jdeliverer wrote:Whoa... is this a one-game final?
Reading is an important skill in quizbowl.Dan-Don wrote:Liveblogging Game 1 of the advantaged final (advantage DCD over Manual) at this. After some EDITEDEDITEDEDITEDembarrassingly went dead, it is 135-20 Manual.
My apologies. I'll keep it even vague-er.Pat Freeburn wrote:I've been informed that another tournament may be using this set at the same time so I'll be doing some editing.
If you can get to IRC you can give all the gory details there.Dan-Don wrote:jdeliverer wrote:Whoa... is this a one-game final?Reading is an important skill in quizbowl.Dan-Don wrote:Liveblogging Game 1 of the advantaged final (advantage DCD over Manual) at this. After some EDITEDEDITEDEDITEDembarrassingly went dead, it is 135-20 Manual.
My apologies. I'll keep it even vague-er.Pat Freeburn wrote:I've been informed that another tournament may be using this set at the same time so I'll be doing some editing.
("That's really cute" --Nolan)
Wow, this dude's out for blood... there are some East Coast teams that would be pretty ticked off by that.Dan-Don wrote:Manual negs on accident. I'm sorry guys :( Neil power vulches successfully. Insult to injury, man. 20.
Maybe he wanted to make sure that more tossup-bonus cycles were finished.Carangoides ciliarius wrote:Wow, this dude's out for blood... there are some East Coast teams that would be pretty ticked off by that.Dan-Don wrote:Manual negs on accident. I'm sorry guys :( Neil power vulches successfully. Insult to injury, man. 20.
So is pretending you don't know something when you do and can earn extra points because of it.Carangoides ciliarius wrote:It's just, like, it was the last tossup... completely unnecessary.
Equally unnecessary is continuing to play the match after you've mathematically clinched it. In fact, I am offended that DCDS didn't just leave the room after tossup 12 or 13 or whatever against DCC.Carangoides ciliarius wrote:It's just, like, it was the last tossup... completely unnecessary.
This is how quiz bowl should be played (figuratively not literally).Carangoides ciliarius wrote: Wow, this dude's out for blood...
Plus, assuming you're not just gonna let the tossup go dead, this actually speeds up the rest of the match (and if you get it wrong, you're just ending it earlier) so I guess in a way this could be considered polite. Plus, considering all the things that are in threads about blowouts when you should always try your hardest throughout the entire game because it's insulting not to, this statement seems very contradictory/hypocritical.Carangoides ciliarius wrote:Wow, this dude's out for blood... there are some East Coast teams that would be pretty ticked off by that.Dan-Don wrote:Manual negs on accident. I'm sorry guys :( Neil power vulches successfully. Insult to injury, man. 20.
noHuang wrote:Any missing DCC people?
1; SandyJudy Sucks a Lemon for Breakfast wrote:Was anyone from Dunbar missing? Just curious.
Several people were missing such as Brian, Matt, Ping, Victor, etc.SoLegit12 wrote:1; SandyJudy Sucks a Lemon for Breakfast wrote:Was anyone from Dunbar missing? Just curious.
It seems the Dunbar lineup is extremely fluid.Huang wrote:Several people were missing such as Brian, Matt, Ping, Victor, etc.SoLegit12 wrote:1; SandyJudy Sucks a Lemon for Breakfast wrote:Was anyone from Dunbar missing? Just curious.
This might be getting a bit off-topic but you can probably expect Dunbar A to be close to what it was at Harvard's Fall Tournament and Centre's mirror of T-Party (the only two tournaments that nearly everyone attended with the exception of Matt).SoLegit12 wrote:It seems the Dunbar lineup is extremely fluid.Huang wrote:Several people were missing such as Brian, Matt, Ping, Victor, etc.SoLegit12 wrote:1; SandyJudy Sucks a Lemon for Breakfast wrote:Was anyone from Dunbar missing? Just curious.
Wow.8 William Henry Harrison A Win 740 - 85 24 6 13 2 530 27.89
Echoing this. I obviously didn't see the moderator in question, but it was pretty frustrating not to have a scorekeeper (though I was fortunate enough to get someone else in the room to keep score most of the time). At a minimum, if scorekeepers can't be had, rounds shouldn't be timed.Dan-Don wrote:My advice for next year would be to really invest money into getting quality moderators and scorekeepers to come out. Padding individual stats is hard when one moderator only reads 20-22 tossups and insists on keeping score himself and has conversations with other coaches while the clock is running...and this was with 10 minute halves.
Small suggestion: Since you had teams on byes, why not ask them to have one or two people scorekeep during a round? From experience, I'd rather have quizbowl people scorekeep than student volunteers.pblessman wrote:Thanks for the suggestion regarding scorekeepers. If teams are OK with paying more money for the tournament, I will be happy to hire scorekeepers for the day.
However, I was a bit surprised about number of questions being read being a concern, and I am also surprised that the quality of moderators was criticized. Even though I don't believe every single moderator was perfect, I believe we had a very high quality group assembled, and the stats seem to support this (once again many thanks to Mike Laudermith, Matt Laird, Jon Greenthal, and Ben Dillon for reading for the tournament). Stats don't vouch for pronunciation etc., but I have a hard time seeing how numbers of questions read could be a concern.
We finished the eleven round RR by 3:45 PM, and the two-game final finished by 4:50 PM, meaning we got in 13 rounds before 5 PM. The LOWEST number of toss-ups read in any match was 19, with the mean at 22.9. Dan-Don heard 234 TUs in 10 matches for an average of 23.4 TUH per game. As there are only 24 questions in each set, Dan-Don only missed out on six questions all day. The lowest average for any team was 22.0. In comparison, my team heard an average of 21.5 TU per game at HSNCT last year, and other teams heard a similar number of questions (and keep in mind that there are 26 questions per HSNCT set, so some games can have 25 or 26 TUs).
All that being said, I hope Dan-Don will bring a posse of Wildcats down to next year's Midwest Championship so you guys can do some even better reading and scorekeeping. Maybe we can get the mean, mode, and median of questions read per match all equal to 24?
Gotta disagree here. If we're doing 9 minute halves, I feel just awful about it if I don't get through 24. 20 of 24 or 26 leaves a lot on the table.Jeremy Gibbs Freesy Does It wrote:Uh, finishing the packet is nice, but the goal of a good moderator in NAQT should be to hit 20 tossups, and then the rest is gravy.
Then why is untimed 20/20? 26 leaves enough for replacements/tiebreakers, since NAQT uses 3/3 as the initial tiebreaker.Dresden_The_Moderator wrote:Gotta disagree here. If we're doing 9 minute halves, I feel just awful about it if I don't get through 24. 20 of 24 or 26 leaves a lot on the table.Jeremy Gibbs Freesy Does It wrote:Uh, finishing the packet is nice, but the goal of a good moderator in NAQT should be to hit 20 tossups, and then the rest is gravy.
I think untimed is 20/20 because 20 is a round number that scorekeepers love to love. It's a different mentality though...if it's 20/20 then teams expect 20 questions, that's what they get and everyone goes home happy. If it's untimed though, I would feel remiss to not give them the most possible. Besides...the more questions, the better sample size by which to evaluate teams, both in an individual match and the tournament as a whole.dtaylor4 wrote:Then why is untimed 20/20? 26 leaves enough for replacements/tiebreakers, since NAQT uses 3/3 as the initial tiebreaker.Dresden_The_Moderator wrote:Gotta disagree here. If we're doing 9 minute halves, I feel just awful about it if I don't get through 24. 20 of 24 or 26 leaves a lot on the table.Jeremy Gibbs Freesy Does It wrote:Uh, finishing the packet is nice, but the goal of a good moderator in NAQT should be to hit 20 tossups, and then the rest is gravy.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. SCT, which is what you were playing on, has ten-minute halves.Dan-Don wrote:I guess it's good that we were averaging 23.4 TUH, but I believe these were 425-character tossups. Therefore timing rules should have been 9-minute halves. Knowing the scorekeeper situation, I suggested 10 minute halves during the players/coaches' meeting. But that still means that, on average, moderators weren't finishing the packet even though they had two extra minutes. I will certainly do my best to fix the staffing situation next year for this great event.
D2 is 10 minute halves? Well, in that case, that was my mistake. And the "padding stats" comment was just for some humor at my own expense.jonpin wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by this. SCT, which is what you were playing on, has ten-minute halves.Dan-Don wrote:I guess it's good that we were averaging 23.4 TUH, but I believe these were 425-character tossups. Therefore timing rules should have been 9-minute halves. Knowing the scorekeeper situation, I suggested 10 minute halves during the players/coaches' meeting. But that still means that, on average, moderators weren't finishing the packet even though they had two extra minutes. I will certainly do my best to fix the staffing situation next year for this great event.
Also, saying it's hard to pad individual stats when you only get through 20-22 questions sounds completely silly for reasons beyond those already mentioned, as stats are calculated per TU.
Since this was the first time I've ever read for a timed tournament, I'll claim a little bit of latitude. I do apologize for throwing in that small conversation with the Harrison coach; I lost my head for a second and you brought me back to my senses.Dan-Don wrote:Ah but Charlie you're forgetting that the timing rules had been amended. Had the timing rules stayed at 9 minute halves, it is safe to say that the moderator from St. Joe's (whose number of tossups heard was severely affected by the need to keep score by himself) would have averaged less than 20 TUH. If I were Coach Blessman I wouldn't ignore my advice: scorekeepers should be gotten for an event as important as this (that is, if it's going to be timed). That's all Jonah and I are advising. Of course, I did also advise that the moderator in question doesn't stop to have a conversation while the clock is running. But I can hardly blame Mr. Blessman for that, can I?
