VETO Discussion

Old college threads.
Locked
User avatar
MicroEStudent
Rikku
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:20 pm

VETO Discussion

Post by MicroEStudent »

(I do not know if the set is clear to talk about, so I will avoid specifics)

First, I want to thank Jay and McMaster for being great hosts for this tournament. I also thank Jay for making a mid-round moderator change that was needed.

In general, there were some good questions and some bad questions. Relative to other tournaments, the bad seemed to be a bit higher than normal. For a free tournament, I'm okay with this, but had there been a registration fee greater than $40, I would have been disappointed.

My main issue was with the visual bonuses. I get that it's a gimmick and having one in a round is not awful, but having several, much less TWELVE in a packet is absolutely unacceptable. Mother of quiz bowl, that was the worst packet I have ever played and I did seven years worth of College Bowl in high school and college. It took us just under an hour to complete a round, while having 5 tossups go dead in a room with a good moderator. That absolutely left a sour taste in my mouth.

Once the set is confirmed for release, I'll have some question specific gripes, a lot of which have to deal with answer lines.
Nathaniel Kane
RIT '09, '11 (BS Microelectronic Engineering, MS Microelectronic Engineering)

User avatar
Masked Canadian History Bandit
Rikku
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:43 pm

Re: VETO Discussion

Post by Masked Canadian History Bandit »

Do you know if the VETO stats are up? If so, link please? Thanks.
Patrick Liao
Lisgar Collegiate Institute 2011, University of Pennsylvania 2015, University of Toronto Faculty of Law 2019

User avatar
bsmith
Tidus
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:33 am
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: VETO Discussion

Post by bsmith »

Masked Canadian History Bandit wrote:Do you know if the VETO stats are up? If so, link please? Thanks.
Vancouver and Hamilton.
MicroEStudent wrote:My main issue was with the visual bonuses. I get that it's a gimmick and having one in a round is not awful, but having several, much less TWELVE in a packet is absolutely unacceptable. Mother of quiz bowl, that was the worst packet I have ever played and I did seven years worth of College Bowl in high school and college. It took us just under an hour to complete a round, while having 5 tossups go dead in a room with a good moderator. That absolutely left a sour taste in my mouth.
Welcome to Peter's packets.
Ben Smith
Ottawa '08 & '10

User avatar
vetovian
Lulu
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:15 am
Contact:

Re: VETO Discussion

Post by vetovian »

Sorry for the lateness of this response. The VETO packets have been posted on the Stanford archive.
MicroEStudent wrote:My main issue was with the visual bonuses. I get that it's a gimmick and having one in a round is not awful, but having several, much less TWELVE in a packet is absolutely unacceptable. Mother of quiz bowl, that was the worst packet I have ever played and I did seven years worth of College Bowl in high school and college. It took us just under an hour to complete a round, while having 5 tossups go dead in a room with a good moderator. That absolutely left a sour taste in my mouth.
My packet ("FARSIDE") had nine visual bonuses, though if you count each conferral opportunity separately, they add up to more than twelve.

Yeah, I was thinking, when we played a visual bonus on the computer (from your own packet, actually, which had just one), it is rather inconvenient to get the picture up, turn the monitor around, get the team to crowd around to look at it, and then turn the monitor back and check the answers. That's why we usually print out visuals, though obviously that's not always possible, especially if the packet will be used for playoffs. I still think it was a nice touch when UBC's VETO packet five years ago had a visual for every one of its bonuses.

Was it the intrinsic awkwardness and time-consumingness of visuals that made this the worst packet you've ever played, or was there more to it than that?

Do you remember which packet was played in each round, so that we'll be able to compare the questions with the scores? The SQBS tables we received from Hamilton don't include this information (but those from Vancouver do).
Peter, SFU alumnus

User avatar
MicroEStudent
Rikku
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:20 pm

Re: VETO Discussion

Post by MicroEStudent »

vetovian wrote:Sorry for the lateness of this response. The VETO packets have been posted on the Stanford archive.
MicroEStudent wrote:My main issue was with the visual bonuses. I get that it's a gimmick and having one in a round is not awful, but having several, much less TWELVE in a packet is absolutely unacceptable. Mother of quiz bowl, that was the worst packet I have ever played and I did seven years worth of College Bowl in high school and college. It took us just under an hour to complete a round, while having 5 tossups go dead in a room with a good moderator. That absolutely left a sour taste in my mouth.
My packet ("FARSIDE") had nine visual bonuses, though if you count each conferral opportunity separately, they add up to more than twelve.

Yeah, I was thinking, when we played a visual bonus on the computer (from your own packet, actually, which had just one), it is rather inconvenient to get the picture up, turn the monitor around, get the team to crowd around to look at it, and then turn the monitor back and check the answers. That's why we usually print out visuals, though obviously that's not always possible, especially if the packet will be used for playoffs. I still think it was a nice touch when UBC's VETO packet five years ago had a visual for every one of its bonuses.

Was it the intrinsic awkwardness and time-consumingness of visuals that made this the worst packet you've ever played, or was there more to it than that?

Do you remember which packet was played in each round, so that we'll be able to compare the questions with the scores? The SQBS tables we received from Hamilton don't include this information (but those from Vancouver do).
The bolded part is 100% true. The procedure went, normal tossup, moderator has to scroll down to bonus, read instructions and know them so they can relay to the team, scroll down to the visual(s), read the instructions, conferral time, answers, moderator has to scroll back up to see if the answers are correct, repeat if necessary for other bonus part(s) moderator has to scroll up to next tossup. Once in a round is tolerable. nine times, is not. Rico had a visual bonus for the Jeff Goldblum Memorial involving short video clips. This one worked well. I can't get into specifics about the question, but it kept the flow of the match. The round played on your packet took forever. It was also the last round of the day that we played and just dragged.

In terms of content, it was neither the finest nor worst packet I've played on.

Regarding our packet, I only put in the visual bonus because the guidelines required one (or other multimedia bonus). I would rather not have included one. I also freely admit that the bonus wasn't exactly the most pyramidal in the world.

I also think that it is more difficult to have pyramidal bonus parts for a visual bonus than for a normal one. It can be done, but many of the visual bonuses from VETO did not. Mike Bentley's visual tournament showed that it is possible to make visual arts tossups pyramidal and enjoyable, but these bonuses were neither most of the time.

Regarding the packet/round correlation, I don't remember at all. Jay may be a better source for that information.
Nathaniel Kane
RIT '09, '11 (BS Microelectronic Engineering, MS Microelectronic Engineering)

Locked