Page 2 of 3

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:29 am
by naturalistic phallacy
Magister Ludi wrote:
Matt Weiner wrote:I posted a correction about the lack of culpability from the rest of the Harvard players on the Atlantic article as soon as I saw it (it's under my real name so you can verify it, despite my apparent "hatred" of Harvard or whatever). You can all make sure people know the real story by commenting on the articles now while you wait for the corrections sent in to the source to be incorporated.
Thanks for doing this. I was disappointed that NAQT didn't put greater emphasis on the fact that the rest of the team were innocent.

Also, I think it was bad form that NAQT did not even send me an email notifying me about the situation, so I didn't have to learn that I had lost my title from a fucking Gawker article posted on the Harvard quizbowl email list.
Wow, that is bad form.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:00 am
by Broad-tailed Grassbird
perlnerd666 wrote:
Marble-faced Bristle Tyrant wrote:Radio show featuring Andrew Hart: http://www.kfan.com/player/?station=KFX ... d=23014341
The Andrew Hart part begins at 14:16.
But then you miss the "WHERE DO YOU RAISE THE QUIZ BOWL BANNERS?" remark.
And then they rip on Matt Birk.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:46 pm
by Marble-faced Bristle Tyrant

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:37 am
by sabine01

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:39 am
by Marble-faced Bristle Tyrant

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:46 am
by hydrocephalitic listlessness

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:46 pm
by Edward Lansdale
Apparently newspapers must partially censor the word stripped (regardless of context) in Nigeria.

http://www.informationng.com/2013/03/ha ... r-cheating

Also, news from Canada, UK, Boston Magazine, and the Smithsonian.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:06 pm
by Rothlover
I messaged the Smithsonian and posted on that thread. The wording def makes it seem as if multiple Harvard students were involved, which is, of course, not remotely ok on Smithsonian's part.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:20 pm
by Important Bird Area
I also posted to the Smithsonian article with a correction.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:49 pm
by Nine-Tenths Ideas
Dan Passner wrote: Also, he is now at graduate school at NYU. Why is such a student allowed to skate
Anybody can skate!

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:46 pm
by Marble-faced Bristle Tyrant
Comments from the latest Crimson article:
What is glaringly missing from all of these reports is any sign that the Harvard administration has opened an investigation of this debacle despite Watkin's apparent flagrant and scandalous statements and behavior.
I really hope the Harvard club doesn't have to endure much meddling from their administration because of this. Especially since there's really nothing they can do about this sort of thing without dragging NAQT and other quizbowl organisations into it, when said organisations already do their own policing just fine.
I don't see why questions have to be written by active players anymore than questions written for the GREs or LSATs have to be written by people actively trying to gain admission into graduate school. It seems like you are asking a lot of students whose priority should be coursework.
Perhaps we should all just focus on our coursework instead of participating in any extracurricular activities.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:55 pm
by Gaterion
There is a follow-up Atlantic Wire article! http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... ing/63488/

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:05 pm
by cornfused
Gaterion wrote:There is a follow-up Atlantic Wire article! http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... ing/63488/
Atlantic Wire wrote:On the other hand, it's unclear if Watkins used those questions to gain an advantage in the actual championship. In the statement he provided to NAQT when it announced its sanctions against him, Watkins emphasized that "there is neither direct nor statistical evidence that I took advantage of my access." The NAQT appears to agree Watkins' performance demonstrated zero statistical anomalies.
Emphasis mine - isn't the general consensus that his ICT performance was a statistical anomaly?

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:34 pm
by The Bold Ideas of Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
"The NAQT" sounds so weird.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:00 am
by jonpin
cornfused wrote:
Gaterion wrote:There is a follow-up Atlantic Wire article! http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... ing/63488/
Atlantic Wire wrote:On the other hand, it's unclear if Watkins used those questions to gain an advantage in the actual championship. In the statement he provided to NAQT when it announced its sanctions against him, Watkins emphasized that "there is neither direct nor statistical evidence that I took advantage of my access." The NAQT appears to agree Watkins' performance demonstrated zero statistical anomalies.
Emphasis mine - isn't the general consensus that his ICT performance was a statistical anomaly?
Donald Rumsfeld is shaking his head. Absence of (statistically conclusive) evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:06 am
by Matt Weiner
I'd encourage everyone to stop going down the rabbit hole of believing that you can "prove" cheating by using statistics to uncover the shocking mathematical postulate that sometimes people get better at quizbowl. We know Andy Watkins cheated because we have computer records of him looking at the questions before the tournament took place. That's what cheating is! We are under no obligation to engage with his "I looked at the questions but somehow didn't gain an advantage from doing so" trolling from beyond the quizbowl grave. Conversely, casting suspicion on other people because they had good numbers at some tournament with no evidence of them having deeply flawed characters like Andy or otherwise being cheaters is not appropriate.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:50 am
by grapesmoker
Matt Weiner wrote:I'd encourage everyone to stop going down the rabbit hole of believing that you can "prove" cheating by using statistics to uncover the shocking mathematical postulate that sometimes people get better at quizbowl. We know Andy Watkins cheated because we have computer records of him looking at the questions before the tournament took place. That's what cheating is! We are under no obligation to engage with his "I looked at the questions but somehow didn't gain an advantage from doing so" trolling from beyond the quizbowl grave. Conversely, casting suspicion on other people because they had good numbers at some tournament with no evidence of them having deeply flawed characters like Andy or otherwise being cheaters is not appropriate.
The whole reason that people even suspected cheating in the first place was because of anomalous stats. Obviously a good performance taken in isolation shouldn't be used to condemn anyone, but a performance that deviates wildly from what we know the player is normally capable of is at least a reason to ask the question. The computer records are the proof, obviously, but the statistics are the reason the hypothesis exists.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:15 pm
by Fond du lac operon
Matt Weiner wrote:I'd encourage everyone to stop going down the rabbit hole of believing that you can "prove" cheating by using statistics to uncover the shocking mathematical postulate that sometimes people get better at quizbowl.
My goal in the Watkins case isn't so much to "prove" that he cheated (indeed, I think I'm on record as saying that that's totally unnecessary since everyone already believes he cheated) as to have something to show any more news outlets who claim that his performance "demonstrated no statistical anomalies" or whatever. I think this is a fairly noble goal.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:14 pm
by The King's Flight to the Scots
Fond du lac operon wrote:
Matt Weiner wrote:I'd encourage everyone to stop going down the rabbit hole of believing that you can "prove" cheating by using statistics to uncover the shocking mathematical postulate that sometimes people get better at quizbowl.
My goal in the Watkins case isn't so much to "prove" that he cheated (indeed, I think I'm on record as saying that that's totally unnecessary since everyone already believes he cheated) as to have something to show any more news outlets who claim that his performance "demonstrated no statistical anomalies" or whatever. I think this is a fairly noble goal.
The first thing we should tell them is that looking at questions before playing them is exactly the definition of cheating. Objectively, Andy gained an unfair advantage over his competitors by reading the questions beforehand; whether he used or intended to use that advantage is pretty much irrelevant. That said, his story appears to be that "a webpage containing question content was loaded" on his laptop for mysterious reasons, repeatedly, before all three tournaments, and varies on whether he refused to look at those questions or looked at them but chose to buzz at exactly the same place he would have. Since he's given such a clearly ridiculous story, any objective observer should reach the obvious conclusion that he cheated to win a quizbowl tournament.

Despite all that, if you want to add statistical likelihood to the already-pretty-conclusive evidence, I would look at his lack of negs at those two tournaments rather than just his year-to-year ICT improvement. The evidence of cheating is pretty slim but those numbers are more unlikely than his unusual performance.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:35 pm
by Cheynem
Has anyone who was ever busted for quizbowl cheating just confessed and apologized? I'm unsure if they would elicit a different reaction, but it seems like fist-shaking defiance or "whatevah, brah" attitudes seem to be the prime reaction that I'm familiar with (I'm not super familiar with HS cheating scandals, though).

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:55 pm
by Rothlover
Cheynem wrote:Has anyone who was ever busted for quizbowl cheating just confessed and apologized? I'm unsure if they would elicit a different reaction, but it seems like fist-shaking defiance or "whatevah, brah" attitudes seem to be the prime reaction that I'm familiar with (I'm not super familiar with HS cheating scandals, though).
I'm going to guess that reflects something in the character of those who cheat as much as anything... (I don't think my usual qualms with how we are a culture that sort of demands apologies as soon as someone is called out for something applies, since quizbowl is a fringe activity influenced, but not at the mercy of, such attitudes.)

I think MattBo is right as far as negs being the tell-tale giveaway. Even in as much as one improves at quizbowl etc, I'd guess neg rate is relatively static. I'd also guess that the times you see huge shifts are the times you see huge shifts in power% and power/tu ratio. To use the dreaded sports analogy, it's like a baseball player "selling out power" in exchange for contact (better tu/neg ratio) or the opposite (more powers/tus but significantly more negs). I'd guess Sudheer was the best example of an ICT-breakout, and even in a more "gameable" ICT era (def not a criticism of his mad skills) he still had, as I recall 10 negs or something like that, and subash had nearly 30. I'd guess if you looked at andy's negs at EVERY non-ICT event, his negs would be a massive outlier.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:13 pm
by jonpin
I'm reminded of something that I believe Sean Phillips said one time, that almost everyone who cheats at quiz bowl inevitably does so in almost as poor and obvious a manner as the guy from Starter for Ten who [spoiler alert], having accidentally seen one of the questions lying around on a desk prior to taping, buzzes in on a lead-in of "For 10 points, a question on astronomy..." with "Ursa Major, or The Great Bear. Also known as the Big Dipper".

Maybe the other two instances which were uncovered simultaneously with Andy, that of Joe and whoever the hell the other guy was, were instances of trying to "cheat small" so as to avoid detection. I mean, if Joe Brosch had gotten 100 PPG and led Wilmington to another national championship, there's no way it would've been three years before it was discovered.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:59 pm
by Fond du lac operon
Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr. wrote:Despite all that, if you want to add statistical likelihood to the already-pretty-conclusive evidence, I would look at his lack of negs at those two tournaments rather than just his year-to-year ICT improvement. The evidence of cheating is pretty slim but those numbers are more unlikely than his unusual performance.
So, not to get into super-esoteric statistical discussions, but I don't see any particularly nice ways to analyze P/N ratios (or, to eliminate the pesky division-by-0 problem, P/(N+c) ratios for c constant). The number of powers and negs in a tournament should each be roughly Bernoulli, for a given person and level of buzzer-aggressiveness. (Maybe beta-Bernoulli, but whatever.) But there's no good analytic formula for the quotient of two Bernoulli distributions even when they're independent, and I wouldn't expect them to be independent in this case. We could cheat and try using the normal approximation of a Bernoulli distribution (even though that often won't be applicable) but that would just give us a Cauchy distribution, in which one expects to see occasional values of large magnitude.

One might be able to just look at the joint distribution of powers and negs, though. I'll think about it some more.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:13 pm
by jonpin
Fond du lac operon wrote:
Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr. wrote:Despite all that, if you want to add statistical likelihood to the already-pretty-conclusive evidence, I would look at his lack of negs at those two tournaments rather than just his year-to-year ICT improvement. The evidence of cheating is pretty slim but those numbers are more unlikely than his unusual performance.
So, not to get into super-esoteric statistical discussions, but I don't see any particularly nice ways to analyze P/N ratios (or, to eliminate the pesky division-by-0 problem, P/(N+c) ratios for c constant). The number of powers and negs in a tournament should each be roughly Bernoulli, for a given person and level of buzzer-aggressiveness. (Maybe beta-Bernoulli, but whatever.) But there's no good analytic formula for the quotient of two Bernoulli distributions even when they're independent, and I wouldn't expect them to be independent in this case. We could cheat and try using the normal approximation of a Bernoulli distribution (even though that often won't be applicable) but that would just give us a Cauchy distribution, in which one expects to see occasional values of large magnitude.

One might be able to just look at the joint distribution of powers and negs, though. I'll think about it some more.
Fuck this distributional statistics stuff. If your stated goal is to convince the layperson that Andy was cheating via numbers, just have a link to the 2011 individual standings and say "That column marked 'N' is wrong answers. Notice how all the best players are wrong quite a few times, even the very best, but Andy was NEVER EVER WRONG. Doesn't that smell like bullshit?"

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:30 pm
by vinteuil
jonpin wrote: If your stated goal is to convince the layperson that Andy was cheating via numbers, just have a link to the 2011 individual standings and say "That column marked 'N' is wrong answers. Notice how all the best players are wrong quite a few times, even the very best, but Andy was NEVER EVER WRONG. Doesn't that smell like bullshit?"
Also, the above-cited (by Jerry, for instance) anecdotal evidence of knowledge across certain categories may not be "scientific," but it sure is convincing.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:32 pm
by ThisIsMyUsername
I like quizbowl stats, but I am not a math person, so my analysis of this situation may be completely off base. But I wanted to chime in to say a couple of things.

First of all, I agree with those (like Matt Weiner) who argue that statistical analysis is not needed to demonstrate that Andy Watkins cheated. Repeated access to the questions used in a tournament in advance of a tournament, done without informing the relevant people officials to ameliorate this situation, is definitive evidence of a form of dishonesty, and does not require further supportive evidence in order to be grounds for disqualification.

That being said, I think discussing the ways in which stats do or do not demonstrate evidence of cheating is an interesting and potentially valuable intellectual exercise that (unsurprisingly) reinforces the notion that very many important factors in a quizbowl match are poorly reflected by stats.

As I recall from my memory of word-of-mouth, the theory that Andy Watkins had cheated was fronted by several people as early as directly after the 2010 ICT. The problem with attempting to prove this with stats is that Andy's stats at that tournament are not the statistical (near) impossibility that they were in 2011. His stats at this tournament are similar to Seth Teitler's at the same tournament and reflect a very good, but not impossible-to-achieve level of performance. Though they would suggest a dramatic degree of improvement, such a degree of improvement was not outside the realm of possibility at the time, especially considering the paucity of data we had from second-semester tournaments that Andy played (he played very few that year). Nonetheless, a couple of people at the time were very suspicious of his performance, and surmised that he had cheated. Why? I am not a scientist, but based on what I heard, I would surmise that this was less because of his stats in the abstract and more because the specific buzzes he made were implausible. It was not merely how many powers he had, and how few negs he had, but what those powers were: where they occurred in the questions and against what opponents. It was not "Hey, Andy is getting some impressive early buzzes on science!", but rather "Andy is beating players who are better than he is on science questions, with buzzes that require a sort of knowledge he has never demonstrated before and hasn't demonstrated since.". (Knowledgeable science players are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong; I know nothing of science.)

On paper, a power tells you nothing except that a player beat his opponents and teammates to a question somewhere in the first half of that question. Bare stats do not record which particular questions were answered in a match, on what clues, and what the strength of the opponents was for the category of that particular question. In a game situation, we all know that not all powers are created equal and that given both the nature of the opponents and the particular clue being buzzed on, two powers which receive identical point and statistics values can mean radically different things. Speaking for myself, if someone other than Kevin beats me to a music question within power: well, hey, that occasionally happens. If someone who has never demonstrated music theory knowledge beats me to a music question within power on a minor theoretical detail from a score that I've studied, then while I don't say that I will assume that they are cheating, I will sure as hell watch them like a hawk to figure out what the hell's going on. We, as experienced players, know things about what a buzz means that stats simply do not do a good job of representing.

As a side note, I'm rather surprised given the magnitude of this scandal and the number of posts devoted to this subject, and given the fact that they are readily available to the public, that no one on these boards or in the media in general has made reference to the audio files of the semi-finals and finals matches from the 2010 ICT (http://naqt.com/ict/2010/podcasts/),if not necessarily as evidence of Andy cheating than at least as one of the few primary source records we have of matches in which Andy was cheating that provide illustrations not captured by stats.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:48 pm
by marnold
I've listened to the podcast for our match and it isn't particularly revelatory. He gets a good buzz on the first science question of the round for specific heat at constant volume, picks up kurtosis after Seth negs in the middle, gets acyl halides right after power (though makes a big show that he wanted to buzz earlier), and then doesn't get the physics after Seth 360-tomahawk-jams a question in his research area. I was interviewed by the guy who did the Crimson article and sent this to him, but I can't imagine trying to follow what's happening if you don't know the sound of people's voices and who's on which team.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:52 pm
by theMoMA
http://www.mndaily.com/news/campus/2013 ... z-titles-u

Already emailed the reporter with the correction.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 48943.html
Watkins, who graduated in 2011, had partial access to the questions which run the entire pub-quiz, general-knowledge gamut, as he was involved in setting the quizzes for high-school level students. It all sounds like the film Starter for 10, which hinges on skulduggery on University Challenge, although without the good-looking love interest.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/99 ... tters.html (more crazy British people)

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:02 pm
by marnold
I will note that slightly more suspiciously he gets a good buzz on "World Bowl" (side note: lol) in the semifinal when there's a very juicy clue in the first 40 characters and then lets Derrick Thomas (to my mind an easier NFL answer line) go dead after my neg in the final. To reinforce what I said above, I had a hard time following the Penn-Harvard podcast even knowing the people playing, so I think Eric and Andy split the science, but someone who knows stuff can perhaps better assess the quality of his science buzzes.

EDIT: Or not. It's not like any of this really proves anything: I'm quite convinced by the strong evidence he cheated even if nothing out-of-the-ordinary jumps out from these matches, and perhaps trying to pinpoint specific examples is a fool's errand.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:00 pm
by Cheynem
I agree that trying to analyze the games/stats is goofy. In 2011, he actually did nothing in the first game we played Harvard, getting outplayed by Gautam, but then hulks up and has a great game in the finals. Of course you could argue he was just lurking in the first game, ready to pounce if we made a comeback (his teammates played really well), or he knew he had the finals to play with anyway and thus didn't dick around in the last game. The point being is that he cheated even if he didn't get any questions in any games.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:16 pm
by stevebahnaman
ZERO NEGS. I mean come on.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:55 am
by grapesmoker
A person who has never been even remotely as good as Seth Teitler puts up Seth Teitler-like numbers and that's not weird?

Come on people. It's a mistake to use a single game as indicative of anything because of small sample sizes; I've had consecutive games where my scoring has varied by probably 60 points. But the whole tournament does tell you something; does anyone think there'd be allegations of impropriety in 2010 if Andy had scored 30 PPG with a 9/10/5 statline and Harvard had finished 3rd in DI UG? Or maybe a similar performance in 2011? You put that together with what you know about him as a player and you have indications that something just isn't right. You can't argue post hoc now that you have the confirmatory evidence that the statistics actually didn't matter all along. I agree with everyone who says that statistics alone can't convict anyone, but they sure can, and should, make you think twice.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:04 am
by Skepticism and Animal Feed
grapesmoker wrote: does anyone think there'd be allegations of impropriety in 2010 if Andy had scored 30 PPG with a 9/10/5 statline and Harvard had finished 3rd in DI UG?
Absolutely - given that there was a grad student on the team

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:10 am
by grapesmoker
Skepticism and Animal Feed wrote:
grapesmoker wrote: does anyone think there'd be allegations of impropriety in 2010 if Andy had scored 30 PPG with a 9/10/5 statline and Harvard had finished 3rd in DI UG?
Absolutely - given that there was a grad student on the team
My bad, dude. Mutatis mutandis, my point stands.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:54 pm
by Theory Of The Leisure Flask
marnold wrote:I will note that slightly more suspiciously he gets a good buzz on "World Bowl" (side note: lol) in the semifinal when there's a very juicy clue in the first 40 characters and then lets Derrick Thomas (to my mind an easier NFL answer line) go dead after my neg in the final. To reinforce what I said above, I had a hard time following the Penn-Harvard podcast even knowing the people playing, so I think Eric and Andy split the science, but someone who knows stuff can perhaps better assess the quality of his science buzzes.

EDIT: Or not. It's not like any of this really proves anything: I'm quite convinced by the strong evidence he cheated even if nothing out-of-the-ordinary jumps out from these matches, and perhaps trying to pinpoint specific examples is a fool's errand.
Not that this is apropos of anything, but (at least at the time) I knew more about the World Bowl than I did about Derrick Thomas. So that wouldn't have seemed weird to me- though it was frustrating, because that World Bowl question should have been mine, dammit.

I'm sure you're right that Derrick Thomas is an easier answer for most people, though.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:04 pm
by Sima Guang Hater
Theory Of The Leisure Flask wrote:Not that this is apropos of anything, but (at least at the time) I knew more about the World Bowl than I did about Derrick Thomas. So that wouldn't have seemed weird to me- though it was frustrating, because that World Bowl question should have been mine, dammit.
I was waiting for Sid. I was pretty shocked when Andy got that question.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:27 am
by Leo Wolpert
Theory Of The Leisure Flask wrote: I'm sure you're right that Derrick Thomas is an easier answer for most people, though.
To further the thread derail, I brought up this exact point in IRC and was met with (paraphrasing here): "I know about the World Bowl but wouldn't have gotten Derrick Thomas after the giveaway." I guess Derrick Thomas is only an easier answer if, like me, you started getting into NFL football in the early-to-mid-90s.

So...yeah, I guess that doesn't prove much.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:29 am
by Frater Taciturnus
http://www.northcarolinarecord.com/2013 ... -cheating/

This is the best article so far by far. BY FAR.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:39 am
by DidAndyWatkinsCheat.com
I present this news with the least nonsense of all links above -

http://www.didandywatkinscheat.com/

Click at your own risk.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:22 pm
by Sima Guang Hater
^SFW. Also should probably include the Crimson articles.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 3:57 pm
by Fond du lac operon
Hang up and Listen, one of my favorite podcasts, covered it briefly (and quite well, actually).

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:26 pm
by kayli

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:12 pm
by setht
Unfortunately the article makes it sound like I was spreading rumors about Andy, or possibly myself. Perhaps the reporter picked up on my self-destructive streak.

-Seth

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:14 pm
by Cheynem
The commenter at the end suggests it, but I think this would make an entertaining quizbowl "All the President's Men" type film, with Seth Teitler as Deep Throat.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:31 pm
by Susan
setht wrote:
Unfortunately the article makes it sound like I was spreading rumors about Andy, or possibly myself. Perhaps the reporter picked up on my self-destructive streak.

-Seth
Rumors you didn't even believe, at that!

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:32 pm
by kayli
setht wrote:
Unfortunately the article makes it sound like I was spreading rumors about Andy, or possibly myself. Perhaps the reporter picked up on my self-destructive streak.

-Seth
For what it matters, it seemed pretty clear to me that the article said that there were rumors but you dismissed them.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:02 pm
by Wackford Squeers
Eccles cake wrote:
setht wrote:
Unfortunately the article makes it sound like I was spreading rumors about Andy, or possibly myself. Perhaps the reporter picked up on my self-destructive streak.

-Seth
For what it matters, it seemed pretty clear to me that the article said that there were rumors but you dismissed them.
I think this comes down to a language ambiguity.
The Maroon wrote:Seth Teitler (Ph.D. ’10), a member of the UChicago 2010 A team, said that, following Harvard’s win, he was not suspicious about Watkins’ performance, despite circulating rumors that he may have cheated.
Circulating could either be an active participle with Seth as the subject or an adjective describing the rumors. I think the author of the article meant the latter.

edit: using grammar terms right

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:23 pm
by Marble-faced Bristle Tyrant
Oh, right, I was reading it as an adjective and didn't even notice the alternate reading. Does this count as a crash blossom, or is that only in headlines?

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:06 am
by kayli
Wackford Squeers wrote:
Eccles cake wrote:
setht wrote:
Unfortunately the article makes it sound like I was spreading rumors about Andy, or possibly myself. Perhaps the reporter picked up on my self-destructive streak.

-Seth
For what it matters, it seemed pretty clear to me that the article said that there were rumors but you dismissed them.
I think this comes down to a language ambiguity.
The Maroon wrote:Seth Teitler (Ph.D. ’10), a member of the UChicago 2010 A team, said that, following Harvard’s win, he was not suspicious about Watkins’ performance, despite circulating rumors that he may have cheated.
Circulating could either be an active participle with Seth as the subject or an adjective describing the rumors. I think the author of the article meant the latter.

edit: using grammar terms right
Oh... I didn't even catch that.

Re: Watkins-gate news media link collection - 19 Total

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:40 am
by pray for elves
Alan Siegel's new Slate piece on the Watkins stuff is out.