Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Old college threads.
User avatar
No Rules Westbrook
Auron
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by No Rules Westbrook » Thu May 09, 2013 7:17 pm

I support bouncebacks, cause bonuses are cooler than tossups, and bonus conversion is where it's at.

I think CO questions in and of themselves do plenty to stymie upsets. Unless your name is Mik Larsen.

How about "On Fire" rules, huh? Buehler?
Ryan Westbrook, no affiliation whatsoever.

I am pure energy...and as ancient as the cosmos. Feeble creatures, GO!

Left here since birth...forgotten in the river of time...I've had an eternity to...ponder the meaning of things...and now I have an answer!

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Thu May 09, 2013 11:50 pm

In more logistical news: Matt Jackson has informed me that there are currently 17 teams signed up here. I don't think we can handle any more teams than that, so I'd like to impose a soft cap there.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

Charbroil
Auron
Posts: 1144
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:52 am
Location: St. Charles, MO

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by Charbroil » Fri May 10, 2013 1:09 am

Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr. wrote:In more logistical news: Matt Jackson has informed me that there are currently 17 teams signed up here. I don't think we can handle any more teams than that, so I'd like to impose a soft cap there.
So, there seem to be two team signup spreadsheets, the one which Rob Carson posted earlier in this thread (here) and the one which you just posted (which I don't think was previously posted in this thread, though I may be wrong). Some people (including myself) seem to have only signed up in one or the other, which means that it looks like you actually have more than 17 teams.
Charles Hang
Francis Howell Central '09
St. Charles Community College '14
Washington University in St. Louis '19 (President, 2017-19)

Owner, Olympia Academic Competition Questions, LLC
Question Writer, National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC and National History Bee and Bowl

User avatar
Auks Ran Ova
Forums Staff: Chief Administrator
Posts: 4042
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by Auks Ran Ova » Fri May 10, 2013 1:51 am

Hmm, this one's partly on me--someone accidentally linked a private document to the old spreadsheet, so I deleted it and created a new one, then posted in the matchmaking thread about it. However, I forgot to also post a new link in this thread*, so people who ignored the "this document is in the owner's trash" warning and/or failed to check the thread about creating CO teams while in the process of creating their CO team were misled. I apologize for...some of that.

*and failed to realize that Google Docs would allow other people to continue editing a file that the owner had deleted until the file was "permanently deleted"
Rob Carson
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??
Member, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Mon May 13, 2013 10:12 am

Updated received packets.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
minusfive
Rikku
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:35 pm
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by minusfive » Sat May 25, 2013 1:17 am

If there's room, there's still a team in Canada being finalized (Jay Misuk, Pat Liao, Sinan Ulusoy, Jordan Palmer + honorary Canadian Drew Scheeler) which has stayed off the radar so far.
Jordan Palmer, Nick Penner's Hero.

Pass by, and curse thy fill, but pass and stay not here thy gait.

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

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by Masked Canadian History Bandit » Sat May 25, 2013 10:33 am

minusfive wrote:If there's room, there's still a team in Canada being finalized (Jay Misuk, Pat Liao, Sinan Ulusoy, Jordan Palmer + honorary Canadian Drew Scheeler) which has stayed off the radar so far.
IIRC some members of this team first signed up under the soft cap, but on the outdated spreadsheet.
Patrick Liao
Lisgar Collegiate Institute 2011, University of Pennsylvania 2015, University of Toronto Faculty of Law 2019
President, Ontario Quizbowl Association (ONQBA)
Support the ONQBA on Facebook!

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Tue May 28, 2013 12:39 am

Hey, it looks like teams have continued to add themselves to the team spreadsheet since I closed the field. Please know that I'm maintaining the field cap because it makes my life easier; however, I'm willing to make a deal. The first 17 teams who submit packets* will get a place in the field, teams who submit later than that will be out in the cold unless somebody drops. You have been warned.

*Note that these packets have to be reasonably workable and can't just consist of 4-line tossups written to meet a deadline.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6558
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by Cheynem » Tue May 28, 2013 12:41 am

Matt Bollinger IS Eric Bischoff IN Chicago Open 2013: No Rules.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger

Edmund
Wakka
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:25 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by Edmund » Tue May 28, 2013 4:01 pm

We had planned to have our packet in the weekend just gone, and then that old favourite the "unforeseen circumstances" happened. We'll have it done soon!
Edmund Dickinson
BuzzerQuiz
University of Oxford '11

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5686
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by theMoMA » Wed May 29, 2013 6:34 am

Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr. wrote:Hey, it looks like teams have continued to add themselves to the team spreadsheet since I closed the field. Please know that I'm maintaining the field cap because it makes my life easier; however, I'm willing to make a deal. The first 17 teams who submit packets* will get a place in the field, teams who submit later than that will be out in the cold unless somebody drops. You have been warned.
This, to me, seems like the kind of thing you'd want to announce before people start forming teams and writing packets. It seems highly unfair that a team that formed a few months ago under the expectations of a particular packet-writing scheme could be kicked out of the tournament under another scheme, especially one that also rewards people who are ignoring your own field cap.

Furthermore, while there's obviously plenty of time to write between now and the tournament, creating a race to bump teams from the tournament seems like the wrong kind of incentive. (I find it particularly strange that it seems to be flying without comment when, just a few months ago, people were posting nonstop about the gall of creating a packet race that would have required teams that missed out to pay an extra $40 and not write a packet at all, not be kicked from the tournament.)

I think that you, as the editor of this tournament and the person who has imposed a 17-team cap, should actually enforce that cap. If people are adding themselves to the document, tell them to stop. Don't give them a chance to kick teams that followed your rules from the field.
Andrew Hart
Minnesota alum

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Wed May 29, 2013 10:41 am

theMoMA wrote:
Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr. wrote:Hey, it looks like teams have continued to add themselves to the team spreadsheet since I closed the field. Please know that I'm maintaining the field cap because it makes my life easier; however, I'm willing to make a deal. The first 17 teams who submit packets* will get a place in the field, teams who submit later than that will be out in the cold unless somebody drops. You have been warned.
This, to me, seems like the kind of thing you'd want to announce before people start forming teams and writing packets. It seems highly unfair that a team that formed a few months ago under the expectations of a particular packet-writing scheme could be kicked out of the tournament under another scheme, especially one that also rewards people who are ignoring your own field cap.

Furthermore, while there's obviously plenty of time to write between now and the tournament, creating a race to bump teams from the tournament seems like the wrong kind of incentive. (I find it particularly strange that it seems to be flying without comment when, just a few months ago, people were posting nonstop about the gall of creating a packet race that would have required teams that missed out to pay an extra $40 and not write a packet at all, not be kicked from the tournament.)

I think that you, as the editor of this tournament and the person who has imposed a 17-team cap, should actually enforce that cap. If people are adding themselves to the document, tell them to stop. Don't give them a chance to kick teams that followed your rules from the field.
I would rather kick teams that signed up on the sheet but didn't write a packet than kick teams that did write a packet but didn't put their names on the doc--and yes, that's the choice I'm facing right now. Sorry for the slight change of mind here, but this is what I'm sticking with. I understand it would have been ideal to announce this from the outset; on the other hand, four experienced players should really not have much trouble submitting a packet before the 17th team does.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

wd4gdz
Tidus
Posts: 739
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tallahassee

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by wd4gdz » Wed May 29, 2013 10:50 am

Matt B, could you please update the packets received post when you get a chance? Thanks!
Billy Beyer, formerly of FSU

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Wed May 29, 2013 11:12 am

wd4gdz wrote:Matt B, could you please update the packets received post when you get a chance? Thanks!
That post is up-to-date; nobody submitted for the last deadline.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

Adventure Temple Trail
Auron
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:52 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by Adventure Temple Trail » Wed May 29, 2013 11:18 am

If there is still spreadsheet confusion, it might be good to keep the official spreadsheet in the first post and mark the previous/unofficial/Rob spreadsheet (which is still visible upon clicking despite a message saying it's in the user's Trash) with giant letters saying DO NOT USE.
Matt J.
ex-Georgetown Day HS, ex-Yale
member emeritus, ACF

Sailing away on my copper boat

User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6558
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by Cheynem » Wed May 29, 2013 11:42 am

Are the teams who already submitted packets safely in the field?
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Wed May 29, 2013 12:07 pm

Cheynem wrote:Are the teams who already submitted packets safely in the field?
Yes.

The matchmaking grid is now in the first post.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
The Bold Ideas of Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Tidus
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The Bold Ideas of Bernie Sanders (I-VT) » Wed May 29, 2013 4:22 pm

Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr. wrote:
theMoMA wrote:
Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr. wrote:Hey, it looks like teams have continued to add themselves to the team spreadsheet since I closed the field. Please know that I'm maintaining the field cap because it makes my life easier; however, I'm willing to make a deal. The first 17 teams who submit packets* will get a place in the field, teams who submit later than that will be out in the cold unless somebody drops. You have been warned.
This, to me, seems like the kind of thing you'd want to announce before people start forming teams and writing packets. It seems highly unfair that a team that formed a few months ago under the expectations of a particular packet-writing scheme could be kicked out of the tournament under another scheme, especially one that also rewards people who are ignoring your own field cap.

Furthermore, while there's obviously plenty of time to write between now and the tournament, creating a race to bump teams from the tournament seems like the wrong kind of incentive. (I find it particularly strange that it seems to be flying without comment when, just a few months ago, people were posting nonstop about the gall of creating a packet race that would have required teams that missed out to pay an extra $40 and not write a packet at all, not be kicked from the tournament.)

I think that you, as the editor of this tournament and the person who has imposed a 17-team cap, should actually enforce that cap. If people are adding themselves to the document, tell them to stop. Don't give them a chance to kick teams that followed your rules from the field.
I would rather kick teams that signed up on the sheet but didn't write a packet than kick teams that did write a packet but didn't put their names on the doc--and yes, that's the choice I'm facing right now. Sorry for the slight change of mind here, but this is what I'm sticking with. I understand it would have been ideal to announce this from the outset; on the other hand, four experienced players should really not have much trouble submitting a packet before the 17th team does.
Are you disregarding the possibility that teams who have been planning on playing for several months, made it known, yet haven't submitted a packet (for whatever reason) have already made and paid for travel arrangements?
Adam Sperber
Hickman '10, Northwestern B '14

" 'Yay, more Adam Sperber' --Nobody " --Cody Voight

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Wed May 29, 2013 7:23 pm

merv1618 wrote:
Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr. wrote:
theMoMA wrote:
Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr. wrote:Hey, it looks like teams have continued to add themselves to the team spreadsheet since I closed the field. Please know that I'm maintaining the field cap because it makes my life easier; however, I'm willing to make a deal. The first 17 teams who submit packets* will get a place in the field, teams who submit later than that will be out in the cold unless somebody drops. You have been warned.
This, to me, seems like the kind of thing you'd want to announce before people start forming teams and writing packets. It seems highly unfair that a team that formed a few months ago under the expectations of a particular packet-writing scheme could be kicked out of the tournament under another scheme, especially one that also rewards people who are ignoring your own field cap.

Furthermore, while there's obviously plenty of time to write between now and the tournament, creating a race to bump teams from the tournament seems like the wrong kind of incentive. (I find it particularly strange that it seems to be flying without comment when, just a few months ago, people were posting nonstop about the gall of creating a packet race that would have required teams that missed out to pay an extra $40 and not write a packet at all, not be kicked from the tournament.)

I think that you, as the editor of this tournament and the person who has imposed a 17-team cap, should actually enforce that cap. If people are adding themselves to the document, tell them to stop. Don't give them a chance to kick teams that followed your rules from the field.
I would rather kick teams that signed up on the sheet but didn't write a packet than kick teams that did write a packet but didn't put their names on the doc--and yes, that's the choice I'm facing right now. Sorry for the slight change of mind here, but this is what I'm sticking with. I understand it would have been ideal to announce this from the outset; on the other hand, four experienced players should really not have much trouble submitting a packet before the 17th team does.
Are you disregarding the possibility that teams who have been planning on playing for several months, made it known, yet haven't submitted a packet (for whatever reason) have already made and paid for travel arrangements?
I'm not disregarding it, I'm just not especially sympathetic. Getting a packet in is not difficult, so do it.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
1992 in spaceflight
Auron
Posts: 1293
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: St. Louis-area, MO

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by 1992 in spaceflight » Wed May 29, 2013 9:16 pm

Have you found someone to be in charge of finding staff? I'm willing to if you haven't found someone.
Jacob O'Rourke
Washington (MO) HS Assistant Coach (2014-Present); MOQBA Secretary (2015-Present)
Formerly: HSAPQ Host Contact; NASAT Outreach Coordinator (2016 and 2017); Kirksville HS Assistant Coach (2012-2014); Truman State '14; and Pacific High (MO) '10


"And here we are as on a darkling plain, Swept by confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night."
Matthew Arnold, Dover Beach.

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Thu May 30, 2013 1:32 pm

The Two Hearts of Kwasi Boachi wrote:Have you found someone to be in charge of finding staff? I'm willing to if you haven't found someone.
Katy Peters volunteered to run this a while back, so unless things have changed recently we should be good there. We would still appreciate staffers!
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
setht
Auron
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:41 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by setht » Thu May 30, 2013 4:10 pm

Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr. wrote:In more logistical news: Matt Jackson has informed me that there are currently 17 teams signed up here. I don't think we can handle any more teams than that
Is this based on rooms or staff or something else?

-Seth
Seth Teitler
Formerly UC Berkeley and U. Chicago
President and Chief Editor, NAQT
Emeritus member, ACF

User avatar
Tees-Exe Line
Tidus
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:02 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by Tees-Exe Line » Thu May 30, 2013 4:13 pm

setht wrote:
Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr. wrote:In more logistical news: Matt Jackson has informed me that there are currently 17 teams signed up here. I don't think we can handle any more teams than that
Is this based on rooms or staff or something else?

-Seth
I think the most important reason to limit the field is if it's intended to be a full round robin, as usual, in which case there's the thugs at the UCPD to contend with. As I brought up last year, the field could be expanded iff people are willing to play brackets.
Marshall I. Steinbaum

Oxford University (2002-2005)
University of Chicago (2008-2014)

Get in the elevator.

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Thu May 30, 2013 4:16 pm

Tees-Exe Line wrote:
setht wrote:
Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr. wrote:In more logistical news: Matt Jackson has informed me that there are currently 17 teams signed up here. I don't think we can handle any more teams than that
Is this based on rooms or staff or something else?

-Seth
I think the most important reason to limit the field is if it's intended to be a full round robin, as usual, in which case there's the thugs at the UCPD to contend with. As I brought up last year, the field could be expanded iff people are willing to play brackets.
Marshall's correct--although I'll add that I would really rather not have to write enough editors' packets for a playoff or crossover or what have you.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8411
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by Matt Weiner » Thu May 30, 2013 4:22 pm

You could do doubled-up packets like ACF Nationals does and run a tournament of 22 teams on the same number of packets as a 17-team round robin. Assuming you were already planning to edit 17 packets and have 3 editors' rounds for tiebreaks/finals, you could have 2 brackets play an 11 game round robin on submitted packets, then cross over by 3s using doubled-up packets (with teams 10 and 11 in each bracket doing a simple RR instead of a crossover).

But I think a 17-game round robin is the perfect open format and my team already submitted a packet, so I will hardly weep if this doesn't happen.
Matt Weiner
Founder of hsquizbowl.org

User avatar
fleurdelivre
Tidus
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:35 am
Location: ???

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by fleurdelivre » Thu May 30, 2013 8:34 pm

I'd love to help get a full RR in without triggering the wrath of UCPD, which will require an all-star moderating team. On that note, anyone interested in attending CO without the terror of actually facing quiz bowl giants in buzzer-to-buzzer combat should also get in touch with me about moderating/scorekeeping/statskeeping.

Email me at kathryn dot e dot peters at gmail if you'd like to staff.
Katy
Vanderbilt '06 / Harvard '11 / freelance moderator

User avatar
Papa's in the House
Tidus
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by Papa's in the House » Thu May 30, 2013 9:12 pm

If you're still looking for staff for this a week before the tournament, let me know.

EDIT: A post showing people who've agreed to staff would probably help with the bracket vs RR discussion, making sure people who agree to staff actually show up, and whatever else comes up
Charles Martin Jr.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Academic Buzzer Team | President
B.S. in Accountancy, August 2011
B.S. in Finance, August 2011
MAS Program, Class of 2012

User avatar
fleurdelivre
Tidus
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:35 am
Location: ???

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by fleurdelivre » Fri May 31, 2013 12:27 am

Papa's in the House wrote:If you're still looking for staff for this a week before the tournament, let me know.

EDIT: A post showing people who've agreed to staff would probably help with the bracket vs RR discussion, making sure people who agree to staff actually show up, and whatever else comes up
That's not usually necessary as an accountability tool, and given my limited free time leading up to the event, I don't think adding a public staffing post makes a lot of sense. I'll definitely work with Matt to ensure that we have enough folks on hand to accommodate whatever tournament format makes the most sense to run, and I'll gladly let you know if we're still short-handed closer to the actual date.
Katy
Vanderbilt '06 / Harvard '11 / freelance moderator

User avatar
1992 in spaceflight
Auron
Posts: 1293
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: St. Louis-area, MO

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by 1992 in spaceflight » Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:22 am

Hey, I need a place to stay over CO weekend. Could I possibly crash on somebody's floor? Thanks in advance!
Jacob O'Rourke
Washington (MO) HS Assistant Coach (2014-Present); MOQBA Secretary (2015-Present)
Formerly: HSAPQ Host Contact; NASAT Outreach Coordinator (2016 and 2017); Kirksville HS Assistant Coach (2012-2014); Truman State '14; and Pacific High (MO) '10


"And here we are as on a darkling plain, Swept by confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night."
Matthew Arnold, Dover Beach.

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:27 am

11 packets now. Keep getting these in, folks.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:12 pm

After the no penalty deadline I've got 13 packets with 4 spots left.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:35 pm

15 packets in, only 2 spots left...if you want to play I'm probably going to need a packet today.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6558
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by Cheynem » Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:15 pm

So there are 2 slots left and 6 teams left who have not submitted a packet (although that one 2-person team of Joe/Alex should probably just combine with the other 2-person team that has already written a packet). This means in effect there will probably be about 3 or so teams who signed up to play who will not get a chance to play CO. I'm not necessarily weeping here because they had a reasonable amount of time to write a packet (although less than a month than when the edict of FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED was declared)...but this still seems sub-optimal to me. We just passed the June 9th deadline of "no penalty," which meant that teams who signed up were presumably believing they had all of June (including the crucial post all three HS nationals time) to write a packet.

I'm not saying this should be changed yet again (which would be really confusing and dumb at this point), but I guess I'd just emphasize that I find this a rather disappointing turn of events and that I urge people running future tournaments to be very, very clear about team registration/number of teams, etc. I liked whatever tournament (VCUO?) emphasized that spreadsheets were not the proper way to sign up for tournaments.

Edit: I'm not impugning anyone here per se, just expressing my discontent over the situation. Again, plenty of teams with their own activities going on wrote packets.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:45 pm

Cheynem wrote:So there are 2 slots left and 6 teams left who have not submitted a packet (although that one 2-person team of Joe/Alex should probably just combine with the other 2-person team that has already written a packet). This means in effect there will probably be about 3 or so teams who signed up to play who will not get a chance to play CO. I'm not necessarily weeping here because they had a reasonable amount of time to write a packet (although less than a month than when the edict of FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED was declared)...but this still seems sub-optimal to me. We just passed the June 9th deadline of "no penalty," which meant that teams who signed up were presumably believing they had all of June (including the crucial post all three HS nationals time) to write a packet.

I'm not saying this should be changed yet again (which would be really confusing and dumb at this point), but I guess I'd just emphasize that I find this a rather disappointing turn of events and that I urge people running future tournaments to be very, very clear about team registration/number of teams, etc. I liked whatever tournament (VCUO?) emphasized that spreadsheets were not the proper way to sign up for tournaments.

Edit: I'm not impugning anyone here per se, just expressing my discontent over the situation. Again, plenty of teams with their own activities going on wrote packets.
Well, you kind of obviously are impugning somebody, but I'm not really offended and I'm sorry it's turned out this way. The reason the sign-up process was unclear was that CO has never (in my time) actually had more than 17 teams interested in playing, and I didn't expect it to be more complicated this year. I assumed that we'd end up with the right number through the same informal methods I've seen used in the past couple years, and clearly I assumed wrongly. Since we weren't up to the next magic number of 22 teams, that means some teams don't get to play. Again, whether you actually submitted a packet seems like the fairest way to resolve a non-ideal situation that I didn't foresee. What I definitely did not want to do was create special standards for cool kids so that they could play a tournament for which they didn't submit a packet in time.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6558
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by Cheynem » Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:51 pm

Yeah, I guess I was impugning you but my point (which was not very clear due to me focusing too much on the specific details of this tournament) was that all tournament directors/editors need to be careful about registration, especially I would guess for open tournaments where team formation is a little chaotic. You're hardly the only one to get tripped up with this--I've caved in on some team formation/registration issues because I didn't want to offend anyone and I wasn't super clear early on about what my policies were. I certainly agree with you that doing some ad hoc "better let the Kool Kids Klub play" things would have been totally unacceptable, though.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5686
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by theMoMA » Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:54 pm

Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr. wrote:The reason the sign-up process was unclear was that CO has never (in my time) actually had more than 17 teams interested in playing, and I didn't expect it to be more complicated this year. I assumed that we'd end up with the right number through the same informal methods I've seen used in the past couple years, and clearly I assumed wrongly.
Well, yes, but the real overriding reason is that you refused to impose any kind of order on your own packet submission tournament, and instead turned it into a chaotic free-for-all, to accommodate people who ignored the field cap that you yourself created. The current situation is nothing but the foreseeable consequence of your actions. If people dare to impugn you for creating a completely different set of expectations that mainly serves the convenient obfuscatory purpose of allowing you to moralize about how people should write questions sooner, thus forcing out teams who signed up under your initial rules, all to solve the invented problem of how to best accommodate people who ignored your own rules in the first place, then so be it.
Andrew Hart
Minnesota alum

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:01 pm

theMoMA wrote:
Vernon Lee Bad Marriage, Jr. wrote:The reason the sign-up process was unclear was that CO has never (in my time) actually had more than 17 teams interested in playing, and I didn't expect it to be more complicated this year. I assumed that we'd end up with the right number through the same informal methods I've seen used in the past couple years, and clearly I assumed wrongly.
Well, yes, but the real overriding reason is that you refused to impose any kind of order on your own packet submission tournament, and instead turned it into a chaotic free-for-all, to accommodate people who ignored the field cap that you yourself created. The current situation is nothing but the foreseeable consequence of your actions. If people dare to impugn you for creating a completely different set of expectations that mainly serves the convenient obfuscatory purpose of allowing you to moralize about how people should write questions sooner, thus forcing out teams who signed up under your initial rules, all to solve the invented problem of how to best accommodate people who ignored your own rules in the first place, then so be it.
Man, that's a lot of time you spent not writing your packet! Enjoy getting shut out.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5686
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by theMoMA » Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:10 pm

That sounded nothing like "I'm sorry for needlessly creating a packet race out of whole cloth that forces busy people who have already written a full share of a CO packet to scramble to write even more on a Wednesday in June, lest those people be kicked out of the tournament in favor of late sign-ups," but maybe the keys are right next to each other.
Andrew Hart
Minnesota alum

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:31 pm

theMoMA wrote:That sounded nothing like "I'm sorry for needlessly creating a packet race out of whole cloth that forces busy people who have already written a full share of a CO packet to scramble to write even more on a Wednesday in June, lest those people be kicked out of the tournament in favor of late sign-ups," but maybe the keys are right next to each other.
Well, that's because you're not in a very sympathetic situation.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
No Rules Westbrook
Auron
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by No Rules Westbrook » Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:31 am

Now that I've just crapped out a spate of questions to cover for a teammate and "win the race" into the tournament - I intended to try to reign in my substantial anger and formulate a reasoned response to this state of affairs. But, I've lost the will to write that tome now.


So, I'll just say this: I think the policy put in place by Mr. Bollinger shows a lack of respect for the game, and a lack of respect for the players who play the game, in a manner that's not befitting of an editor of Chicago Open (especially given that it was not even necessary to limit the field to 17 teams - it was simply done out of preference for the 17-team format).

The most apropos comparison I can think of is that, in 2008, I refused to just start the first round of CO without half of Yaphe's team there, when they showed up fifteen minutes late. I refused because - damn it, if at all possible - I intended the tournament to be decided by tossups on The Damnation of Theron Ware, and not by technicalities and petty rules. By contrast, here we have the head editor of CO telling Andrew Hart "too bad....rules are rules...hey, enjoy getting shut out!" "Hey, welcome to the next generation, I don't care who you are or what kind of questions you write - I just blindly enforce rules!"

Chi Open is (or should be) the ultimate FUBU tournament - for us, by us - and the goal of an editor should be to create a great experience for the primary audience that plays CO: the high-level open quizbowl circuit. I see way too much callous indifference to that goal in this situation.
Ryan Westbrook, no affiliation whatsoever.

I am pure energy...and as ancient as the cosmos. Feeble creatures, GO!

Left here since birth...forgotten in the river of time...I've had an eternity to...ponder the meaning of things...and now I have an answer!

User avatar
Ike
Yuna
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by Ike » Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:13 am

So, I'll just say this: I think the policy put in place by Mr. Bollinger shows a lack of respect for the game, and a lack of respect for the players who play the game, in a manner that's not befitting of an editor of Chicago Open (especially given that it was not even necessary to limit the field to 17 teams - it was simply done out of preference for the 17-team format).

The most apropos comparison I can think of is that, in 2008, I refused to just start the first round of CO without half of Yaphe's team there, when they showed up fifteen minutes late. I refused because - damn it, if at all possible - I intended the tournament to be decided by tossups on The Damnation of Theron Ware, and not by technicalities and petty rules. By contrast, here we have the head editor of CO telling Andrew Hart "too bad....rules are rules...hey, enjoy getting shut out!" "Hey, welcome to the next generation, I don't care who you are or what kind of questions you write - I just blindly enforce rules!"

Chi Open is (or should be) the ultimate FUBU tournament - for us, by us - and the goal of an editor should be to create a great experience for the primary audience that plays CO: the high-level open quizbowl circuit. I see way too much callous indifference to that goal in this situation.
I agree with this sentiment as well. This is the one of a handful of a tournaments a year where I want to be playing intense competition with everyone else who deserves it; it really isn't satisfying to be playing into 10pm in the night against the Well of Mediocre Souls.

I actually sympathize with Andrew Hart's team for instance. The five or so people that I talked to about it at the NSC also thought the policy was bad in more than just a non-ideal way. It wasn't that Andrew Hart and friends ignored your sign up directions or that they are submitting their packet abysmally late (yet!) that is abysmally awful, it's because the sign-up system you passively went with wasn't good, and this new system also isn't any good.

Also, I agree with Westbrook in the sense that this disregard is disrespectful to the game and its decade plus old veterans. I personally would never drop Seth, Jerry, Sorice or similar veterans from a quizbowl tournament because of some policy I instigated that was a band-aid to cover up a bad sign-up policy.

Sure you are the head editor and you can resolve this however you choose, but I think you can do a better job than what's going on right now.

Ike
Ike
UIUC 13

User avatar
ThisIsMyUsername
Yuna
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by ThisIsMyUsername » Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:38 am

This is a really awful situation. Obviously, as a player, I would like the field to be as strong as possible. I am really excited about my team, I doubt I will ever play in this exact combination again, and so I want our one tournament together to be a high-quality experience. The thought of one of the best teams in the field being shut out is troubling, especially since it has a very high chance of affecting the final results. (Although, I should note: we're talking like it has happened already. As of now, they could still write the 17th packet!)

With all that being said, I think the critics are being a bit unfair here.

When I first read Andrew Hart's first post of yesterday, I thought he was right. Arbitrarily switching from a first-come-first-serve field cap to a packet race would be unfair. But reading through the thread again, it doesn't appear that that is what happened. At the point at which Matt Bollinger tried to set the field cap, there were already more than 17 teams in the field, because of the multiple spreadsheets. Before it was noticed that a problem might arise, and the field might need to be closed, the problem had already arisen.

Should he have had more forethought and imposed a field cap from the very beginning? Sure. But to my knowledge, this has not been done in past years. Chicago Open's numbers have worked themselves out through a mixture of magical circumstances and a little last-minute finagling. This year has surely shaken us out of that complacent trust in fate, but it seems unfair to blame Matt Bollinger for the fact that he didn't realize this disaster was looming, when it has never befallen us before, and no one has taken measures against it in past.

All of you people bemoaning the current situation: yes, it sucks. But I haven't heard a single concrete suggestion from any of you as to how to make this field work with any number between 17 and 22. Unless you have an alternative, you are all subscribing to the idea of cutting people who signed up before the cap was instituted. So, what are your alternative criteria besides packet submission? To without warning, ex post facto reify an informal matchmaking (matchmaking, not registration) spreadsheet that was not even created by the editor to the status of official means of registration, thus registering and unregistering a bunch of teams that could not have known that was the effect of their prior actions? And there were two spreadsheets! And there was huge confusion as to which one was the real one! Which one should we have gone by? Can you explain to me why penalizing some teams after they have already acted, after it is too late for them to do anything, for failing to act earlier is more fair than penalizing some teams for failing to act on a condition that was set while they still had a chance to do something, before it automatically screwed anyone over?

Is this really about how superior ex post facto "first come first served" is to a packet race? Is this about principle at all, or are you just upset because the first system would have a screwed over a bunch of players you don't care about, whereas now it's the respected veterans that are at risk? Ryan, who is the "us" in your "for us by us"? Reading Ryan's and Ike's posts, it appears that "being disrespectful to the game" means "not serving the interest of older better players" (because apparently "the game" = "good players"), even if that means attempting to set up some fair means of constructing the field rather than just pursuing some ideal end. So, what are you two saying would have been fairer? Saying "Actually, screw a system, the spots go to the best 17 teams"? Do you care about a fairer system at all, or do you just want the strongest, best field, no matter what arbitrary measures it takes to engineer that? If so, don't dance around this; come out and say it.

I want to play the best possible players too, but not because some kind of loophole was created for them because they couldn't get their shit together, at the cost of teams that conscientiously fulfilled a clearly stated condition for attendance.

And yeah, generally, stands that are purportedly taken on principle rather than out of self interest are more convincing when they are made as soon as the circumstances are clear rather than at the point when the individuals taking the stand look like they might get screwed.
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '19

“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
No Rules Westbrook
Auron
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by No Rules Westbrook » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:30 am

If it were me, I'd run a 19 or 20 team tournament and not exclude teams. I don't have the time to do it right now, but I can certainly put together a schedule for those type of fields

It won't be a pretty schedule, and if worst comes to worst, it might even be an unbalanced schedule (i.e. teams play different opponents based on arbitrary seeding) - but I think it's far superior to excluding teams.

My second position is that "first packet in" is not actually a very good decider of who gets the spot because: (1) It doesn't really help the editor to get packets that little bit sooner, (2) It creates very suspicious incentives where teams are rushing to submit crap questions just so they can "get their packet in", (3) it actually probably negatively affects the quality of the tournament because it may well mean that a better-writing team doesn't submit a packet because they lose the race, (4) it ignores the reality that there are always a few players (and those players often change) who just have things come up and procrastinate on cranking out their questions - and it's silly to force the teammates of those players to go into "protection mode" where they go and write a bunch of contingency questions just in case the player doesn't submit....because I don't thinkt here is any value to the tournament in having this rule, and indeed I think there is harm (better packets won't be written because they may be excluded) - if I had a hard cap of 17, and there was just no other way around it, I would've immediately demanded everyone send in team rosters to me - and I would've gone through and picked the best 17 teams, yes (or some combination of "Best" and "Best at writing good packets" - the combination which produces the highest overall quality tournament).

But, to be clear, there's no way I'd insist on cutting teams - not in any case, but especially not if I didn't announce it very clearly from the start.
Ryan Westbrook, no affiliation whatsoever.

I am pure energy...and as ancient as the cosmos. Feeble creatures, GO!

Left here since birth...forgotten in the river of time...I've had an eternity to...ponder the meaning of things...and now I have an answer!

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:34 am

I personally would never drop Seth, Jerry, Sorice or similar veterans from a quizbowl tournament because of some policy I instigated that was a band-aid to cover up a bad sign-up policy.
See, this is the core of my disagreement with you and Ryan. I'm not going to enforce special policies to make sure Mike Sorice never has to face consequences for submitting his questions super-late. I'm not moralizing here or trying to go out of my way to punish him; I've only had good interactions with Mike and I hold nothing against him personally, and I didn't devise this rule specifically to fuck him over or anything. But I'm also not going to devise rules with his specific well-being in mind. Ike, your suggestion when I talked to you on Saturday was to kick out all the teams I didn't personally know well so that the "people I like" could play. That would be abhorrently unfair and idiotic, and I refuse to do anything of the sort.

Ryan's suggestion to change the field size made somewhat more sense, although it's extremely irritating that nobody suggested it when I set the 17-team field cap well over a month ago. The 20-team format, though, involves giving everyone 12 games over the course of 14 rounds, with double byes, with the looming possibility of having to run an even worse 19-team tournament if anyone were to drop. Is that really what you think people want? Everyone I've talked to, even the people who openly told me they disliked what I'd done, has pretty much immediately shrunk from the possibility of running anything other than the round robin.

And finally, THE FUCKING 17TH PACKET HASN'T BEEN SUBMITTED. If you're heartbroken over Andrew Hart getting kicked out tell them to spend the one (1) day it takes to write a packet and send it in. Again, I'm not moralizing here, in different situations I wouldn't care if they submitted it a little past the +$50 deadline or whatever. But them just submitting a packet seems like the very obvious solution to everyone's problems in this case. In the future, every CO TD should obviously just use a very clear registration process by email and announce a clear set of field sizes they're willing to run so that everybody knows what's going on from the outset. That's my failure and I don't think my solution is by any means ideal or should ever be copied in the future. But for now, we're stuck with a non-ideal situation with a very clear way out.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6558
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by Cheynem » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:59 am

I think Weiner brought up the 22 team format a while back, although I agree that at this point this is the only viable solution. There really is no way to rectify things without bending the rules for the Top Teams (bad idea), ex post facto kicking out teams that submitted packets (bad idea), etc.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:02 am

Cheynem wrote:I think Weiner brought up the 22 team format a while back, although I agree that at this point this is the only viable solution. There really is no way to rectify things without bending the rules for the Top Teams (bad idea), ex post facto kicking out teams that submitted packets (bad idea), etc.
The 22-team format would work and I talked to him about that in IRC that night, but we don't have 22 teams, particularly when you consider that some of these teams will drop. On the bright side, drops make it possible that this isn't going to be a problem in the first place.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
vcuEvan
Auron
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:49 pm
Location: Richmond VA

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by vcuEvan » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:22 am

I think the best option generally in this situation is to raise the cap. However, assuming that this is not doable, Matt's current plan is the best option. John Lawrence laid out the many reasons why enforcing the spreadsheet(s) is a terrible idea. Every team relied on the lack of a cap in the original announcement. When Matt originally imposed the cap, there were more than 17 teams on the spreadsheets. Andrew is very concerned about the interests of the 17 teams who were signed up on the original spreadsheet, who thought they were safely in the field but now may not be. He is inexplicably less concerned about the interests of every other team, who thought they were safely in the field because there was no cap. It's unfair that people were told they had made the field when they hadn't yet (although this isn't really true, because one of the eighteen teams could not have made the field). However, it's equally unfair for teams unaware of a cap to be frozen out because they hadn't updated an unofficial spreadsheet.

Matt's solution compromises between these interests in the most fair way. The best thing any given team can do to make the tournament better is to submit a packet early. This gives the editors a longer window to edit the tournament. While I agree that picking the best 17 teams or packet writers would also improve the tournament, that would be really unfair. Everyone is on equal footing when it comes to writing packets in a timely manner. By implementing this policy, Matt is personally giving up the large chunk of the typical CO editor wage that results from hefty late penalties.

If there has to a race, I prefer the race that gives everyone the same starting line and contributes to the quality of the tournament over the race that no one knew about until the (disputed) results were announced.
Evan Adams
VCU '11, UVA '14, NYU '15

User avatar
vcuEvan
Auron
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:49 pm
Location: Richmond VA

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by vcuEvan » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:31 am

No Rules Westbrook wrote: My second position is that "first packet in" is not actually a very good decider of who gets the spot because: (1) It doesn't really help the editor to get packets that little bit sooner, (2) It creates very suspicious incentives where teams are rushing to submit crap questions just so they can "get their packet in", (3) it actually probably negatively affects the quality of the tournament because it may well mean that a better-writing team doesn't submit a packet because they lose the race, (4) it ignores the reality that there are always a few players (and those players often change) who just have things come up and procrastinate on cranking out their questions - and it's silly to force the teammates of those players to go into "protection mode" where they go and write a bunch of contingency questions just in case the player doesn't submit....
I'd also like to respond to Ryan's criticisms of packet submission as a decider:

(1) Editors are clearly getting the packets a LOT sooner and that does help a lot.
(2) These incentives are already in place and well known. If you submit a barely passable packet on the day the tournament is announced, you get $100 off. If you submit a perfect packet the day before the tournament, you pay hundreds of extra dollars. This condition may amplify those incentives, but it doesn't create them.
(3) A better writing team is just as likely to lose an unannounced "edit-this-unofficial-spreadsheet" race as it is to lose a packet submission race.
(4) I think it's silly for a whole tournament to go into "protection mode" and have a policy catered to protecting the interests of the people too lazy to write on time.
Evan Adams
VCU '11, UVA '14, NYU '15

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5686
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by theMoMA » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:58 am

For what it's worth, I'm not inexplicably less concerned with those teams; I was relying on Matt's statement above that the problem was teams that "have continued to add themselves to the team spreadsheet since I closed the field."
Andrew Hart
Minnesota alum

User avatar
vcuEvan
Auron
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:49 pm
Location: Richmond VA

Re: Chicago Open 2013 (7/20-21/13)

Post by vcuEvan » Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:18 am

theMoMA wrote:For what it's worth, I'm not inexplicably less concerned with those teams; I was relying on Matt's statement above that the problem was teams that "have continued to add themselves to the team spreadsheet since I closed the field."
In case this wasn't clear, I think it's unfair to exclude the class of teams who relied on Matt's statement that they were in the field, but were excluded because they didn't submit a packet. I just think that it's much more unfair to exclude the people who were frozen out by the original announcement without even giving them a chance to get in the field.
Evan Adams
VCU '11, UVA '14, NYU '15

Locked