RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Old college threads.
User avatar
ThisIsMyUsername
Yuna
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
Location: New York, NY

RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by ThisIsMyUsername »

I am pleased to announce that I will be editing the 2015 edition of the Chicago Open literature side-event tournament, to be played on the Sunday of this year's Chicago Open Weekend. It will be titled Recondite Individuals' Literary Knowledge Extravaganza (RILKE).

I will be writing the set with the assistance of Nick Jensen. Additionally, I will make use of several tossups that were not included in PADAWAN, which I had purposely set aside to be repurposed for this tournament, and which I have not discussed with or shown to anybody except their original writers. Those writers will receive an e-mail from me confirming the security of those questions, before any of them are used for this set.

This will be a singles tournament, designed to be played by 36 players. I will not open registration until the CO main event itself has been formally announced on these boards. However, once that announcement is up, I will accept registrations on a first-come, first-serve basis. If there is sufficient interest to warrant re-tooling the format, and expanding the field slightly, I will consider doing so.

All tossups will be 7.5 - 8.5 lines in Times New Roman, 10-point font, 1-inch margins, and will be power-marked.

My hope is to reward knowledge of both canonical works--well-established within the canon--and works that have received minimal or negligible quizbowl exposure. The goal is to keep answer-lines accessible while doing this, so that this is an enjoyable and still competitive experience for players of all skill level. (So, an ideal type of tossup for this tournament might be a two-work common-link on "heart", drawing only on My Traitor's Heart by Rian Malan and The Heart of the Matter by Graham Greene, with substantive descriptive clues from both works.)

This tournament's format is based on last year's Gorilla Literature Singles (http://www.hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewto ... 21&t=15796), but with a couple of modifications.

There will be one seeding round of 30 tossups, in which everyone is broken into 6 rooms of 6. Based on the scores in that seeding round, players will then be sorted into 6 playoffs rooms. We will produce enough packets that there can be 8 playoff rounds (20 tossups each), but we may read only 7 rounds if the tournament runs behind. The packets have no tiebreakers.

Unlike last year's tournament, in which only points in the top room mattered, all points in the playoff rooms will count towards each player's final score for this tournament. However, different rooms have different point values for powers, gains, and negs. (I've tried to make the differentials large enough so that it will always be advantageous to move up rooms, rather than purposely dropping a couple of tossups to remain in the same room.) And the lower rooms are more volatile to hopefully keep things exciting for those who don't have much of a shot of getting to the top room.

Top Room (4 people) -- Score: (300) - (150) - (-75). Bottom player goes down.
Second Room (4 people) -- Score: (160) - (80) - (-40). Top player goes up, bottom player goes down.
Third Room (5 people) -- Score: (80) - (40) - (-20). Top player goes up, bottom two players go down.
Fourth Room (6 people) -- Score: (40) - (20) - (-10). Top two players go up, and bottom two players go down.
Fifth Room (7 people) -- Score: (12)- (6) - (-3). Top two players go up, and bottom two players go down.
Sixth Room (10 people) -- Score: (4) - (2) - (-1). Top two players go up.

Field (36 of 36):
Mike Cheyne
Dylan Minarik
Chris Borglum
Auroni Gupta
Rob Carson
Evan Adams
Andrew Hart
Tommy Casalaspi
Will Nediger
Matt Bollinger
Andrew Wang
Jordan Brownstein
Trevor Davis
Seth Teitler
Jordan Palmer
Saajid Moyen
Stephen Liu
Matt Lafer
Matt Jackson
Charles Hang
Will Holub-Moorman
Chris Manners
Jacob Reed
Chris Ray
Ike Jose
Jonathan Magin
Sam Bailey
Mike Sorice
Richard Yu
Jerry Vinokurov
Doug Yetman
Greg Peterson
Tejas Raje
Billy Beyer
Foster Hughes
Derek So

Staff (9 readers/scorekeepers + 1 stats):
John Lawrence
Will Alston
Ashvin Srivatsa
Marshall Steinbaum
Eric Mukherjee
Daniel Hothem
MIk Larsen
Kenji Golimlim
Victor Prieto (tentative)
Joe Su (stats)
Last edited by ThisIsMyUsername on Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:50 pm, edited 40 times in total.
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20

“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
Mnemosyne
Wakka
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:11 am

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Mnemosyne »

What if a PADAWAN writer wants to play the set? Will you just eliminate the questions from that writer since they're so spread out between writers?
Nick Collins
C. E. Byrd '12 (Shreveport, LA)
Louisiana Tech '16, '17
University of Virginia
User avatar
ThisIsMyUsername
Yuna
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by ThisIsMyUsername »

Mnemosyne wrote:What if a PADAWAN writer wants to play the set? Will you just eliminate the questions from that writer since they're so spread out between writers?
I'll give the PADAWAN writers with leftover questions the option to play RILKE or have their questions used in it. But if they decide to play RILKE, their questions are going to be discarded. I'm not going to save them for the next time I write a literature tournament.
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20

“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6814
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Cheynem »

You should attach their questions as a special bonus feature on RILKE's Blue-Ray release.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger
Ras superfamily
Wakka
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:21 pm

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Ras superfamily »

This sounds fun and I look forward to playing it.

There is a slight issue with the format, though. Assuming a uniform distribution of player skills (hopefully not too terribly inaccurate for the lower rooms, or perhaps even for the higher ones) with skill defined as percentile and percentage of tossups answered defined as player's percentile divided by sum of all players' percentiles in the room, there is a decrease in scoring between rooms 5 and 6, which can easily be remedied by halving the point values for room 6 (or doubling them for all other rooms). A spreadsheet with the data is attached.
Attachments
CO_lit_scoring.xlsx
(45.9 KiB) Downloaded 277 times
Saajid Moyen
Penn '15
User avatar
Auks Ran Ova
Forums Staff: Chief Administrator
Posts: 4139
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Auks Ran Ova »

I'm excited!
Rob Carson
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??
Member, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT
User avatar
ThisIsMyUsername
Yuna
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by ThisIsMyUsername »

Ras superfamily wrote:This sounds fun and I look forward to playing it.

There is a slight issue with the format, though. Assuming a uniform distribution of player skills (hopefully not too terribly inaccurate for the lower rooms, or perhaps even for the higher ones) with skill defined as percentile and percentage of tossups answered defined as player's percentile divided by sum of all players' percentiles in the room, there is a decrease in scoring between rooms 5 and 6, which can easily be remedied by halving the point values for room 6 (or doubling them for all other rooms). A spreadsheet with the data is attached.
If your base assumptions are correct, then I should indeed make the adjustments you request (i.e. doubling the point values for rooms 1-5). However, my assumption in how I set this up is that player skills are not uniformly distributed; that, in fact, player skill is clumped enough at the bottom of the field that the number of players in rooms 5 vs. 6 is more important than the difference in their skills.

Rather than attempting to solve this quandary now, I think the best time would be after the field of 32 players has materialized. Once we have those names, we can make more sensible predictions of how evenly the skill level will be distributed.
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20

“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
Ras superfamily
Wakka
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:21 pm

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Ras superfamily »

ThisIsMyUsername wrote:If your base assumptions are correct, then I should indeed make the adjustments you request (i.e. doubling the point values for rooms 1-5). However, my assumption in how I set this up is that player skills are not uniformly distributed; that, in fact, player skill is clumped enough at the bottom of the field that the number of players in rooms 5 vs. 6 is more important than the difference in their skills.
I'm interested to know why you think that. The skill distribution would have to be pretty extreme for your claim (that number of players dominates difference in skill level as a determiner of points scored) to be true (feel free to play around with the sheet to see exactly how much so). Have you observed this kind of distribution in quiz bowl results?
ThisIsMyUsername wrote:Rather than attempting to solve this quandary now, I think the best time would be after the field of 32 players has materialized. Once we have those names, we can make more sensible predictions of how evenly the skill level will be distributed.
I think the goal should be to have a generally fair format, not to make a format that might be fair for a given set of participants. It seems to me that having a format that is unfair for any of the commonly observed distributions in population data, e.g. normal, power law, sBG, uniform, is inherently unfair, though it obviously won't matter in distinguishing between the vast majority of finishes. Either way, you have at least considered the issue now, which is all I was really aiming for.
Saajid Moyen
Penn '15
User avatar
ThisIsMyUsername
Yuna
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by ThisIsMyUsername »

Ras superfamily wrote: I'm interested to know why you think that. The skill distribution would have to be pretty extreme for your claim (that number of players dominates difference in skill level as a determiner of points scored) to be true (feel free to play around with the sheet to see exactly how much so). Have you observed this kind of distribution in quiz bowl results?
Yes, look at the individual stats for other quizbowl tournaments with field sizes comparable to this. The difference in PPG between players decreases as you go down the stats sheet. Or, another way of seeing this: pick a range like 5 PPG, and see how large the groups of players with PPG within 5 PPG of each other are at the top of the individuals list, then see how big those groups are at the bottom. Quizbowl individual stats almost always clump at the bottom.

By the way, your spreadsheet proves the idea that room size will correct for differences in skill level without changing the point values, in certain situations: there is no increase in the points values between rooms 3 and 4, only a change in room size, but these rooms do not suffer from the problem that rooms 5 and 6 have on your spreadsheet. Which situations room-size corrections do or do not solve are dependent on the actual distribution of skill.
I think the goal should be to have a generally fair format, not to make a format that might be fair for a given set of participants.
There is no such thing in quizbowl as a participant-independent concept of fairness. If there were, then we wouldn't need to have discussions after ACF Nationals about whether increasing or decreasing difficulty would "better distinguish" the strength of teams in the field. Tournaments do a good or bad job of determining a winner only relative to the field that played them. You don't write good questions based on an idealized, "objective" buzz distribution; you write good questions based on where people can actually buzz.

Of course, if one tailors the questions too closely to the field, it becomes unfair in a different way. But I don't think that what I'm proposing is in that territory.
It seems to me that having a format that is unfair for any of the commonly observed distributions in population data, e.g. normal, power law, sBG, uniform, is inherently unfair, though it obviously won't matter in distinguishing between the vast majority of finishes.
This is absurd. How would you design a format that is "fair" for every single one of those of mutually contradictory population distributions? A format designed to be "fair" for normal distribution is not going to be "fair" for a uniform distribution, or vice versa.

The gist of this exchange is that you've: (a) suggested that the proposed tournament format is unfair, by applying it to a uniform distribution of quizbowl skill, even though you've given no reason whatsoever to believe that uniform distributions are the norm; (b) rejected the idea of improving the format based on projections of what the actual distribution might look like, as somehow less fair than building it around a cocktail of statistical distributions whose relevance to quizbowl results has never been established.
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20

“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
Ras superfamily
Wakka
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:21 pm

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Ras superfamily »

ThisIsMyUsername wrote:
Ras superfamily wrote: I'm interested to know why you think that. The skill distribution would have to be pretty extreme for your claim (that number of players dominates difference in skill level as a determiner of points scored) to be true (feel free to play around with the sheet to see exactly how much so). Have you observed this kind of distribution in quiz bowl results?
Yes, look at the individual stats for other quizbowl tournaments with field sizes comparable to this. The difference in PPG between players decreases as you go down the stats sheet. Or, another way of seeing this: pick a range like 5 PPG, and see how large the groups of players with PPG within 5 PPG of each other are at the top of the individuals list, then see how big those groups are at the bottom. Quizbowl individual stats almost always clump at the bottom.
This is pretty unfair. You can't look at a regular season tournament and conclude something meaningful about a side event at CO. Looking at the two most recent such events that have stats on hsquizbowl.org, here and here, I'm not seeing a huge clumping at the bottom.
ThisIsMyUsername wrote:By the way, your spreadsheet proves the idea that room size will correct for differences in skill level without changing the point values, in certain situations: there is no increase in the points values between rooms 3 and 4, only a change in room size, but these rooms do not suffer from the problem that rooms 5 and 6 have on your spreadsheet. Which situations room-size corrections do or do not solve are dependent on the actual distribution of skill.
This is not the same change in room size. 8->6 is a 25% decrease whereas 6-4 is a 33% decrease. This is the actual source of the difference.
ThisIsMyUsername wrote:
I think the goal should be to have a generally fair format, not to make a format that might be fair for a given set of participants.
There is no such thing in quizbowl as a participant-independent concept of fairness. If there were, then we wouldn't need to have discussions after ACF Nationals about whether increasing or decreasing difficulty would "better distinguish" the strength of teams in the field. Tournaments do a good or bad job of determining a winner only relative to the field that played them. You don't write good questions based on an idealized, "objective" buzz distribution; you write good questions based on where people can actually buzz.

Of course, if one tailors the questions too closely to the field, it becomes unfair in a different way. But I don't think that what I'm proposing is in that territory.
I'm not talking about the questions, I'm talking about the tournament format.
ThisIsMyUsername wrote:
It seems to me that having a format that is unfair for any of the commonly observed distributions in population data, e.g. normal, power law, sBG, uniform, is inherently unfair, though it obviously won't matter in distinguishing between the vast majority of finishes.
This is absurd. How would you design a format that is "fair" for every single one of those of mutually contradictory population distributions? A format designed to be "fair" for normal distribution is not going to be "fair" for a uniform distribution, or vice versa.

The gist of this exchange is that you've: (a) suggested that the proposed tournament format is unfair, by applying it to a uniform distribution of quizbowl skill, even though you've given no reason whatsoever to believe that uniform distributions are the norm; (b) rejected the idea of improving the format based on projections of what the actual distribution might look like, as somehow less fair than building it around a cocktail of statistical distributions whose relevance to quizbowl results has never been established.
Formats like "round robin" and "playoff brackets" are robust to a variety of skill distributions, including all of the ones I mentioned. Formats like this one are not, so we should be aware of their shortcomings and try to correct for them.
Saajid Moyen
Penn '15
Ras superfamily
Wakka
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:21 pm

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Ras superfamily »

ThisIsMyUsername wrote:The gist of this exchange is that you've: (a) suggested that the proposed tournament format is unfair, by applying it to a uniform distribution of quizbowl skill, even though you've given no reason whatsoever to believe that uniform distributions are the norm; (b) rejected the idea of improving the format based on projections of what the actual distribution might look like, as somehow less fair than building it around a cocktail of statistical distributions whose relevance to quizbowl results has never been established.
For the sake of providing actual useful data here rather than saying "look at the data", I've smoothed PPG from the last few CO side events that are available on hsquizbowl.org (history from '14, '13, and '12, and WELD from '12) and graphed their frequencies in buckets of 5. It looks like you can expect something like 13% of players to fall into the bucket (15,20], which is about 4 players at this tournament. That is hardly enough to support your argument that the players in rooms 6 and 5 are all so close in skill that the points per tossup should be the same between the rooms.
Attachments
smooth.png
(75.04 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Saajid Moyen
Penn '15
User avatar
ThisIsMyUsername
Yuna
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by ThisIsMyUsername »

Ras superfamily wrote: Formats like "round robin" and "playoff brackets" are robust to a variety of skill distributions, including all of the ones I mentioned. Formats like this one are not, so we should be aware of their shortcomings and try to correct for them.
Yes, this is true. And that is why any variable-scoring format (such as this) is going to be far more prey to wackiness than is a round robin + playoff brackets format. I assume, though, that you are not advocating that I scrap a variable-scoring format altogether. I assume, rather, that you are advocating that I make adjustments to my proposed points values for the rooms, to eliminate the likelihood of one room systematically outscoring the room above it, while also avoiding arbitrarily huge gaps between rooms. As I said, I'm on board with that idea. I will probably end up changing the scoring values. The question is: for which rooms, and by how much.

If there's a way to change the scoring values in the rooms so that it is generally pretty robust (without my having to use utterly ridiculous score values), and minimally affected by what plausible subset of 32 people playing CO sign up for RILKE, then I'll simply adopt those changes. If you have such a model, show it, I'll implement it, and our conversation is over.

But if there isn't one, and a format like this inherently is quite participant-dependent, the argument we seem to be having is what distribution should be used to make the adjustments. You seem to want to pick some abstract distribution that's common in general population statistics; I would want to pick a distribution empirically derived from quizbowl results, that's close to what we think the field will actually look like. To me, the disadvantage of what you're proposing is that your distribution will identify a particular pair of rooms as the source of "unfairness", and we'll have to correct those rooms; but, of course, those may be an entirely different set of rooms than the ones that would have had problems and our adjustment is really just picking a room at random in the name of "objectivity". In other words, I'm saying (in this instance): participant-dependent problems require participant-dependent solutions (teleological fairness). You seem to be saying: participant-independency is the root of fairness, even if actual distribution of skill among the real field doesn't resemble the ideal distribution used as the metric, and thus has divergent results (deontological fairness).
This is not the same change in room size. 8->6 is a 25% decrease whereas 6-4 is a 33% decrease. This is the actual source of the difference.
I am aware that these are not the same, and that a 33% difference in room size will make a bigger difference than a 25% difference. I was merely addressing your point that: "The skill distribution would have to be pretty extreme for [my] claim (that number of players dominates difference in skill level as a determiner of points scored) to be true", which seemed like you were saying that I basically cannot ever rely on number of players to correct for skill level in this format (since that case would be "extreme"), and I'll have to have point values vary between every pair of rooms. I'm not wedded to the current points scheme, but I am suggesting that the eventual solution may allow certain rooms to have different sizes and the same point values. And I would prefer this, so the points values don't spiral upwards too much.
This is pretty unfair. You can't look at a regular season tournament and conclude something meaningful about a side event at CO. Looking at the two most recent such events that have stats on hsquizbowl.org, here and here, I'm not seeing a huge clumping at the bottom.
For the sake of providing actual useful data here rather than saying "look at the data", I've smoothed PPG from the last few CO side events that are available on hsquizbowl.org (history from '14, '13, and '12, and WELD from '12) and graphed their frequencies in buckets of 5. It looks like you can expect something like 13% of players to fall into the bucket (15,20], which is about 4 players at this tournament. That is hardly enough to support your argument that the players in rooms 6 and 5 are all so close in skill that the points per tossup should be the same between the rooms.
I've already conceded that the points values I initially chose may be fundamentally flawed for the field we're going to get. You're right that if the 32 players of RILKE look like the top 32 players at CO History 2014, I would need to adjust. However, my basic argument about changing the scoring is and was: (a) the stats will clump somewhere, and this clump will not be the same as one of the canonical distributions (uniform, normal, etc.); (b) until we know the field for this tournament, we won't know where this clump is going to be. Surely, what you just did--discounting using a dissimilar field as a metric because it is "pretty unfair", identifying a field that you think is similar, and using the tournament results from that field to try to predict where the clump will be--is exactly along the lines of what I'm saying should be the solution? So, what are we arguing about, at this point?
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20

“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6814
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Cheynem »

Will the poor suckers who don't make the cut for the field have a shot at playing this, like some sort of dismal side room somewhere? (Such a room might also work for people who are interested in it but also have to leave relatively early and thus can't commit to the whole tournament)
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger
Ras superfamily
Wakka
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:21 pm

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Ras superfamily »

ThisIsMyUsername wrote:Surely, what you just did--discounting using a dissimilar field as a metric because it is "pretty unfair", identifying a field that you think is similar, and using the tournament results from that field to try to predict where the clump will be--is exactly along the lines of what I'm saying should be the solution? So, what are we arguing about, at this point?
Right, that's why I produced that graph: so we could see where the clumping actually will be and notice that it still makes the bottom two rooms unfair (and all the rest of them fair, in that scoring for a player increases as he moves up rooms). It's not so much about an argument at this point as it is about figuring out whether the format is fair, and I still think it is not based on the players in CO history and lit the past 3 years, and not just the top 32, mind you.
Saajid Moyen
Penn '15
User avatar
ThisIsMyUsername
Yuna
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by ThisIsMyUsername »

I asked Max to do the math on the scoring system for this tournament, and he very kindly complied. He tried to project what the scores would have been like in each room had last year's Gorilla field been grouped into RILKE-style rooms. The results differed wildly from Saajid's predictions and even more drastically from my (admittedly terrible) predictions. I've completely overhauled the score values in each room based on his recommendations, as guided by the data he generated. The revised score values can be found in the edited version of my first post. As you can see, the score differentials are now gigantic, but this is apparently the best way to ensure that each room stays ahead of the rooms below it. Hopefully, I will not need to change the score values again, but we'll see.

Since the Chicago Open main announcement is up, I'm opening registration for this tournament now, as I said I would. You may register for this tournament simply by posting in this thread to say that you're registering. Of course, the weekend for Chicago Open has not been settled yet, so registrations are not binding.
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20

“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6814
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Cheynem »

I plan on playing.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger
User avatar
The Dance of Sorrow
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 1104
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:45 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by The Dance of Sorrow »

I will play this.
Dylan Minarik
PACE (Former Director of Communications, 2018-19 season)

Northwestern '17
Belvidere North High School '13

JRPG Champion, BACK TO BACK Robot Slayer
User avatar
naan/steak-holding toll
Auron
Posts: 2294
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:53 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by naan/steak-holding toll »

I'll staff this, presuming nothing interferes with going to CO.
Will Alston
Bethesda Chevy Chase HS '12, Dartmouth '16, Columbia Business School '21
NAQT Writer and Subject Editor
User avatar
ValenciaQBowl
Auron
Posts: 2448
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by ValenciaQBowl »

If CO is not held on the July 25th weekend, I will definitely play this; however, as this is the only weekend I can't make it, surely it will be held then and I will be sad.
Chris Borglum
Valencia College Grand Poobah
User avatar
Auroni
Auron
Posts: 3105
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: Urbana

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Auroni »

I'm playing.
Auroni Gupta
UIUC
ACF
User avatar
Auks Ran Ova
Forums Staff: Chief Administrator
Posts: 4139
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Auks Ran Ova »

I'm in, of course.
Rob Carson
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??
Member, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT
User avatar
vcuEvan
Auron
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:49 pm
Location: Richmond VA

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by vcuEvan »

I'm playing.
Evan Adams
VCU '11, UVA '14, NYU '15
User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5793
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by theMoMA »

I will play.
Andrew Hart
Minnesota alum
felgon123
Lulu
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 4:04 pm

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by felgon123 »

I will play.
Tommy
UVA '15
Harvard...let's say '23
User avatar
women, fire and dangerous things
Tidus
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:34 pm
Location: Örkko, Cimmeria

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by women, fire and dangerous things »

I'll play this.
Will Nediger
-Proud member of the cult of Urcuchillay-
University of Western Ontario 2011, University of Michigan 2017
Member, ACF
High-volume writer, NAQT
User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1527
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots »

Yep.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Editor-in-Chief, ACF
User avatar
Jem Casey
Wakka
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:15 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Jem Casey »

Definitely playing this.
Jordan Brownstein
User avatar
Oh No You Didn't
Yuna
Posts: 916
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 10:03 am

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Oh No You Didn't »

I'm interested in not getting question sign Me up
Andrew Wang
Illinois 2016
User avatar
Pilgrim
Tidus
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:20 pm
Location: Edmonton

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Pilgrim »

I'll play this.
Trevor Davis
University of Alberta
CMU '11
User avatar
setht
Auron
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:41 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by setht »

I'll play.

-Seth
Seth Teitler
Formerly UC Berkeley and U. Chicago
President of NAQT
Emeritus member of ACF
User avatar
Excelsior (smack)
Rikku
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:20 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Excelsior (smack) »

I'll staff if I'm at CO (which I presume I will be).
Ashvin Srivatsa
Corporate drone '?? | Yale University '14 | Sycamore High School (OH) '10
User avatar
minusfive
Rikku
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:35 pm
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by minusfive »

If there's still room I would like to enter as a player. Please sign me up.
Jordan Palmer, Nick Penner's Hero.

Pass by, and curse thy fill, but pass and stay not here thy gait.
Ras superfamily
Wakka
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:21 pm

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Ras superfamily »

As I stated earlier in the thread, I would like to play this
Saajid Moyen
Penn '15
gyre and gimble
Tidus
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:45 am

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by gyre and gimble »

I'd also like to play.
Stephen Liu
Torrey Pines '10
Harvard '14
Stanford '17
User avatar
MLafer
Tidus
Posts: 522
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 7:00 pm

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by MLafer »

I would like to play.
Matt Lafer
Plymouth Salem 1997-2001
University of Michigan 2001-2005
Adventure Temple Trail
Auron
Posts: 2621
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:52 pm

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Adventure Temple Trail »

I am interested in this event and wonder if some other method of registration like emailing might make sense.
Matt J.
ex-Georgetown Day HS, ex-Yale
member emeritus, ACF
Charbroil
Auron
Posts: 1145
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:52 am
Location: St. Charles, MO

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Charbroil »

I'll play this.
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
Mewto55555
Tidus
Posts: 709
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:27 pm
Contact:

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Mewto55555 »

If I'm at CO I'm in.
Max
formerly of Ladue, Chicago
User avatar
hydrocephalitic listlessness
Forums Staff: Moderator
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by hydrocephalitic listlessness »

Mewto55555 wrote:If I'm at CO I'm in.
Same here.
Will H-M
Harvard '16
Princeton ~'26
ACF
User avatar
Muriel Axon
Tidus
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:19 am

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Muriel Axon »

Mewto55555 wrote:If I'm at CO I'm in.
And here.
Shan Kothari

Plymouth High School '10
Michigan State University '14
University of Minnesota '20
User avatar
Bloodwych
Wakka
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:12 pm
Location: not College Park anymore

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Bloodwych »

I'll play if I'm there, which is likely.
🚿
Quince Orchard HS '11
Maryland - College Park '15

They were the only friends I ever had
We got into trouble and when stuff got bad
I got sent away, I was waving on the train platform
Crying 'cause I know I'm never comin' back
User avatar
Gonzagapuma1
Tidus
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: College Park, MD

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Gonzagapuma1 »

I will staff if I'm there.
Dan Puma
Gonzaga HS, Montgomery College, University of Maryland
MAQT President-ish, 2014-2015
Champion of the Modern World, 2014
Member, PACE
User avatar
vinteuil
Auron
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:31 pm

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by vinteuil »

hydrocephalitic listlessness wrote:
Mewto55555 wrote:If I'm at CO I'm in.
Same here.
Yup.
JR
User avatar
DumbJaques
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by DumbJaques »

Of course I will play this John Lawrence tournament.
Chris Ray
OSU
University of Chicago, 2016
University of Maryland, 2014
ACF, PACE
User avatar
Ike
Auron
Posts: 1048
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:01 pm
Contact:

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Ike »

I am playing this.
Ike
UIUC 13
User avatar
magin
Yuna
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:50 pm
Location: College Park, MD

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by magin »

I'd like to play this tournament.
Jonathan Magin
Montgomery Blair HS '04, University of Maryland '08
Editor: ACF

"noted difficulty controller"
User avatar
Sam
Rikku
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:35 am

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Sam »

I would like to play this.
Sam Bailey
Minnesota 'xx
Chicago '13
User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2865
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Captain Sinico »

I will neg anything if you give me a chance. Just try to stop me!
Mike Sorice
Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-2020) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
Member, ACF (Emeritus), IHSSBCA, & PACE
User avatar
armitage
Wakka
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:52 pm

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by armitage »

I'd like to play this!
Richard
Magister Ludi
Tidus
Posts: 677
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:57 am
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015

Post by Magister Ludi »

I will tentatively sign up for this tournament, but I'm not absolutely certain I will be at CO this year.
Ted Gioia - Harvard '12
Editor ACF, PACE
Locked