Page 2 of 2

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Chicago Open 2011 (July 30, 2011)

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:23 pm
by Louis XIV and Twenty Million Henchmen
evilmonkey wrote:If you don't mark who got the tossup, I have no idea who got that third power that you didn't remember to include in your tally at the bottom. There are at least 4 instances where I had to just randomly attribute a power, ten, or neg to a player.
Yeah, I found myself forgetting to record who got the tossup a few times when I was reading. Luckily I remembered later…I think. I agree that a scoresheet that allows you to record both the points and the player in a single action would have been nice.

I'm sorry about not putting lines on my scoresheets, too – I figured it wasn't necessary to record which question number each thing happened on, but I might have been wrong about that.

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Chicago Open 2011 (July 30, 2011)

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:39 pm
by theMoMA
Discussion of science has been moved to viewtopic.php?f=9&t=11862&p=222649#p222649

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Chicago Open 2011 (July 30, 2011)

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:05 am
by evilmonkey
John, Matt, Mike, I've made the changes you noted. If anyone has the stats from the two final games, I'll gladly add them in.

Miriam: Hand-drawing lines onto scoresheets takes quite a bit of time that moderators generally aren't going to have, so that particular frustration wasn't directed at moderators. I was lucky enough to have the bye team read for me during the second round, which allowed me time to draw them myself.

On an unrelated note, if I were to work up conversion stats (i.e. 30-20-10-0 for each bonus, 15-10-0-(-5) for each TU) for each round, would anyone give those numbers more than a passing glance? As in, would someone actually use those numbers to critique individual questions? I got through the first two rounds while scorekeeping for a bye team member in a couple of rounds, and I think it would be potentially useful information, but I really don't want to spend more time on the data collection and presentation for the rest than others spend on the analysis.

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Chicago Open 2011 (July 30, 2011)

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:03 pm
by grapesmoker
evilmonkey wrote:On an unrelated note, if I were to work up conversion stats (i.e. 30-20-10-0 for each bonus, 15-10-0-(-5) for each TU) for each round, would anyone give those numbers more than a passing glance? As in, would someone actually use those numbers to critique individual questions? I got through the first two rounds while scorekeeping for a bye team member in a couple of rounds, and I think it would be potentially useful information, but I really don't want to spend more time on the data collection and presentation for the rest than others spend on the analysis.
I think this would certainly be interesting information if you were to be so kind as to do it, but I suspect it would take you a long time and probably not produce a great deal of discussion.

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Chicago Open 2011 (July 30, 2011)

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:51 pm
by The King's Flight to the Scots
evilmonkey wrote:John, Matt, Mike, I've made the changes you noted. If anyone has the stats from the two final games, I'll gladly add them in.

Miriam: Hand-drawing lines onto scoresheets takes quite a bit of time that moderators generally aren't going to have, so that particular frustration wasn't directed at moderators. I was lucky enough to have the bye team read for me during the second round, which allowed me time to draw them myself.

On an unrelated note, if I were to work up conversion stats (i.e. 30-20-10-0 for each bonus, 15-10-0-(-5) for each TU) for each round, would anyone give those numbers more than a passing glance? As in, would someone actually use those numbers to critique individual questions? I got through the first two rounds while scorekeeping for a bye team member in a couple of rounds, and I think it would be potentially useful information, but I really don't want to spend more time on the data collection and presentation for the rest than others spend on the analysis.
I'd be very interested in this kind of information.

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Chicago Open 2011 (July 30, 2011)

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:44 pm
by Cheynem
Did Ryan just give the best and second best packet discount behind the scenes? I would be interested to know who won.

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Chicago Open 2011 (July 30, 2011)

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 10:39 am
by Maxwell Sniffingwell
Cheynem wrote:Did Ryan just give the best and second best packet discount behind the scenes? I would be interested to know who won.
We got the $25 discount somehow.

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Chicago Open 2011 (July 30, 2011)

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:55 pm
by No Rules Westbrook
Yeah, I gave the Peterson team the 25 dollar discount, and I gave noone the 50 dollar discount! - not necessarily cause everyone sucked, but because I couldn't decide who to pick initially, and I forgot to think about it in the course of running around that morning.

Although, I will say...prior to him pulling out, I told Jordan Palmer he could play for free, given the fact that he wrote a whole packet by himself for CO, and I appreciate that considerable effort.

In thinking about that discount, I do try to honestly weigh how pleased I was with a packet, given the reasonable expectations for it - without making it impossible for you to win just because you're a really good team whose packet should be polished.

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Chicago Open 2011 (July 30, 2011)

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:57 pm
by No Rules Westbrook
It's also possible that I gave a discount to the Peterson team just because I like that Will Cotton bonus part that I changed to Katy Perry, in order to bring that bonus down to somewhere near the realm of even difficulty.