J'Accuse/Moon Pie request - do not discuss questions online

Old college threads.
Locked
User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

J'Accuse/Moon Pie request - do not discuss questions online

Post by grapesmoker » Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:17 am

Although J'Accuse and Moon Pie will have concluded by this time, I'd like to ask everyone who went to those tournaments not to discuss them on public fora, since the questions will be used at Berkeley's BLaST and Boston's Terrier Tussle next weekend. I won't speak for Matt or Eric, but if you have any specific commentary you'd like to make regarding the science questions, feel free to email me at jerry_v at berkeley dot edu. Otherwise, please don't talk about the questions with people who have not played on them yet.

Thanks,
Jerry
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

NotBhan
Rikku
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:30 pm
Location: Parts Unknown

Post by NotBhan » Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:40 pm

In response to one aspect of this tournament set, I'd like to propose that for future packet submission tournaments, ALL TOURNAMENT EDITORS WHO ALTER THE PACK IN ANY WAY SHOULD LIST THEIR NAME AS EDITORS ON THE PACK.

If, hypothetically, a packet from Iowa was used at a Carleton tournament, then just below the "Written by" line would be "Edited by Carleton Quiz Bowl" or "Edited by Eric Hillemann" or something of that nature. Simple enough. It's a good practice for giving credit where credit (or debt?) is due, and I believe that this practice should be followed by the circuit as a whole.

--Raj Dhuwalia

EDIT: Replying here to Jerry to avoid superfluous posting, the editor in question has been contacted, albeit not by me.
Last edited by NotBhan on Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker » Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:59 pm

NotBhan wrote:In response to one aspect of this tournament set, I'd like to propose that for future packet submission tournaments, ALL TOURNAMENT EDITORS WHO ALTER THE PACK IN ANY WAY SHOULD LIST THEIR NAME AS EDITORS ON THE PACK.

If, hypothetically, a packet from Iowa was used at a Carleton tournament, then just below the "Written by" line would be "Edited by Carleton Quiz Bowl" or "Edited by Eric Hillemann" or something of that nature. Simple enough. It's a good practice for giving credit where credit (or debt?) is due, and I believe that this practice should be followed by the circuit as a whole.

--Raj Dhuwalia
Raj,

I don't think there's anything wrong with that idea, but the fact that you typed it in all caps leads me to believe, perhaps mistakenly, that you were dissatisfied with some aspects of the question editing. If that is the case, you should communicate your concerns to the appropriate editor. In this case, I edited science, Eric Kwartler edited RMP and fine arts, Matt Weiner edited history and literature, and Nathan Bragg of BU edited miscellany and trash. I think it just didn't occur to us to publicize the editing team; there's certainly no reason to hide it in this case.

Jerry
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2840
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico » Tue Apr 26, 2005 6:24 pm

For myself, I've always intentionally suppressed the names of both editors and staff writers on submitted packets when editing a tournament. I do this because I feel that the responsibility and credit for a packet should be directed toward the team submitting due to the fact that, to whatever extent possible, these are their questions; I and whoever else merely fixed them up a little bit. I bring and prefer this approach to editing, too; that is, I attempt to conserve as much of the submission as possible; to a fault, usually.
Although I have some knowledge of the situation at hand from overhearing passing conversation, I'll reserve comment and let the actually involved parties discuss it whenever they can. However, I think that, as a matter of general practice, emphasizing the original writer over the editor or staff writers is the best way, and my tournaments will continue to do so unless I am soundly convinced that it is a bad policy.

MaS

NotBhan
Rikku
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:30 pm
Location: Parts Unknown

Post by NotBhan » Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:38 pm

ImmaculateDeception wrote:For myself, I've always intentionally suppressed the names of both editors and staff writers on submitted packets when editing a tournament. I do this because I feel that the responsibility and credit for a packet should be directed toward the team submitting due to the fact that, to whatever extent possible, these are their questions; I and whoever else merely fixed them up a little bit. I bring and prefer this approach to editing, too; that is, I attempt to conserve as much of the submission as possible; to a fault, usually.
Good point. Nonetheless, I don't think it detracts from the credit given to the pack authors to have an added note of, say, "Edited by UIUC." Either way, it's not that big a deal if the editing is done responsibly, like what you described above.

Still, if a pack claims to be written by (say) Sudheer Potru (or UIUC) and contains material not written by Sudheer (or UIUC), then I think there should be some notation of that on the pack. And again, if the editor is doing a good job, it's not a big deal. But if (hypothetically) an inaccurate or mis-structured or racist or otherwise crappy question were put into the pack, or if an existing question were altered crappily by the editor, the listed authors of the pack may be rather displeased by having their names and only their names attached to the pack.

I think it's a good academic practice, so I'd recommend adding a simple "edited by" line as a standard practice to any future editor of a packet submission tournament who may be reading this.

--Raj Dhuwalia

EDIT: Although I'm posting this in response to a specific tournament set, I care only about future implementation of the policy. I've mentioned this (the lack of editing 'credit') a couple of times in past messages, but usually just in passing.
Last edited by NotBhan on Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ethnic history of the Vilnius region
Yuna
Posts: 968
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:50 am
Location: Columbia, SC

Post by Ethnic history of the Vilnius region » Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:22 pm

NotBhan wrote:


But if (hypothetically) an inaccurate or mis-structured or racist or otherwise crappy question were put into the pack, or if an existing question were altered crappily by the editor, the listed authors of the pack may be rather displeased by having their names and only their names attached to the pack.

I think it's a good academic practice, so I'd recommend adding a simple "edited by" line as a standard practice to any future editor of a packet submission tournament who may be reading this.

--Raj Dhuwalia
I kinda like this idea myself. It's one thing when the editor restructures a sentence, checks spelling, etc. It's another thing if the editor puts in political commentary, personal views about question topics, and new questions entirely (which, don't get me wrong, is often quite necesary if submitted packet is of a low quality). Considering that people will be reading these packets 4-5 years down the road if they are put on archives, I would want to make sure that such comments and questions are fully credited to the person who made them and not myself/teammates.

Andy Saunders
Lulu
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 9:54 am

Post by Andy Saunders » Tue May 03, 2005 9:57 am

Here are my two cents (Canadian):

When I write packets, I put the name of everybody that contributed a question to my packet on the packet, and the name of everybody that heard questions out of the packet on the packet as an "editor". Not only does that give credit, it also specifies who is not "blind" to the packet (which probably more useful if my questions are used at some point down the road in practice)...

Locked