The Quizbowl Resource Center

Here's an actual announcement for A VCU Open Gamified Academic Diversion Recognizing Overall Scientific Notability, Under McPeak, Brian's Editing Responsibility (acronym due to Ophir)

Teams:
We'll go with teams of two (edit-- three) for now but if more than like 10 teams register to play at ICT we'll see about combining.

Distribution:
4 physics
4 chemistry
4 biology
2 math
2 earth science
2 computer science
2 astronomy
2 other (including SS/Phil of science, science current events/history, interdisciplinary questions or questions that don't fit well into other categories, or an extra physics, bio, or chem. Don't make it two of the same)
2 trash

Submission:
Writing a packet for this event is optional but please do it so we have more rounds. The average difficulty should be a little lower than nationals but this is a side event-- a few CO/CO+ things are probably okay if they're really cool and you can't write on that any other way but balance them out with more good questions with easy answers. Try to send me your packets at least two weeks in advance; even earlier would great.

Cost:
$5 per person

I'm still looking for people who can't play to help write and edit. If you want to work on this, even if you've already told me, please send me an email at bmcpeak at umd dot edu. If you want have this at some other site, send me an email.

ICT Field:
Eric M. and Austin B.
Ben Z. and Rafael K.
Auroni, Stephen, and Aseem
Sid D. and Max S.
Ike and Billy B.
James and Wang
Dylan and Asher
Najwa, Akhil, and Sam
Victor and Ashvin
Kai and Samir

Free Agents
Jake S.
CHRIS RAY
Mike Cheyne
Rob
Tejas
Jon


edited to add field, change VCU to ICT-- not changing the acronym though, changed math to trash

jesus this acronym is absurd

It seems like a lot of good science players will be at different sites at VCU Open or won't be there at all, so I'm considering postponing this event until sometime when all the best players at the same site. Either ICT or Stanford's open may work well for this.

People should let me know if they're really for or against this-- if it screws up the side event schedule at VCU open or if a lot of people could play at VCU but not sometime next year, I'm open to still having it this summer.

I'd personally prefer it if this ran this summer. It is improbable that I'd play it next year.

Smuttynose Island wrote:I'd personally prefer it if this ran this summer. It is improbable that I'd play it next year.

Same

for what it's worth, I'd definitely appreciate this being held over the summer at VCU as planned

We'll stick with VCU Open then. I'd hate to have to find a new acronym.

Just a reminder: please register for this.

Regarding packets, please don't submit questions which are too similar, like all cell bio or all organic synthesis. And again, it would be nice to have packets at least two weeks in advance, so start them sometime.

Could we get a running list of signed up teams? Thanks.

Smuttynose Island wrote:Could we get a running list of signed up teams? Thanks.

I mean, there's only one (1) team signed up for VCU Open proper; it seems unlikely to me that the audience for this event will emerge until more people finalize their plans for the main tournament (but if there is an audience for this which hasn't registered for VCU Open yet, I encourage you to register!)

Matthew J wrote:

Smuttynose Island wrote:Could we get a running list of signed up teams? Thanks.

I mean, there's only one (1) team signed up for VCU Open proper; it seems unlikely to me that the audience for this event will emerge until more people finalize their plans for the main tournament (but if there is an audience for this which hasn't registered for VCU Open yet, I encourage you to register!)

Sure. Given that people seem to be submitting questions for this tournament, per Brian's earlier post, it is possible that more teams than just me and Tommy are signed up though. Ultimately it doesn't matter who is signed up, since we'll play whoever we'll play, but it would still be nice to see what the emerging field is, if there is one. And who knows, perhaps knowing how many people are signed up for the various side events might help people in their planning of the weekend.

The Quest for the Historical Mukherjesus wrote:

Smuttynose Island wrote:I'd personally prefer it if this ran this summer. It is improbable that I'd play it next year.

Same

I actually can't make it to VCU open anymore (I'm moving that weekend) so my preference is to play it sometime during the year.

The Quest for the Historical Mukherjesus wrote:

The Quest for the Historical Mukherjesus wrote:

Smuttynose Island wrote:I'd personally prefer it if this ran this summer. It is improbable that I'd play it next year.

Same

I actually can't make it to VCU open anymore (I'm moving that weekend) so my preference is to play it sometime during the year.

I would also like to see this tournament happen sometime during the school year. However, I don't want to take away from people who are only available during the summer and are actually attending VCU Open. Would it be too risky as far as question security goes to have an in-person mirror in the spring, e.g. at ICT? Or perhaps a Skype mirror sometime before school starts, like what may happen for SHEIKH?

Well since no teams have written a packet and only one team has registered at VCU, you guys may get your wish. I'll bug people about packets this weekend but if nobody plans to write in the next few weeks we'll push it back.

If this happens later in the year, I might consider writing a packet for it (in collaboration with some unknown people and/or possibly my teammates from school) to work on my science writing. It would probably need some editing in the end.

It looks like I won't make it to any of the VCU Open sites, so I'd also be interested in playing a delayed online mirror of this event, or in playing this as a side event paired with some later (open) tournament, e.g. Missouri Open.

-Seth

setht wrote:It looks like I won't make it to any of the VCU Open sites

you cannot fool me seth teitler

So yeah, I can write a packet if some enterprising chemist and/or biologist would like to team up with me. Can we get a definitive yea or nay on whether this is happening?

grapesmoker wrote:

setht wrote:It looks like I won't make it to any of the VCU Open sites

you cannot fool me seth teitler

So yeah, I can write a packet if some enterprising chemist and/or biologist would like to team up with me. Can we get a definitive yea or nay on whether this is happening?

The stuff I wrote after quoting Jerry seems to have disappeared. Let's see if it sticks around this time:

Yeah, mere days after claiming I wasn't going to make it to VCU Open, it looks like Selene and I might go to Michigan—but that's not definite yet.

I'll commit to writing at least a half-packet for this, regardless of when it happens (including "it happens at VCU Open, but I wind up not going).

-Seth

Brian let me know at CO that he is strongly considering moving it to during the year.

I've decided to push this back to ICT so we'll have more packets and a stronger field. Sorry to people who won't be able to make it. I promise there will be an online mirror too.

Looking for a teammate. I claim to know things about physics, earth science, and astronomy, plus bits and pieces of the chemistry distribution and a smattering of applied math. I also intend to score some nonzero number of points on trash questions, assuming they're anything like the ones at Lederberg. PM me if interested.

EDIT: Eric Mukherjee and I have joined forces.

Yo,

People should sign up for this tournament. It's going to be great.

Eric

I'll play this cause I like quizbowl, but I'm not a great science player by any means. Let me know if you want to have fun and team up, though.

EDIT: Jason Asher and I are playing this together.

I'm looking for a biology/chemistry expert for this competition. You could be that person! If you believe you are in fact the person I am looking for, please send me a PM. I'll even put in extra study hours for you if I like you enough.

I will play with Rafael Krichevsky.

Looks like teams are starting to materialize. Remember to let me know if you're planning to write. Even if you're newer to writing science, I'd still like to get a packet from you-- the editors will give extensive feedback on submissions to people who want it.

I've changed one of the math questions to trash in the distribution since that will be more fun to write and play for everyone involved I think.

Brian McPeak wrote:I've changed one of the math questions to trash in the distribution since that will be more fun to write and play for everyone involved I think.

As long as it's math trash

Ike and I will be playing this together.

I'll play this.

Wang and I are playing this together.

Najwa and I are interested in playing this at ICT.

Hey! I'm looking for a teammate for this. Preferably someone who knows physics and math but it doesn't really matter.

Hey guys, try to get your packets to us at least two weeks in advance of ICT, and preferably sooner. Feel free to run answerlines by me if you're not sure.

I'm playing this tournament and am looking to put together a finely-structured team.

DumbJaques wrote:I'm playing this tournament and am looking to put together a finely-structured team.

1/137 would read again

Reminder: Get those packets in!

Okay, so I'm pretty angry right now with this tournament, and I would be withdrawing out of protest if it didn't fuck over Billy.*

It is absolutely fucking terrible to have a science packet submission tournament right around this time, where we need the community's science writers to be writing high-quality science for the other two big tournaments going on right-now - ICT and ACF Nationals. Some of the people who are playing this tournament haven't even turned in their goddamn ACF Nationals packet yet, and our tournament needs to be pretty much ready by the day before ICT so it can get printed. Furthermore, Brian solicited me (and presumably Billy) multiple times for questions, which just seems to really tell you that this tournament should happen at some other time when I can write a packet for this tournament. But it ain't happening, because ICT and ACF Nationals still need science.

So first and foremost, if you're writing a packet for this tournament and you still haven't turned in a packet for ACF Nationals, do not write for this tournament first. ACF Nationals has priority, especially since we're at the +a lot of money deadlines now.

Secondly, if you're the powers that be, I urge you to cancel / postpone this tournament again to something more sensible. Just remember that Billy is your chemistry subject editor for ICT, and biology, physics, and chemistry editor for Nationals. If you think he has unlimited time, you're wrong. Every good question he receives from a team for Nationals means that ICT and ACF Nationals get marginally better since he can do more work on them. So while I'm sure Billy and I would enjoy playing this tournament, it shouldn't be at the cost of the two most important tournaments of the year.

Ike

*I would like to play this tournament at some other point in case it isn't clear.

Ike wrote:Secondly, if you're the powers that be, I urge you to cancel / postpone this tournament again to something more sensible.

I urge this not to happen; rather, people should just be responsible with their writing.

The Quest for the Historical Mukherjesus wrote:

Ike wrote:Secondly, if you're the powers that be, I urge you to cancel / postpone this tournament again to something more sensible.

I urge this not to happen; rather, people should just be responsible with their writing.

Seconded, mainly for the selfish reason that if this doesn't happen at Nats I won't get to play, but also because it's not the editors' fault if people can't plan ahead and be proactive. If you signed up to write a packet for this, you knew that you were going to have to write questions for 2 tournaments happening around the same time in April. No reason you have to wait until the end of March to actually write the questions instead of chipping away bit by bit over several months. It's not like we don't know if ACF Nationals is going to happen each year - you can get a head start on those packets the summer before.

Galadedrid Damodred wrote:

The Quest for the Historical Mukherjesus wrote:

Ike wrote:Secondly, if you're the powers that be, I urge you to cancel / postpone this tournament again to something more sensible.

I urge this not to happen; rather, people should just be responsible with their writing.

Seconded, mainly for the selfish reason that if this doesn't happen at Nats I won't get to play, but also because it's not the editors' fault if people can't plan ahead and be proactive. If you signed up to write a packet for this, you knew that you were going to have to write questions for 2 tournaments happening around the same time in April. No reason you have to wait until the end of March to actually write the questions instead of chipping away bit by bit over several months. It's not like we don't know if ACF Nationals is going to happen each year - you can get a head start on those packets the summer before.

Can you please try to practice what you preach? Neither Stanford A nor Stanford B has submitted their nats packet yet...

I don't know if this is still happening, and I'm certainly not going to write a packet for it, but I'd like to play.

touchpack wrote:

Galadedrid Damodred wrote:

The Quest for the Historical Mukherjesus wrote:

Ike wrote:Secondly, if you're the powers that be, I urge you to cancel / postpone this tournament again to something more sensible.

I urge this not to happen; rather, people should just be responsible with their writing.

Seconded, mainly for the selfish reason that if this doesn't happen at Nats I won't get to play, but also because it's not the editors' fault if people can't plan ahead and be proactive. If you signed up to write a packet for this, you knew that you were going to have to write questions for 2 tournaments happening around the same time in April. No reason you have to wait until the end of March to actually write the questions instead of chipping away bit by bit over several months. It's not like we don't know if ACF Nationals is going to happen each year - you can get a head start on those packets the summer before.

Can you please try to practice what you preach? Neither Stanford A nor Stanford B has submitted their nats packet yet...

Austin wrote 12/12 of our packet and has been done with that long before making that post. We've been waiting on my questions (I've been in Mexico) and Nikhil's so Austin's done plenty in the line of "practicing what you preach." He has all the time in the world right now to work on science questions for any tournament he chooses. Also what does Stanford B's packet have to do with anything?

EDIT: Oh snap I thought this was a PM. Whatever, I guess it's public now. Sorry.

Hi Billy,

I don't want to have to bring this up publicly, but I thought I should tell you in response to your post that not only have I written half of the questions for the Stanford A ACF Nationals packet, all of which were ready by the +$25 deadline and quite a few of which were written last year, but I've also written 15 questions for my team's AVOGADRO'S NUMBER packet, 12 of which were ready well before this week. I realize my post may have initially seemed hypocritical to you, but in neither situation have I been the one holding up the packet submission. And for obvious reasons I know nothing about Stanford B's packet-writing situation; aside from informing them of the deadlines a month or two ago, we haven't brought it up at practice since then in order to prevent any chance of even an accidental slip-up. I look forward both to playing against you after ICT and to hearing your science questions (probably whiffing on most of the chemistry I'm supposed to be learning right now) at the national tournaments.

Thanks,

Austin

Sorry if this has made writing for Nats a struggle for people. I hoped it wouldn't because there were so few packet-sub tournaments this year. Anyway, I totally agree that people should finish their Nats questions before writing for this tournament. It looks like almost everyone who is writing for both has submitted their Nats packet at this point though, so I don't see much reason to postpone it again.

Ike, I wasn't trying to pressure you to write for this-- I more just meant if you have questions that you can't use for Nats because they're too lulzy or something then we should use them for this. I understand that you and Billy have more important obligations.

Based on the number of people who want to play we're going to go to teams of 3 now-- free agents can join up with other teams, though I may veto good players joining teams that already look pretty strong.

The reason for this is that I think the ideal schedule is:
--5 game round robin with 2 brackets of 5
--Top bracket of 4 teams has 2 game crossover and then a final
--Bottom bracket of 6 has 3 game crossover

If people who have strong feelings about the schedule have a better idea that works with 10 teams and 9 packets (4 or 5 or which will be submissions), I'm open to it.

Now that teams of three are allowed, I think I'm more serious in playing--I'm good at trash, pretty good at science history, and have taken a few classes related to anatomy and astronomy. You know you want to see me neg.

Now that I can be a hanger-on third rather than an inadequate second, I'm interested in playing. You know you want my fake bullshit knowledge.

I'll play this I guess.

Oh hey I didn't know this was a thing. To the extent that I know things at a "can buzz against good college players" level, it'd probably be in math, science, and trash. And since I'll be at ICT, add me to the list of free agents, I guess.