments; all reports say it's noticeably harder. The only difference at all between the Centennial tournament and other tournaments that might appeal to IA teams, save the tossup conferring, is that the Centennial tournament is poorly written. When John Gilbert comes on here and says that criticizing Centennial is unjust and he thinks it's a valuable event, that can mean only one of two things, which is that he likes bad questions, or that conferring on tossups is the most important thing in the world, much more important than the questions themselves.
Being convenient to attend and having a significant number of questions potentially answerable by a team of strength similar to mine couldn't possibly be real reasons for determining a tournament to be valuable. [/sarcasm]howard wrote:For my team, on the other hand, this was a good tournament. It was close-- so close that I met my team at the tournament location. ... And the questions were of a level that helped me identify weaknesses as well as illustrate a few things we knew well.
Nobody is disputing the "convenient to attend part". The second part seems to imply that the tournament was easier than most local, which based on what people have said about the set all over this thread is disputable at best.Howard wrote: As for why I thought it was valuable, I don't suppose it could be for the reasons I cited as opposed to reasons Matt Weiner assumes that I must really have. I couldn't possibly have been accurate when I posted:Being convenient to attend and having a significant number of questions potentially answerable by a team of strength similar to mine couldn't possibly be real reasons for determining a tournament to be valuable. [/sarcasm]howard wrote:For my team, on the other hand, this was a good tournament. It was close-- so close that I met my team at the tournament location. ... And the questions were of a level that helped me identify weaknesses as well as illustrate a few things we knew well.
While I believe I understand your point, Charlie, sometimes more compromise is in order. The actual desires of the tournament audience and the needs of the tournament staff are also on the top of the important considerations list. Without the tournament staff the tournament cannot exist. If the majority of teams don't wish to stay for a significant number of after-lunch rounds, there's little reason to make them choose zero or five. Asking them to play another five rounds or so will likely lead to numerous dropouts and confusion among those teams left that are without opponents. In fact, the majority of tournaments I've attended that rebracketed for a second round-robin had issues with teams leaving, either due to not wanting to play any more games or just because there were circumstances that made their departure necessary. Choosing single elimination allows rooms to be returned to proper setup for class as games are being played. Sticking around for another hour or two rearranging rooms isn't particularly desireable at 4PM.Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:Your convenience should not be the goal in organizing a tournament, but rather the ability to offer the fairest event possible. To use the argument that a 3-2 team can stay in the hunt for the championship is for one thing misleading - I directed a tournament a week ago where, after seven rounds, a team with 3 losses still was still mathematically in contention to win using a round robin playoff format. It is also not any argument for why single elimination is superior, since the whole point of a tournament is to weed out the teams that lose games, not to keep rewarding them.#4. Frankly, the 16-team antiquated play-off format got the students running the tournament and the finalists at a decent time so that we could finish up homework. This also ensured that a 3-2 team had a shot at winning first place, believe it or not.
Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:...but you need to not be so hostile about it.
Don't know how I can make it more clear than this:Doink the Clown wrote:The second part seems to imply that the tournament was easier than most local, which based on what people have said about the set all over this thread is disputable at best.
75% is certainly higher than several tournaments we've attended recently. A check of our recent statistics will make it rather apparent our knowledge levels aren't very impressive. So right now, the "want to know" area includes mostly giveaways. As they (hopefully) improve, I'll of course expand the "want to know" area.howard wrote:By my estimation, about 75% of the tossups had answers I'd want my team to know.
Shouldn't what a team knows and what a coach wants the team to know ultimately be the single most important factor in a coach assessing a tournament's value? If the vast majority of teams/coaches playing in a tournament find it to be of value, then it is.Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:What you arbitrarily want your team to know shouldn't be a criteria in the discussion, since it's obviously impossible for us to know the terms of the debate, and you yourself admit the set of answers you want your team to know varies with possibly intangible decisions. We can't judge whether a tournament is too hard by whether you want your team to know some of the answers.
I really wish you were capable of engaging in the same discussion that the other people in the thread are having. No one else is making any claims about whether the Centennial tournament has "value" (which you have defined in such terms that it is impossible for any tournament not to have "value," thus making it a meaningless attribute anyway).Howard wrote:Shouldn't what a team knows and what a coach wants the team to know ultimately be the single most important factor in a coach assessing a tournament's value? If the vast majority of teams/coaches playing in a tournament find it to be of value, then it is.
So here's the issue. I disagree the questions were bad, and thus didn't make the tournament bad. The problem is that the criteria Matt Weiner (and many others on this site) use to determine good/bad questions aren't the same as the criteria I use. So the fact that I disagree on that count doesn't really mean anything. Furthermore, the assertion on this board that every tournament (including those that draw a significant number of teams whose players/coaches don't seem to have a presence on this board) should be forced to conform to certain standards that not all teams necessarily prefer is illogical. So I make an attempt to discuss things in a more neutral manner-- one that can be applied to all teams across the board, rather than one that, if used, only applies to a fraction of quizbowl teams.Matt Weiner wrote:I really wish you were capable of engaging in the same discussion that the other people in the thread are having. No one else is making any claims about whether the Centennial tournament has "value" (which you have defined in such terms that it is impossible for any tournament not to have "value," thus making it a meaningless attribute anyway).
We are saying that the Centennial tournament was bad. It was a bad tournament, because the questions were bad. Do you disagree?
Now, here's where you will get very little sympathy from this board. We do not view Centennial's questions as "different"--we view them as "bad." If these questions have "value" to certain teams, it is because those teams need to rethink their goals. Now, of course, I do not mean to cast blame on the students at Centennial, who have been taught that this tournament fulfills the requirements of good quizbowl. I only think we need to reach out more to them and make it clear that their product, as it stands, is far inferior to the sets produced by HSAPQ, NAQT, Dunbar, and Maggie Walker (although all these housewrites, including Centennial, have difficulty issues). Saying that Centennial has "value" according to some strange criteria that you have yet to define only serves to undermine that. Furthermore, assuming that the criteria you use are based in a desire for your students to learn, regardless of quizbowl of any format, I am certain that the sets I have already named would meet your criteria far better than this one.Howard wrote:While I said that nearly every tournament should be of value to certain teams, that doesn't imply that every tournament is of value to every team. For example, it's possible to construct a tournament that is of little value to those teams actually in attendance. I think I receive an invitation every year to a jeopardy-style tournament. Considering the goals for my team, I don't find this of a value as great as tournaments where buzzers are used. So, each year, we typically do not attend because we can choose a tournament which is of higher value to us. What I do not do is come here and criticize the tournament for daring to be in a format that we do not prefer.Matt Weiner wrote:I really wish you were capable of engaging in the same discussion that the other people in the thread are having. No one else is making any claims about whether the Centennial tournament has "value" (which you have defined in such terms that it is impossible for any tournament not to have "value," thus making it a meaningless attribute anyway).
We are saying that the Centennial tournament was bad. It was a bad tournament, because the questions were bad. Do you disagree?
I guess I can agree with the idea that the dogpile that resulted from mainly people who did not attend this tournament was likely unnecessary, although it could potentially be justified if this set is ever posted [which it won't be, fyi.] Still, having played on every packet in this set, I have to disagree.Howard wrote: If my posts on this board are reviewed, it'll be found that there are very few criticizing tournaments or questions. Why? Because the vast majority of time criticism is leveled here against a tournament, there's some sort of ridiculous fighting that occurs between the tournament organizers and those giving the criticism. If I choose to give criticism, I give it, with little exception, to the tournament organizer in private.
This isn't worth discussing, because this would never happen anyway. This is probably hyperbole- I think what was meant in this assertion was why any regular circuit team would attend.Howard wrote:1. The idea that no one should have attended this tournament.
There really is no evidence that the latter happened, though- the explanation essentially said, "We did what was best for us."Howard wrote:2. The idea that it isn't reasonable for tournament organizers to pick a playoff format (including single elimination) that fits their needs after consideration of factors the organizers deem important.
The questions at this tournament were too difficult. Some were alright, but difficulty fluctuated wildly. A playoff score- in the semifinals- of 190--5 is ridiculous. Even GSAC, which was roundly criticized for its difficulty, didn't feature scores like this in the semis. You may argue that it had a better field, but that's the point. A tournament should serve its field, and this one didn't.Howard wrote:3. The idea that the questions at this tournament were too difficult.
So in essence, you're saying that there's no objective determination of whether a tournament is better or not? After all, the only "standards" that I've seen universally shared on this board are that Quiz Bowl tournaments should A) Be about academic topics B) Be of reasonable difficulty, and C) Reward the team that knows more with victory in a game as often as possible. Are you saying that even if a tournament only tested irrelevant trivia, was impossibly difficult (or absurdly easy), and actively awarded the team that knows less with victory, you wouldn't criticize it if some of the attending teams found value in it?*Howard wrote: Furthermore, the assertion on this board that every tournament (including those that draw a significant number of teams whose players/coaches don't seem to have a presence on this board) should be forced to conform to certain standards that not all teams necessarily prefer is illogical.
Actually, if you look back through the thread, you'll see that the organizers listed their reasons before the tournament.Aldo Montoya wrote:There really is no evidence that the latter happened, though- the explanation essentially said, "We did what was best for us."Howard wrote:2. The idea that it isn't reasonable for tournament organizers to pick a playoff format (including single elimination) that fits their needs after consideration of factors the organizers deem important.
I agree that this is much less than optimal, but I didn't hear that round. If this was a one-round aberration, then I don't think it's fair to criticize the entire tournament for a problem with one round. I suppose it's also possible that there was an attempt to make the playoff rounds harder, which is a reasonable likelihood considering the initial playoff round my team heard. Of course, looking at the discussion on this tournament so far, I can't see as there's any reason Centennial should even bother distinguishing anything in this thread with a response.Aldo Montoya wrote:The questions at this tournament were too difficult. Some were alright, but difficulty fluctuated wildly. A playoff score- in the semifinals- of 190--5 is ridiculous.Howard wrote:3. The idea that the questions at this tournament were too difficult.
I, too, am advocating tournaments serve the majority of their field to the extent that's possible, and I'm not sure why you think I feel otherwise. As far as being accessible to more teams, there comes a point where, if you're trying to preserve some sort of reasonable question length, you begin to compromise the ability to challenge top teams to gain accessibility to lower teams. I'd like to see more accessibility, but my team is currently on the lower end. I can understand why the teams on the other end would hold the opposing viewpoint. Effectively, I'd think most tournaments would aim for the middle of the two extremes.Aldo Montoya wrote:A tournament should serve its field, and this one didn't.
I'm advocating making this tournament more accessible for the majority of teams that attend. You disagree, for reasons I can't comprehend. I guess we're not getting past that.
Standard B can be inferred from some statistics, but there's still no perfect objective indicator of the appropriate difficulty level. And I've argued in the past that thought processes and abilities are important things to reward (as well as knowledge), but that's not particularly relevant to the discussion on this particular tournament.Charbroil wrote:So in essence, you're saying that there's no objective determination of whether a tournament is better or not? After all, the only "standards" that I've seen universally shared on this board are that Quiz Bowl tournaments should A) Be about academic topics B) Be of reasonable difficulty, and C) Reward the team that knows more with victory in a game as often as possible.
I'm saying I wouldn't make that criticism in public.Charbroil wrote:Are you saying that even if a tournament only tested irrelevant trivia, was impossibly difficult (or absurdly easy), and actively awarded the team that knows less with victory, you wouldn't criticize it if some of the attending teams found value in it?*
*Note, I'm not saying this description is supposed to reflect this tournament, except perhaps on the 2nd point, but rather I'm just giving an example of the logical conclusions of your thought process as I see them.
One of the great things about having these forums is the opportunity they provide to everyone for collective learning from mistakes. People reading this thread now know what was thought to be unsatisfactory about Centennial's tournament, and can avoid making such mistakes at their own tournaments. If/when the questions are posted, discussion will follow, and writers will be able to see good examples of what to do and what to avoid in their own questions.Howard wrote: I'm saying I wouldn't make that criticism in public.
I'm not sure how your statement (made in response to Isaac) disputes Isaac's. Both of you say that you want tournaments to be more accessible, but when Isaac (a member of a stronger team) argues that this tournament was too difficult, you disagree even though you're the coach of a weaker team and thus should prefer accessibility. This seems odd, especially given that all of the top notch players at this event seem to be saying that it was too hard.Howard wrote:Isaac Hirsch wrote:A tournament should serve its field, and this one didn't. I'm advocating making this tournament more accessible for the majority of teams that attend.
I'd like to see more accessibility, but my team is currently on the lower end. I can understand why the teams on the other end would hold the opposing viewpoint.
Which makes me wonder, when you say "perfect," do you mean literally "perfect" or merely "useful?" If the former, while it's true that there's no "perfect objective indicator" of tournament difficulty (or most things, for that matter), that hardly seems to be a reason to say that it's impossible to judge a tournament's difficulty. After all, statistical indicators such as PPB and PPG combined with reading the questions themselves usually reflect difficulty fairly well. Granted, this tournament hasn't chosen to make public either the statistics or questions, but isn't that merely a flaw of this event that should be remedied for the future?Howard wrote:...there's still no perfect objective indicator of the appropriate difficulty level.
It's an admirable trait to not to want to shame others publicly, but if you can't criticize a tournament publicly, what kind of discussion can you have about a tournament perceived to have serious flaws? Wouldn't your argument make any sort of public discussion of a tournament's negative points impossible? This seems to be a problem given that it keeps more experienced members of the Quiz Bowl community (including you) from using their experience to moderate the statements of young hotheads who don't have the experience necessary to understand what is and isn't worthy of criticism.Howard wrote:I'm saying I wouldn't make [criticism of tournaments] in public.
You seem to be under the impression that what's real or fake in quizbowl is determined by some sort of vote or summation of innate, arbitrary preferences. This is not the case. Fake questions would remain fake regardless of how many people were incapable of recognizing their inferiority. John Gilbert can stand on top of the mountain and scream "I love it when the answer to the question isn't referenced until line seven of a seven-line tossup" and "games which reduce to six-tossup matches because fourteen of the questions are on things no one in high school knows are awesome," just like John Gilbert can stand there and shout that evolution and gravity and the law of conservation of mass aren't true, and those facts will similarly care not a whit about what you think.Howard wrote: The problem is that the criteria Matt Weiner (and many others on this site) use to determine good/bad questions aren't the same as the criteria I use.
Quit being so histrionic. Centennial runs bad tournaments and people explain why they are bad. That's not "bashing," nor is it unfair. People have made many calm, constructive suggestions in this thread, including offering to help edit the tournament in the future.square635 wrote:I haven't been to the last two Centennial tournaments due to my own finals schedule, but I would argue that historically we have been very attentive to criticism but have gotten bashed every year for one reason or another.
Many people who know what real quizbowl looks like are in college, and are willing to take time out of their schedules of attending college and creating good college and high school tournaments to try to explain how others can write better tournaments. You should thank them for this, not shake your fist at the highfalutin intellectuals.But honestly, what kind of reaction do you expect when some of the criticism is belittling rather than constructive, and is offered by college students who weren't even in attendance?
I believe characterizing people's problem with impossible, poorly written questions as being an opposition to Centennial trying to improve or raise money would qualify as a "lie," which would make you...something. There are many public high school teams, teams who need money, and teams with goals who write better tournaments. Perhaps if Centennial would stop declaring that they don't care about their tournament being bad and look to what those teams do, they could join their ranks.Centennial is a public high school team that is doing the best it can to put on a tournament to both raise money to stay on the tournament circuit and improve the team members' understanding of question mechanics and canon. I'm not sure why that is a goal that deserves such malicious attacks, even if the final product is less than perfect.
I agree; it was totally inappropriate for Centennial to declare "I really don't care if you thought our questions were bad" and for John Gilbert to lecture competent quizbowl people on what tournaments should look like. These people should take your advice and try to adjust their attitudes to be less arrogant in the future.I think what is more dangerous to quiz bowl than bad questions is the pompous, holier-than-thou attitudes of some people such as a few who have written on this thread.
Many portions of the tournament were impossible. That's the #1 complaint people have. Two teams in the semifinals didn't break 200 combined points. That's not "increasing accessibility." That's writing a tournament that's ludicrously hard because you fill packets with trivia about what you got assigned in class this week rather than things that high school quizbowl players should know. It's the opposite of being "accessible."If this tournament is able to increase accessibility -- whether due to its location, its weaker competition, or otherwise -- shouldn't that generally be applauded?
It could be a lack of effort, but you're right, it's more likely an ideological commitment to bad questions promoted by people like John Gilbert, or a simple lack of guidance on how to create good questions when one wishes to. People are trying to provide the latter in this thread, but you seem to object to "college students," people who "weren't in attendance," and anyone who has an opinion at all, doing so. Why is that?Could the questions have been better? From what I have read here, probably, Does that mean that the students aren't trying their hardest? Absolutely not.
One of them has already declared that he/she has no interest in making improvements. If the rest of them would like to improve on this setback to their team's reputation, there are dozens of people willing to help them.One thing I'm certain of is that the students at Centennial will not be motivated to make improvements by personal attacks and summary dismissals.
Are we seriously indulging this whole "people can't be bothered to drive from the Baltimore suburbs to College Park for a tournament" thing? If you'd rather play a bad tournament in Howard County than go 25 minutes down I-95 to a good tournament, I doubt you ever liked real quizbowl at all, and I doubt there's anything I can say to you that will make you change. You do know that the average team in many parts of the country has to travel an hour or more to go to any tournament, right? And even the ones who aren't that interested do it?If someone else can put on a better tournament that offers the same location advantage as Centennial's does in Howard County, then more power to you, and the local quiz bowl circuit will be all the better for it.
You won't hear me disagree about that post; it was totally inappropriate and should indeed be included as something arrogant that has been written here. But I think that represents the attitude of one frustrated student, rather than the opinions of everyone involved with the tournament. The student who wrote that is a senior anyway, so her opinions regarding changes/improvements, like mine, are frankly not very meaningful to the future of the tournament. My opinions may actually be more meaningful next year because my brother will be a senior and thus will likely be one of the key organizers of the event. And if you really think John Gilbert is "lecturing" more than you and others are, I don't know what to say.I agree; it was totally inappropriate for Centennial to declare "I really don't care if you thought our questions were bad" and for John Gilbert to lecture competent quizbowl people on what tournaments should look like. These people should take your advice and try to adjust their attitudes to be less arrogant in the future.
I mean accessible in terms of which teams are actually in attendance, not difficulty level. It's all well and good if other tournaments are easier or better, but are they more accessible if new teams don't show up? From my understanding of what occurred, a few people realized while assembling packets there were too many difficult questions, and with no time to make new ones, they pushed those all to the playoffs. So it is actually entirely possible for the tournament to be too difficult in the playoffs while still being fairly reasonable in the preliminaries, when all of the teams were still playing. The first time we ran a tournament, we were told it was too hard, and those were edited heavily by a college Quiz Bowl student. In a future year, the questions were easier and people said it was too easy. I'm sure everyone involved would ideally like to reach a middle ground. That being said, there does tend to be a fixation on a small minority of questions. For example, one year there was widespread complaint about a tossup regarding "Gassire's Lute" which no one has ever heard of. I read at that tournament, and I think that was the only question out of about 300 that was outside of acceptable Quiz Bowl canon, but that was understandably the only question people brought up.Many portions of the tournament were impossible. That's the #1 complaint people have. Two teams in the semifinals didn't break 200 combined points. That's not "increasing accessibility." That's writing a tournament that's ludicrously hard because you fill packets with trivia about what you got assigned in class this week rather than things that high school quizbowl players should know. It's the opposite of being "accessible."
It's almost as if the standard Wheel Of Fake Quizbowl Defense Mechanisms spins off the same nonsense regardless of whether it outright contradicts what we're talking about. It's NEVER been true that poorly written questions are easier than good questions, and in this case, we have the actual game scores, like 190 to -5 in a game between two of the top 4 teams, and people are still pulling this "fake quizbowl is so accessible" crap. Why?
As should be obvious, since I'm a college student, I don't object to college students having opinions, just the condescending way in which some of them have been expressed.It could be a lack of effort, but you're right, it's more likely an ideological commitment to bad questions promoted by people like John Gilbert, or a simple lack of guidance on how to create good questions when one wishes to. People are trying to provide the latter in this thread, but you seem to object to "college students," people who "weren't in attendance," and anyone who has an opinion at all, doing so. Why is that?
The fact is that there are many teams that go to Centennial's tournament that don't go to others. Now you can sneer at those teams all you want, and they will probably never be powerhouses in the region, but long-term I think that increased participation and awareness is a good thing. As an example, Centennial has only recently "evolved," so to speak, from a team that exclusively cared about the TV show to one that practices for and shows up to many area Quiz Bowl tournaments. It does happen. Other tournaments have advertised at our tournament in the past, and after our inaugural tournament I remember seeing a couple other Howard County schools at a higher-profile tournament (I forget which) for the first time. I realize that if Centennial's tournament is truly horrendous, then those teams will have no reason to look further. But some of those teams have come for several years in a row, so if they hated it that much, they wouldn't show up the next year. So while there are improvements that need to be made, I think they might be being overstated.Are we seriously indulging this whole "people can't be bothered to drive from the Baltimore suburbs to College Park for a tournament" thing? If you'd rather play a bad tournament in Howard County than go 25 minutes down I-95 to a good tournament, I doubt you ever liked real quizbowl at all, and I doubt there's anything I can say to you that will make you change. You do know that the average team in many parts of the country has to travel an hour or more to go to any tournament, right? And even the ones who aren't that interested do it?
No one wants Centennial to fail. Nothing would make the people in this thread happier than for Centennial to write a great tournament that we could all help get a 40, 50, or 60 team field for. It's totally up to them whether they want to take the copious help that's being offered to them from people who understand how quizbowl works and what real questions are, or continue to call in the alumni army to spin things and get defensive.
Well that's not the case here. A small minority of ridiculous questions does not cause the winning team to end up with 15 ppb.square635 wrote:That being said, there does tend to be a fixation on a small minority of questions. For example, one year there was widespread complaint about a tossup regarding "Gassire's Lute" which no one has ever heard of. I read at that tournament, and I think that was the only question out of about 300 that was outside of acceptable Quiz Bowl canon, but that was understandably the only question people brought up.
It is wonderful that there are teams that come to your tournament that might not come to any others. I, at least, don't sneer at them--I want them to become aware of other tournaments. (This may be part of why they come to yours every year: they don't know what potential quizbowl has, so they imagine your tournament might be the pinnacle--you have a captive audience.)square635 wrote:The fact is that there are many teams that go to Centennial's tournament that don't go to others. Now you can sneer at those teams all you want, and they will probably never be powerhouses in the region, but long-term I think that increased participation and awareness is a good thing. As an example, Centennial has only recently "evolved," so to speak, from a team that exclusively cared about the TV show to one that practices for and shows up to many area Quiz Bowl tournaments. It does happen. Other tournaments have advertised at our tournament in the past, and after our inaugural tournament I remember seeing a couple other Howard County schools at a higher-profile tournament (I forget which) for the first time. I realize that if Centennial's tournament is truly horrendous, then those teams will have no reason to look further. But some of those teams have come for several years in a row, so if they hated it that much, they wouldn't show up the next year. So while there are improvements that need to be made, I think they might be being overstated.
You may be right; was that 15 ppb throughout the whole tournament? I'm not sure what exactly is the target number there, but if you combine bonuses that are, say, 5 ppb too difficult with a weak field, that might account for some of it. Still, this is an area where definite improvement is needed - I have heard from people involved with the team that the bonuses were all over the map. Again, I never said that the tournament was wonderful (how could I? I wasn't there!), but I was pretty disgusted by the tone in which some of the attacks were coming.Well that's not the case here. A small minority of ridiculous questions does not cause the winning team to end up with 15 ppb.
I think we're mostly on the same page here, but you may not have seen the reasoning provided in my previous posts, so I'll expand on that. First an foremost, a sizable point of the tournament is to raise money. Using a vendor set cuts into profit very significantly. Secondly, the team and coach feel that housewriting a tournament is an opportunity for a learning experience, which also plays into the editing help. Thirdly, and I'm not sure everyone involved in the Centennial tournament would agree with me here, housewriting allows flexibility in terms of style and format (I know this is not always a good thing), and sometimes the homogeneity of vendor sets can get a bit stale. Finally, our coach does not like to have outside people involved in shouldering the load on questions because he believes it sets a dangerous precedent... this, at least, cannot be blamed on the students.It is wonderful that there are teams that come to your tournament that might not come to any others. I, at least, don't sneer at them--I want them to become aware of other tournaments. (This may be part of why they come to yours every year: they don't know what potential quizbowl has, so they imagine your tournament might be the pinnacle--you have a captive audience.)
I want those teams to keep on having the introduction to quizbowl that you provide. I don't want your form of quizbowl to be so inaccessible that we have to be surprised some attending teams don't "hate it that much." So why don't you accept outside editing help or get a vendor set?
http://www.acf-quizbowl.com/documents/howtowrite.phpsquare635 wrote:You may be right; was that 15 ppb throughout the whole tournament? I'm not sure what exactly is the target number there, but if you combine bonuses that are, say, 5 ppb too difficult with a weak field, that might account for some of it. Still, this is an area where definite improvement is needed - I have heard from people involved with the team that the bonuses were all over the map. Again, I never said that the tournament was wonderful (how could I? I wasn't there!), but I was pretty disgusted by the tone in which some of the attacks were coming.Well that's not the case here. A small minority of ridiculous questions does not cause the winning team to end up with 15 ppb.
I think we're mostly on the same page here, but you may not have seen the reasoning provided in my previous posts, so I'll expand on that. First an foremost, a sizable point of the tournament is to raise money. Using a vendor set cuts into profit very significantly. Secondly, the team and coach feel that housewriting a tournament is an opportunity for a learning experience, which also plays into the editing help. Thirdly, and I'm not sure everyone involved in the Centennial tournament would agree with me here, housewriting allows flexibility in terms of style and format (I know this is not always a good thing), and sometimes the homogeneity of vendor sets can get a bit stale. Finally, our coach does not like to have outside people involved in shouldering the load on questions because he believes it sets a dangerous precedent... this, at least, cannot be blamed on the students.It is wonderful that there are teams that come to your tournament that might not come to any others. I, at least, don't sneer at them--I want them to become aware of other tournaments. (This may be part of why they come to yours every year: they don't know what potential quizbowl has, so they imagine your tournament might be the pinnacle--you have a captive audience.)
I want those teams to keep on having the introduction to quizbowl that you provide. I don't want your form of quizbowl to be so inaccessible that we have to be surprised some attending teams don't "hate it that much." So why don't you accept outside editing help or get a vendor set?
What I would suggest, rather than outright editing help on questions, would be a list of rules and guidelines with examples that the team members could read and try to follow. If those resources are already available, please link them here and I will personally make sure they are disseminated to the rest of the team.
No, see, I rejected that reasoning. A justification for creating bad questions cannot be "this raises our profit margin." Even if you refuse to lower your profit margin to provide a better experience for attending teams (which is frustrating) you have the option of raising the price, keeping your profits constant but allowing teams to get better questions.square635 wrote:I think we're mostly on the same page here, but you may not have seen the reasoning provided in my previous posts, so I'll expand on that. First an foremost, a sizable point of the tournament is to raise money. Using a vendor set cuts into profit very significantly.
"Plays into" how? You can't have a "learning experience" if no one's doing any effective teaching; anyone who helps edit this tournament could help teach you guys how to write more appropriate questions (and to construct them in a more appropriate manner).square635 wrote:Secondly, the team and coach feel that housewriting a tournament is an opportunity for a learning experience, which also plays into the editing help.
Sure, that's true. That doesn't prevent you from writing a better housewrite with external advice or editing help or whatever; I'm sure we'd all be just as happy if this were a housewrite, just a better one.square635 wrote:Thirdly, and I'm not sure everyone involved in the Centennial tournament would agree with me here, housewriting allows flexibility in terms of style and format (I know this is not always a good thing), and sometimes the homogeneity of vendor sets can get a bit stale.
What kind of precedent?square635 wrote:Finally, our coach does not like to have outside people involved in shouldering the load on questions because he believes it sets a dangerous precedent... this, at least, cannot be blamed on the students.
Sure; here are some. More importantly, though, why not have someone there for oversight? That way they can say--at the least--"look, you're misconstruing rule 1.c.ii; you should do this differently," which is infinitely more helpful and leads to not much more interference. (Eventually, your team will internalize these guidelines and can pass them down from seniors to freshmen and won't need external help.)square635 wrote:What I would suggest, rather than outright editing help on questions, would be a list of rules and guidelines with examples that the team members could read and try to follow. If those resources are already available, please link them here and I will personally make sure they are disseminated to the rest of the team.
No one is using that as a justification for creating bad questions, just as a justification for creating questions. Raising the price is probably not an option because we aren't exactly marketing to teams with extremely high budgets. If this were a tournament aimed at the top teams in the region, then sure, they would probably pay more if they felt it was worth it. I would say that "refusing to lower profit margin" should be rephrased to "want to be able to regularly attend other local Quiz Bowl tournaments."No, see, I rejected that reasoning. A justification for creating bad questions cannot be "this raises our profit margin." Even if you refuse to lower your profit margin to provide a better experience for attending teams (which is frustrating) you have the option of raising the price, keeping your profits constant but allowing teams to get better questions.
I actually agree with you here, but teaching is different than just sending the questions to some external source and getting edited versions back. When I was at Centennial, we actually did hold a couple of practices, one of which was held by our college editor, specifically aimed to teach students how to write questions. Our questions that year were probably the best we've had, although they were still criticized (I believe that was the year that John Gilbert mentioned that was skewed toward the top teams). I would say that the lessons have not been passed on as effectively from upperclassmen to underclassmen as we would have hoped, so that's something I hope can be organized again this year. I see that that is also one of your suggestions, and it is one that I like. I don't have a ton of influence obviously, but I am guessing that I could organize something like that. The precedent that our coach is afraid of is that students will not learn how to write questions themselves. Of course, it may be argued that this needs improvement anyway. I must say, though, that besides the simply awful Croatan question, most of the concrete complaints I have seen have focused on questions outside of the canon and over-reliance on arcane classroom material, as opposed to question construction and mechanics. Hopefully this implies that the mistakes are ones that can be remedied without an extreme makeover. I think that this year students may have gotten too much rope as far as choosing topics within the question categories, thus leading to too much classroom material. In my senior year, rather than assigning, for example, five World History questions to someone, we first generated the set of answer choices to make sure there were no repeats and that everything was within canon, then assigned people to write questions for those specific answers. Of course, that year the response was that the questions were too short, easy, and sometimes non-pyramidal, when the previous year we had been told they were too long and difficult, with vague lead-in clues. I will look into the links you sent, and I'll see if I can put something together that I can present during my spring break. I'm sure some of my fellow alumni would also be glad to help, if the team is receptive."Plays into" how? You can't have a "learning experience" if no one's doing any effective teaching; anyone who helps edit this tournament could help teach you guys how to write more appropriate questions (and to construct them in a more appropriate manner).