NAQT rules revisions 2017

Old college threads.
Locked
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Important Bird Area » Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:00 pm

naqt.com wrote:Effective February 1, 2017, NAQT has made a number of minor changes to its official rules for all levels of play. The changes principally clarify how and when the clock can be stopped, when score checks can take place, and the details of when a player may change his or her answer midstream.
Complete rules text
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

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

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Ike » Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:28 pm

At the tournament director’s discretion, a tournament may use longer halves than those specified in these rules.
This is a fantastic rule change. I urge every SCT site to consider using this so that teams can experience every question in its glory - (everything else being equal of course.) I know as a player I would have wanted to hear every question.

Ike

Please do not follow this suggestion; the SCT host requirements do not allow it --JTH
Ike
UIUC 13

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Important Bird Area » Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:01 pm

For the record, the SCT is still required to use exactly ten-minute halves. SCT host requirements
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

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

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Ike » Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:24 pm

bird bird bird bird bird wrote:For the record, the SCT is still required to use exactly ten-minute halves.
Wait, what? Is that rule for only non-official NAQT events, or something? In any case, that does seem not to be made entirely clear - granted I just read the red text.
Ike
UIUC 13

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Important Bird Area » Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:24 pm

Correct- the rule allows TDs of local events to announce "we're using twelve-minute halves" or suchlike without that being an exception to "this tournament uses NAQT rules."
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea
Auron
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:53 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Periplus of the Erythraean Sea » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:15 am

So, why is NAQT still requiring this rule for the players who most strenuously reject it publicly? Why can't the people who are most likely to take advantage of this rule do so?

The clock is dumb and actively encourages people, in many instances, to play less quizbowl and hear fewer questions.
Will Alston
Bethesda Chevy Chase HS '12, Dartmouth '16, Columbia Business School '21
NAQT Writer and Subject Editor

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

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Ike » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:19 am

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote:So, why is NAQT still requiring this rule for the players who most strenuously reject it publicly? Why can't the people who are most likely to take advantage of this rule do so?

The clock is dumb and actively encourages people, in many instances, to play less quizbowl and hear fewer questions.
I think the more articulate way of phrasing this is, if every player wants to hear every tossup, it isn't a burden on the hosts*, why can't the players and hosts agree to run the tournament off the clock or with halves of a longer length?

Ike

*These are not hypotheticals, I assure you!
Ike
UIUC 13

User avatar
CPiGuy
Tidus
Posts: 649
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:19 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by CPiGuy » Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:38 pm

Ike wrote:
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote:So, why is NAQT still requiring this rule for the players who most strenuously reject it publicly? Why can't the people who are most likely to take advantage of this rule do so?

The clock is dumb and actively encourages people, in many instances, to play less quizbowl and hear fewer questions.
I think the more articulate way of phrasing this is, if every player wants to hear every tossup, it isn't a burden on the hosts*, why can't the players and hosts agree to run the tournament off the clock or with halves of a longer length?

Ike

*These are not hypotheticals, I assure you!
I'm guessing they want every SCT to be run on the same timing rules for reasons having to do with standardizing statistics (since they're compared between sites to determine qualification for ICT).
Conor Thompson (he/him)
Bangor HS (Maine) '16
Michigan '20

User avatar
Frater Taciturnus
Auron
Posts: 2463
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:26 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Frater Taciturnus » Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:07 pm

CPiGuy wrote:
Ike wrote:
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote:So, why is NAQT still requiring this rule for the players who most strenuously reject it publicly? Why can't the people who are most likely to take advantage of this rule do so?

The clock is dumb and actively encourages people, in many instances, to play less quizbowl and hear fewer questions.
I think the more articulate way of phrasing this is, if every player wants to hear every tossup, it isn't a burden on the hosts*, why can't the players and hosts agree to run the tournament off the clock or with halves of a longer length?

Ike

*These are not hypotheticals, I assure you!
I'm guessing they want every SCT to be run on the same timing rules for reasons having to do with standardizing statistics (since they're compared between sites to determine qualification for ICT).
Wouldn't the statistics involved be even more standardized if every game at every SCT was 24/24?
George Berry
georgeberry.vcu@gmail.com
--------------
J. Sargeant Reynolds CC 2008, 2009, 2014
Virginia Commonwealth 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
Douglas Freeman 2005, 2006, 2007

User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6621
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Cheynem » Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:41 pm

I understand why the clock is needed at HSNCT when a slow, fat reader could totally muck up so many moving parts.

I don't understand why you need a clock at SCT or (especially) ICT. There are not that many rounds. The questions are pretty short. Most SCT's and even ICT doesn't have that many teams. The staff at ICT is generally good anyway.

I think NAQT should, starting at ICT, not use the clock and see what happens.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Important Bird Area » Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:49 pm

For the record, we will not be changing the timing rules for the 2017 SCT and ICT. We will be discussing the issue internally over the summer.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea
Auron
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:53 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Periplus of the Erythraean Sea » Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:18 pm

bird bird bird bird bird wrote:For the record, we will not be changing the timing rules for the 2017 SCT and ICT. We will be discussing the issue internally over the summer.
bird bird bird bird bird, in the 2015 SCT discussion wrote:Clock proposal status: the 2015 ICT will retain ten-minute halves.

We will reconsider clock policy for the 2016 SCT and ICT over the summer.
To dig up a Soviet favorite:
Armenian Radio wrote:Our listeners asked us: Why does the Soviet government always say "communism is on the horizon?"
We answered: "Horizon is defined as a line that moves further away each time you approach it."
Will Alston
Bethesda Chevy Chase HS '12, Dartmouth '16, Columbia Business School '21
NAQT Writer and Subject Editor

User avatar
Auks Ran Ova
Forums Staff: Chief Administrator
Posts: 4061
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Auks Ran Ova » Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:35 pm

I agree with the general protesting sentiment here, both on the minor point that if standard results are the goal then mandating 24/24 (rather than potentially wildly variably sized games) is the best way to achieve that and the major points that (1) SCT hosts and players have traditionally been extremely interested in longer or untimed halves, so forbidding this change from applying to them is silly and (2) SCTs (not to mention ICT!) often have excellent moderating corps, especially in DI, more than capable of running 24/24 matches with ample quickness.

EDIT: I also agree that it feels very frustrating that NAQT keeps saying they'll "discuss" clock issues and then nothing changes, suggesting that either they aren't being talked about or they're being talked about and potential changes (anything, from "let us use longer halves" to "no clock at ICT") continue being shot down, despite the continuing existence of a clear desire on the part of many players to hear more questions/hear all the questions/not have to play an 18-tossup round because of a slow reader/etc. (and no corresponding pressure from another group of players to leave things unchanged at all costs).
Rob Carson
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??
Member, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT

User avatar
Valefor
Wakka
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:23 pm

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Valefor » Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:52 pm

Speaking as a usual part of the moderating corps that Rob mentions, I would certainly not be averse to being asked/required to read 24/24 at both SCT and ICT.
Jason Thompson
aka "that one reader with the ponytail and the Transylvania sweatshirt"
NAQT member

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by theMoMA » Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:28 pm

I'll offer some personal perspective on some clock issues, while hopefully not treading on any organizational toes.

First, I'd like to apologize for missing the opportunity to discuss the clock when it was an issue after the 2015 SCT. Simply put, it was something I should've brought up during the offseason, but I didn't. From outside the fortress, it may seem like institutional stonewalling, but in reality, I just forgot to bring it up at the time of year when we have time to think though and discuss policy changes. I'll make sure to put a reminder on my calendar for this year. Feel free to mention it if you see me at HSNCT.

As for the substance, I think it's logistically feasible to have an untimed SCT, and I would've preferred an untimed format as a player. I also appreciate the sentiment that people would like to play more, rather than fewer, SCT questions; as someone who's edited that tournament for many years, I'm happy to hear people say that.

Whether changing the timing rules at ICT (which, it's easy to forget, is a 64-team tournament with lots of moving parts, all of which unfold over a single day) is even logistically possible given the constraints of the format is something I'll try to pursue with logistics-side folks in the next few months, if they're available.
Andrew Hart
Minnesota alum

touchpack
Rikku
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:25 am

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by touchpack » Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:08 am

Me, 3 years ago wrote:So this isn't actually about the SCT questions, but it involves SCT question content, so I'm posting it here. If a moderator believes that this discussion merits a new thread, feel free to split it off.

Twice in our games at the Chicago mirror, a moderator made a mistake regarding acceptable answers.

1) When we were playing Chicago A, someone gave the response of "cosmic measurements of distance" to a tossup whose answerline was "cosmic distance ladder. Their answer was accepted even though it is not correct, and thus the results of the game were altered in a way that the players cannot realize and attempt to fix by lodging a protest. (in this case, even though the win/loss outcome was not affected, D-values were affected)

2) During our game vs Northwestern, we gave the answer of the "mead of knowledge" in a tossup on the mead of poetry. Again, this was not listed as acceptable or promptable by the answerline, but it was accepted. Again, our opponents did not realize anything was amiss since they could not see the written questions, and could not lodge a protest.

So why do I bring this up here? It isn't really relevant to discussion of this SCT at all. Well, two reasons:

1) I believe that this phenomenon is more likely to happen at NAQT than other tournaments due to the timed format. The moderator is under pressure to get through all the questions (or as many questions as possible), and thus is more likely to misread/fail to properly read something during skimming.
2) Illinois experienced a similar incident at the 2013 ICT (am I allowed to talk about question content? I won't unless someone from NAQT says it is ok). In this case, this actually altered an outcome of a game in a way which eliminated Illinois from the tournament. If the moderator had properly read the answerline, Illinois still would have been in the running for 1st place. I didn't complain about this earlier since I didn't want to seem like a sore loser and I didn't think it was likely we would actually win, but after seeing this happen again at this SCT it makes me angry that I lost a chance at a title due to a moderator's mistake.

I don't know what the solution to this is (actually, I do know the solution. Remove the timers. However I don't expect NAQT to do this.)]
So I'm 100% over this now (I posted this 3 years ago) but I think it bears repeating that 2013 Illinois got fucked out of a title indirectly due to the clock. I agree with everyone else that the usual "we'll discuss it over the summer" is a DEEPLY unsatisfying response.

edit: oh also, it bears repeating that this happens _even to the very best moderators_. In the 2016 ICT finals, Andrew Y. himself (a fantastic moderator) incorrectly negged a player who actually gave a correct answer. (thankfully the error was noticed at the half!)
Billy Busse
Illinois '14
President, ACF
Writer/Subject Editor/Set Editor, NAQT

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

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Ike » Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:23 am

I obviously am in support of having teams hear all 24 tossups (which is not the same as abolishing the clock.) I just want to make that clear for the record.
First, I'd like to apologize for missing the opportunity to discuss the clock when it was an issue after the 2015 SCT. Simply put, it was something I should've brought up during the offseason, but I didn't. From outside the fortress, it may seem like institutional stonewalling, but in reality, I just forgot to bring it up at the time of year when we have time to think though and discuss policy changes. I'll make sure to put a reminder on my calendar for this year. Feel free to mention it if you see me at HSNCT.
Andrew, I'm sure as a member of the committee that discusses this, you're a great advocate for the players. My problem here with NAQT is a lack of transparency (institutional stonewalling) and just how there is no representation on said committee that is an advocate for the players. I don't want to treat Jeff like Sean Spicer here, but I find it incredibly disingenuous that NAQT has to wait until the summer to discuss this policy. NAQT had the time to put out some rule changes just now -- were these discussed over the summer and not posted until now? Or was there discussion about them sometime after the summer? I doubt it's the former, and the fact that Jeff is basically suggesting NAQT members cannot have an extended Skype call / email chain, etc. before ICT to discuss something that people have been complaining about for years (to the point of parody, as in Will Alston's post), is incredibly irritating and hard to believe.

I also want to point out that it's incredibly frustrating the community doesn't know who the committee is, or what their stake in collegiate quizbowl is. I wouldn't be surprised if many of these committee members hadn't touched a buzzer in years, and fail to have an understanding of how the game has changed. I know this is a bit beyond the scope of the thread, but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to include some outstanding members of the community (say, Rob Carson, or whoever) whose sole purpose is not to affect the outlook of the company, but to offer a voice so that NAQT can keep the product that NAQT puts out up-to-date with current community trends.*

*I say this, knowing not who is on the committee that determines logistics and rules. Rob Carson, may have voting rights for all I know, but it's a gigantic black hole to I think almost everyone in the collegiate community.

EDIT: I don't want to make it sound like I have a beef with Jeff. I don't, and he hasn't done anything wrong! I'm taking issue with the process that he is reporting on.
Ike
UIUC 13

jonah
Auron
Posts: 2310
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:51 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by jonah » Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:06 am

Ike wrote:My problem here with NAQT is a lack of transparency (institutional stonewalling)
Can you provide an example of this? I can assure you that every time we've said we'd discuss something, we did so, at least in the time I've been a member. That does not, of course, mean that the outcome was what you wanted. Are you just looking for posts like "As promised, we discussed it. No changes right now."?

In particular, we have in fact discussed the clock rules on several occasions in the six years I've been deeply involved in NAQT; the fact that we have not made the changes you seek does not mean we haven't considered them. I realize that's probably unsatisfying, but surely it's better than us just ignoring the issues (as you and others insinuate). Note that we did increase the length of collegiate games by two minutes under Jeff's tenure as a member.
Ike wrote:and just how there is no representation on said committee that is an advocate for the players.
Every person on the committee is, in part, an advocate for players. But that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, and "the players" are neither a monolith nor on an opposite side from NAQT.
Ike wrote:but I find it incredibly disingenuous that NAQT has to wait until the summer to discuss this policy. NAQT had the time to put out some rule changes just now -- were these discussed over the summer and not posted until now? Or was there discussion about them sometime after the summer?
The rule changes were substantially discussed and decided over the summer. There were a few minor remaining issues to work out before we finalized them, and when fall production started up we put rules revisions on the back burner. But we knew we wanted them in place by SCT, so as that time drew near we quickly finished them. Considering our current writing needs state — which you, Ike, can see — and the long, slow process that company-wide discussions always are, it is completely true that we cannot practically discuss this before the summer.
Ike wrote:I also want to point out that it's incredibly frustrating the community doesn't know who the committee is, or what their stake in collegiate quizbowl is. I wouldn't be surprised if many of these committee members hadn't touched a buzzer in years, and fail to have an understanding of how the game has changed. I know this is a bit beyond the scope of the thread, but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to include some outstanding members of the community (say, Rob Carson, or whoever) whose sole purpose is not to affect the outlook of the company, but to offer a voice so that NAQT can keep the product that NAQT puts out up-to-date with current community trends.
Here is a complete list of everyone regularly involved in NAQT decision-making, though some members choose not to involve themselves in some discussions. Each member's voting power depends on their ownership share in NAQT; they're not all equal. Several members touch a buzzer practically every weekend (not necessarily as players, but quite a few have played recently). The way to earn voting rights in NAQT decision-making is, and always has been, to become a member, which is generally achieved by consistent, high-quality, high-volume work for NAQT over a period of several years. We also from time to time make changes based on survey results, and we will ask some clock-related questions on the 2017 ICT survey.

I don't think that NAQT has ever put out a product closer to community norms than it does now, except perhaps in the first few years of its existence. We do (or some of us do) like having some differentiation from other quiz bowl products.


Personally, I don't like the clock at SCT and don't have a strong opinion about it for ICT. I believe the previous sentence also characterizes Jeff's view. However, we are not the only people who have input on this, and you would better be served by trying to convince other people than by focusing on Jeff (or, for that matter, Andrew).
Jonah Greenthal
National Academic Quiz Tournaments

User avatar
Irreligion in Bangladesh
Auron
Posts: 2075
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:18 am
Location: Winnebago, IL

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Irreligion in Bangladesh » Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:57 pm

There's no functional difference between NAQT saying "we'll discuss it later" then providing no follow-up and NAQT saying "we'll discuss it later" then, later, saying "As promised, we discussed it. No changes right now." In both cases, there's no interface with the request for change. There's no way to know, other than taking it on good faith, that the discussion wasn't 30 seconds long and resolved by fiat. (To be clear: I'm assuming on good faith, as I'm sure many people are, that the discussions happen and are substantive. But transparency is all about not having to assume anything on faith.)

If NAQT is going to discuss the clock and not change anything this summer, it would be productive to have a report like "As promised, we discussed it; we came to the conclusion that [Reason 1] for keeping the clock was more compelling than [Reasons 2 and 3] for getting rid of the clock, but that we would re-visit it later. The final vote was 6-5, with [members A, B, C, D, E, and F] voting in favor of the clock and [U, V, W, X, and Y] voting against." Knowing the names is helpful so that petitioners know who they have to convince in the future; knowing the rationale is important so that the conversation can continue to be productive.
Brad Fischer
Head Editor, IHSA State Series

Winnebago HS ('06)
Northern Illinois University ('10)
Assistant Coach, IMSA (2010-12)
Coach, Keith Country Day School (2012-16)

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

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Ike » Fri Feb 03, 2017 1:34 pm

Can you provide an example of this? I can assure you that every time we've said we'd discuss something, we did so, at least in the time I've been a member. That does not, of course, mean that the outcome was what you wanted. Are you just looking for posts like "As promised, we discussed it. No changes right now."?

In particular, we have in fact discussed the clock rules on several occasions in the six years I've been deeply involved in NAQT; the fact that we have not made the changes you seek does not mean we haven't considered them. I realize that's probably unsatisfying, but surely it's better than us just ignoring the issues (as you and others insinuate). Note that we did increase the length of collegiate games by two minutes under Jeff's tenure as a member.
Well first of all, the "you" here should be addressed to not me, but a plural "you." If how this thread has progressed has indicated, I'm not alone in calling for this. But yes, I think posts to the forum that indicates a discussion was had would be a nice start. I also think some rationale for why a vote was or wasn't approved is also a great thing. And if you want to get fully Congressional, letting us call up / email each member to talk to our representative would be great too, since as you point out, everyone on the committee is a representative for the players. I obviously respect how much work NAQT puts into producing question sets. But at the same time, I really don't think getting the ball rolling on this kind of discussion is beyond NAQT's members' current slate of tasks; to some extent it's always going to be Parkinson's Law.
Here is a complete list of everyone regularly involved in NAQT decision-making, though some members choose not to involve themselves in some discussions. Each member's voting power depends on their ownership share in NAQT; they're not all equal. Several members touch a buzzer practically every weekend (not necessarily as players, but quite a few have played recently).
Jonah, I'm willing to start a relevant discussion about this and other clock-related reforms with the relevant people. I also would like to hear their rationale. But as Rob Carson, Andrew H., Will Alston, I, and others have pointed out in this thread, it's deeply unsatisfying since we are not privy to any of the details that affects one of the collegiate circuit's two National tournaments, especially since the clock is incredibly archaic -- it's something you guys share with CBI, which is an acronym that Jordan Brownstein and Will Alston don't know!
I don't think that NAQT has ever put out a product closer to community norms than it does now, except perhaps in the first few years of its existence.


I agree with this obviously, and I think a lot of the reason why the collegiate product is so good is that NAQT invested in members and an infrastructure that allows question content to be virtually up-to-date with the collegiate game, which has changed significantly - even since I graduated in 2013. Speaking from a broader point of view though, nothing NAQT does is proprietary. Meaning, someone can put out the exact same kind of product (short questions, pop culture, etc.) and get an audience. In fact, Will Alston's Missouri Open did it and got a decent showing.* All I'm trying to say is, I think it would be a good idea for NAQT to put out a product that conforms to some of the collegiate community's current trends to distinguish itself from imitation products that may crop up in the future. Short questions and some amount of current events, geography, pop culture -- I think people are fine with / accept it - so there is definitely a lot of differentiation there; the clock is definitely out-dated.
Personally, I don't like the clock at SCT and don't have a strong opinion about it for ICT. I believe the previous sentence also characterizes Jeff's view. However, we are not the only people who have input on this, and you would better be served by trying to convince other people than by focusing on Jeff (or, for that matter, Andrew).
Thank you! And honestly, try to convince them too! I'm sure many of us would love to write to them explaining why we don't like the clock.

*That set did have problems of course.
Ike
UIUC 13

jonah
Auron
Posts: 2310
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:51 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by jonah » Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:15 pm

Ike wrote:Well first of all, the "you" here should be addressed to not me, but a plural "you."
It was intended plurally, with one "and others" for emphasis of that fact, but I didn't make that clear and I'm sorry.
Ike wrote:If how this thread has progressed has indicated, I'm not alone in calling for this. But yes, I think posts to the forum that indicates a discussion was had would be a nice start. I also think some rationale for why a vote was or wasn't approved is also a great thing. And if you want to get fully Congressional, letting us call up / email each member to talk to our representative would be great too, since as you point out, everyone on the committee is a representative for the players.
In my opinion, we do let you! Write to naqt@naqt.com with your opinion, or write to an individual member (firstname.lastname@naqt.com). There's no system of "who is my representative," though.

I don't think we plan to post the details of deliberations or individual votes within a private company; few such companies do.
Ike wrote:But at the same time, I really don't think getting the ball rolling on this kind of discussion is beyond NAQT's members' current slate of tasks; to some extent it's always going to be Parkinson's Law.
I don't know how to prove it to you, but our internal discussions of contentious topics are long, slow, and exhausting, and I really do believe it's true that we can't practically get it done and meet our other commitments, both to high standards, before the summer. The reverse of Parkinson's law is not true; our other work will not shrink to fit the time allotted to it.
Ike wrote:Jonah, I'm willing to start a relevant discussion about this and other clock-related reforms with the relevant people. I also would like to hear their rationale. But as Rob Carson, Andrew H., Will Alston, I, and others have pointed out in this thread, it's deeply unsatisfying since we are not privy to any of the details that affects one of the collegiate circuit's two National tournaments, especially since the clock is incredibly archaic -- it's something you guys share with CBI, which is an acronym that Jordan Brownstein and Will Alston don't know!
I'm not sure we "share it," since CBI is defunct, but it is true that CBI also used a clock. That said, the mere sharing of a property does not a condemnation make. NAQT also has powers, like many circuit tournaments but unlike ACF tournaments, and three-question tiebreakers, unlike any other tournaments I know of, and other unique attributes. It's reasonable to criticize any of the things that make NAQT-style quiz bowl special, I just don't find uniqueness, itself, to be damning.
Ike wrote:I agree with this obviously, and I think a lot of the reason why the collegiate product is so good is that NAQT invested in members and an infrastructure that allows question content to be virtually up-to-date with the collegiate game, which has changed significantly - even since I graduated in 2013. Speaking from a broader point of view though, nothing NAQT does is proprietary. Meaning, someone can put out the exact same kind of product (short questions, pop culture, etc.) and get an audience. In fact, Will Alston's Missouri Open did it and got a decent showing.* All I'm trying to say is, I think it would be a good idea for NAQT to put out a product that conforms to some of the collegiate community's current trends to distinguish itself from imitation products that may crop up in the future. Short questions and some amount of current events, geography, pop culture -- I think people are fine with / accept it - so there is definitely a lot of differentiation there; the clock is definitely out-dated.
Here I don't follow the reasoning ("NAQT should conform[]…to distinguish itself", two ideas that seem opposite). Most things we do are imitable, at least in principle, and some of NAQT's innovations have been adopted by non-NAQT tournaments to varying extents (e.g. the card system and the term "advantaged final"). In many ways that's a compliment!
Ike wrote:Thank you! And honestly, try to convince them too!
We do!
Ike wrote:I'm sure many of us would love to write to them explaining why we don't like the clock.
So do it!
Jonah Greenthal
National Academic Quiz Tournaments

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by theMoMA » Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:28 pm

Ike wrote:I don't want to treat Jeff like Sean Spicer here, but I find it incredibly disingenuous that NAQT has to wait until the summer to discuss this policy.
"Disingenuous" means "dishonest." If that's what you meant, I don't agree. We generally avoid making snap policy decisions. The fact that SCT timing rules will not change because of a discussion the week of SCT is not an indication that we don't care about these things, or that people in the organization don't want to change them.
Andrew Hart
Minnesota alum

User avatar
Auks Ran Ova
Forums Staff: Chief Administrator
Posts: 4061
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Auks Ran Ova » Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:35 pm

theMoMA wrote:
Ike wrote:I don't want to treat Jeff like Sean Spicer here, but I find it incredibly disingenuous that NAQT has to wait until the summer to discuss this policy.
"Disingenuous" means "dishonest." If that's what you meant, I don't agree. We generally avoid making snap policy decisions. The fact that SCT timing rules will not change because of a discussion the week of SCT is not an indication that we don't care about these things, or that people in the organization don't want to change them.
While I agree with Andrew's general points here (it's important to express your ideas clearly and coherently; all else being equal, not making a last minute rule change is a reasonable response), it's the "all else being equal" bit that's sort of the problem. I'd note that the reason for this discussion is the NAQT-announced rule changes that happened...less than a week ago. The response from the community was as immediate as it could be expected to be!
Rob Carson
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??
Member, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by theMoMA » Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:13 pm

The collegiate timing rules should have been discussed more fully a while ago--which is as much my fault as anyone's, and I apologize for that--but the situation now is that it's the eve of SCT, and at this point, it would be a snap decision to change the timing rules. In other words, what's past as past, and although that's an issue worth discussing, we can't change the position we're in, and we can only decide what's best to do given where we are right now.
Andrew Hart
Minnesota alum

User avatar
Auks Ran Ova
Forums Staff: Chief Administrator
Posts: 4061
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Auks Ran Ova » Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:22 pm

theMoMA wrote:In other words, what's past as past, and although that's an issue worth discussing, we can't change the position we're in, and we can only decide what's best to do given where we are right now.
This doesn't seem to actually say anything.


To clarify, I think that in this specific situation, both leaving the rules for this year unchanged and allowing sites some form of flexibility are acceptable and understandable outcomes, with "it's too close to the event now to change things" and "it's very easy to send an email to all the hosts saying (for example) 'you may, at your discretion, use halves of either ten, eleven, or twelve minutes, as long as all games at your site are run at the same length'" being respective reasonable justifications. It just doesn't make sense to claim that one decision or the other is somehow a fait accompli.
Rob Carson
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??
Member, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT

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

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Ike » Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:35 pm

I really do find it hard to believe that NAQT is so busy that they have to wait until summer to even begin to discuss a rule.* So it's very hard for me to not treat that as a disingenuous or "not sincere" response.

*And I say this as someone who kind of knows what the question production schedule is.
Ike
UIUC 13

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5692
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by theMoMA » Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:07 am

Discussion has already begun and is ongoing.
Andrew Hart
Minnesota alum

User avatar
ValenciaQBowl
Auron
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by ValenciaQBowl » Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:02 am

I hope the clock isn't eliminated for SCT, CCCT, or ICT. Having uniformly timed rounds helps those tournaments run smoothly and greatly reduces the chance for big discrepancies in round times based on various moderator speeds. I also think the clock keeps players focused, helping eliminate between-question banter.

Having said that, I dislike the fact that some CC SCTs (not Florida, though!) saw rounds averaging around 18-19 TUH. Obviously, better teams have a better chance of winning when more questions are heard, and just in general it's ideal if all players get to hear all questions (not to mention the importance of the distribution being fulfilled).

A logical middle ground will be allowing 12- or 13-minute halves. Adding 4-6 minutes per round would add less than an hour to most SCTs, and at CCCT and ICT one hopes nearly all moderators will finish the full set ahead of those time limits, so it would add even less time to the day.
Chris Borglum
Valencia College Grand Poobah

User avatar
Santa Claus
Wakka
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Santa Claus » Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:26 pm

ValenciaQBowl wrote:I hope the clock isn't eliminated for SCT, CCCT, or ICT.
...
Having said that, I dislike the fact that some CC SCTs (not Florida, though!) saw rounds averaging around 18-19 TUH. Obviously, better teams have a better chance of winning when more questions are heard, and just in general it's ideal if all players get to hear all questions (not to mention the importance of the distribution being fulfilled).
Yeah, that's a very skewed perceptions you have there of what it means to hear a low number of tossups at SCT. If you think 18 question rounds happening once or twice are a problem, I got bad news for you: there was an average of 16.86 tossups converted per round at the SoCal site of SCT DI today, and an average of 17.4 converted in DII (the number heard is probably one or two higher because of the multitude of questions that inevitably went dead). Meanwhile here at the New York site, we (Amherst A specifically) converted roughly 14.8 questions a round. There was only one round at SoCal that had twenty or more tossups converted (with exactly 20), and Amherst never broke 18 converted or 19 read (and I doubt anyone else in DI did either). Amherst had rounds where we heard 12 questions (12!!) out of literally twenty four tossups. We heard fewer than half of the tossups that round!

This happens every year too; last year SoCal teams averaged 17.5 tossups heard per round (this is the actual number, taken from NAQT) and the URochester site had 18.3, both on fields that had to be combined DI/DII because of low numbers (though SoCal ran on DI and Rochester ran on DII). Every year the people in SoCal brace themselves for playing less quiz bowl than any other set of teams in the nation as people in other regions are routinely hearing every question in every round, because apparently playing 12 tossups is the same experience as playing 24.

EDIT: And as a science/myth specialist playing on a two person team, it's frustrating to do poorly in games when an average of 3.11 science tossups and 2.44 science bonuses are read on average, and you only hear 4 myth tossups and 6 myth bonuses in 9 rounds.
Kevin Wang
Arcadia High School 2015
Amherst College 2019

2018 PACE NSC Champion
2019 PACE NSC Champion

Jason Cheng
Rikku
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:23 am

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Jason Cheng » Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:46 pm

Minor correction, though I agree in broad strokes with what Kevin is saying--the D1 site of SCT at UCSD had a minimum of 19.25 tossups heard per round for a team and 20.9 TUH per round for D2.

I do agree that the timer does have a drastic effect on fields that aren't powering as much, to the tune of a 15 tossup round for us last year in SoCal which did impact my enjoyment of the tournament pretty negatively.
Jason Cheng
Arcadia High School 2013
UCSD 2017
PACE
http://www.socalquizbowl.org

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

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Ike » Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:11 pm

As unfortunate as Kevin's situation is, I'm not sure if abolishing the clock doesn't solve the obvious underlying problem of bad logistics. Chris Borglum does make a valid point about the clock minimizing banter. My recommendation is to have a clock that counts up and not down, just so moderators can log their progress and know they should be minimizing that time, or keeping it beneath a certain ceiling.
Ike
UIUC 13

User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6621
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Cheynem » Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:15 pm

Yeah, I think two options could work:

-slightly increase the half lengths as Mr. BorgLum suggests
-do something like "minimum 20 tossups," i.e. you still get 20 tossups even if the clock runs out
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger

User avatar
CPiGuy
Tidus
Posts: 649
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:19 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by CPiGuy » Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:44 am

Cheynem wrote:Yeah, I think two options could work:

-slightly increase the half lengths as Mr. BorgLum suggests
-do something like "minimum 20 tossups," i.e. you still get 20 tossups even if the clock runs out
Yeah, there needs to be a minimum number of tossups; maybe not 20, but it needs to be higher. It also needs to be on a per-half basis -- we had a game today where we were read 6 (!!!!!) tossups in the first half, and only 8 in the second. Playing 14 tossups in a game of quiz bowl is kind of ridiculous, and should probably not happen -- we should probably be guaranteed, say, 9 tossups per half. Either that, or there just need to be higher standards for moderators at timed tournaments, so that people playing a number of tossups that is less than 18 very rarely happens anyway.
Conor Thompson (he/him)
Bangor HS (Maine) '16
Michigan '20

User avatar
1.82
Rikku
Posts: 306
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:35 pm
Location: outside the Perimeter
Contact:

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by 1.82 » Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:32 am

If it is necessary in terms of logistics to have a clock at ICT (I lack the information to know whether this is in fact the case), then I think that SCT should also have a clock, since it strikes me as somewhat less than optimal for a national championship tournament to be played on a fundamentally different basis than literally every other tournament. The present system gives players a chance to get acclimated to the clock at SCT before playing ICT.
Naveed Chowdhury
Maryland '16
Georgia Tech '17

User avatar
vinteuil
Auron
Posts: 1357
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:31 pm

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by vinteuil » Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:48 am

Our Lady Peace wrote:If it is necessary in terms of logistics to have a clock at ICT (I lack the information to know whether this is in fact the case), then I think that SCT should also have a clock, since it strikes me as somewhat less than optimal for a national championship tournament to be played on a fundamentally different basis than literally every other tournament. The present system gives players a chance to get acclimated to the clock at SCT before playing ICT.
I never played a timed round on an IS-set in high school, and HSNCT was just fine.
Jacob Reed
Chicago ~'25
Yale '17, '19
East Chapel Hill '13
"...distant bayings from...the musicological mafia"―Denis Stevens

User avatar
Aaron's Rod
Sec. of Cursed Images, Chicago SJW Cabal
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:29 pm

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Aaron's Rod » Sun Feb 05, 2017 3:31 am

Santa Claus wrote:[...] There was only one round at SoCal that had twenty or more tossups converted (with exactly 20), and Amherst never broke 18 converted or 19 read (and I doubt anyone else in DI did either). Amherst had rounds where we heard 12 questions (12!!) out of literally twenty four tossups. We heard fewer than half of the tossups that round! [...] Every year the people in SoCal brace themselves for playing less quiz bowl than any other set of teams in the nation as people in other regions are routinely hearing every question in every round, because apparently playing 12 tossups is the same experience as playing 24.
And you're mad at...NAQT? It sucks that you've had a negative experience at SCT, but your frustration seems misdirected. It sounds like your moderators were just bad, and you should be frustrated at whoever is setting up these sites with inexperienced moderators. Do you honestly think you would have had a better experience if those same moderators had taken 45-60 minutes to read through all 24 tossups and bonuses?

For what it's worth, I would be in favor of some minimum number of tossups heard, but I think you're actually giving credence to the idea that 24/24 every time would be a horrible idea for SCTs.
Alex D.
ACF
http://tinyurl.com/qbmisconduct

"You operate at a shorter wavelength and higher frequency than most human beings." —Victor Prieto

User avatar
Cody
2008-09 Male Athlete of the Year
Posts: 2314
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:57 am
Location: Richmond

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Cody » Sun Feb 05, 2017 10:10 am

Aaron's Rod wrote:
Santa Claus wrote:[...] There was only one round at SoCal that had twenty or more tossups converted (with exactly 20), and Amherst never broke 18 converted or 19 read (and I doubt anyone else in DI did either). Amherst had rounds where we heard 12 questions (12!!) out of literally twenty four tossups. We heard fewer than half of the tossups that round! [...] Every year the people in SoCal brace themselves for playing less quiz bowl than any other set of teams in the nation as people in other regions are routinely hearing every question in every round, because apparently playing 12 tossups is the same experience as playing 24.
And you're mad at...NAQT? It sucks that you've had a negative experience at SCT, but your frustration seems misdirected. It sounds like your moderators were just bad, and you should be frustrated at whoever is setting up these sites with inexperienced moderators. Do you honestly think you would have had a better experience if those same moderators had taken 45-60 minutes to read through all 24 tossups and bonuses?

For what it's worth, I would be in favor of some minimum number of tossups heard, but I think you're actually giving credence to the idea that 24/24 every time would be a horrible idea for SCTs.
That's not how math works -- it's more like 30 - 40 minutes for all 24 and less for 20.

Also, how is this not NAQT's fault? No tournament can ensure all its mirrors have uniformly great readers. The clock is the root cause here, not the readers.
Cody Voight, VCU ‘14. I wrote lots of science and am an electrical engineer.
VCU Tournament Director ‘13-‘17. HSAPQ President ‘15-16.
Hero of Socialist Quizbowl Labor (NSC ‘14). “esteemed colleague” of Snap Wexley, ca. 2016. Stats Hero (Nats ‘16).
Quizbowl at VCU

User avatar
ValenciaQBowl
Auron
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by ValenciaQBowl » Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:29 am

-slightly increase the half lengths as Mr. BorgLum suggests
-do something like "minimum 20 tossups," i.e. you still get 20 tossups even if the clock runs out
I like Mike's idea here: maybe have 12-minute halves but include a provision stipulating that a moderator goes beyond those 24 minutes to hit a minimum of twenty toss-ups read. But dang, you'd sure like to think that even far-flung SCT sites could find readers who could hit 20 in 24 minutes; if they're not, they probably just need some training in picking up the pace and even tips on how to move back and forth in paper packets between toss-ups and bonuses (something I've actually worked on with some CC coaches in Florida to help them go faster). It seems like a lot of reading speed issues stem from too much time being taken between toss-ups and bonuses and vice versa (which, by the way, is another reason I like the clock--it keeps readers moving quickly, too).

PS--Dang, I know I'm old, but let's not be referring to me as "mister."
Chris Borglum
Valencia College Grand Poobah

User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6621
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Cheynem » Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:18 pm

Sorry, I'll refer to you as 'Ol Chris.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger

Jason Cheng
Rikku
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:23 am

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Jason Cheng » Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:59 pm

Aaron's Rod wrote:
Santa Claus wrote:[...] There was only one round at SoCal that had twenty or more tossups converted (with exactly 20), and Amherst never broke 18 converted or 19 read (and I doubt anyone else in DI did either). Amherst had rounds where we heard 12 questions (12!!) out of literally twenty four tossups. We heard fewer than half of the tossups that round! [...] Every year the people in SoCal brace themselves for playing less quiz bowl than any other set of teams in the nation as people in other regions are routinely hearing every question in every round, because apparently playing 12 tossups is the same experience as playing 24.
And you're mad at...NAQT? It sucks that you've had a negative experience at SCT, but your frustration seems misdirected. It sounds like your moderators were just bad, and you should be frustrated at whoever is setting up these sites with inexperienced moderators. Do you honestly think you would have had a better experience if those same moderators had taken 45-60 minutes to read through all 24 tossups and bonuses?

For what it's worth, I would be in favor of some minimum number of tossups heard, but I think you're actually giving credence to the idea that 24/24 every time would be a horrible idea for SCTs.
Again, just popping in to say that I have no idea where Kevin (who was at another mirror on literally the opposite side of the country) got those numbers from, and that UCSD's all-SoCal mirror of SCT had an average of something like 19.3 tossups heard per round in D1 and 21 tossups heard per round in D2--there have been SCTs in the past in SoCal which were understaffed and suffered because of this (no scorekeepers slows everything down) which which is where his assumption may be coming from, and I agree with the fact that the timer is very much a net negative in those cases (sometimes 15 tossup rounds even with tossups going dead), but staffing wasn't an issue at this year's Southwest SCT, and I'd like to make that clear.

As I said, though, I agree that forcing all hosts (including ones in weaker circuits with schools that generally have less staffing capacity) to use timers harms enjoyment and ability to play quizbowl by almost necessarily lowering the number of tossups heard drastically (and even though I readily agree with you, not at this year's SCT in SoCal at UCSD, Kevin!).
Jason Cheng
Arcadia High School 2013
UCSD 2017
PACE
http://www.socalquizbowl.org

User avatar
Santa Claus
Wakka
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Santa Claus » Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:26 pm

Aaron's Rod wrote: And you're mad at...NAQT? It sucks that you've had a negative experience at SCT, but your frustration seems misdirected. It sounds like your moderators were just bad, and you should be frustrated at whoever is setting up these sites with inexperienced moderators. Do you honestly think you would have had a better experience if those same moderators had taken 45-60 minutes to read through all 24 tossups and bonuses?

For what it's worth, I would be in favor of some minimum number of tossups heard, but I think you're actually giving credence to the idea that 24/24 every time would be a horrible idea for SCTs.
After reviewing the numbers I compiled for the SoCal site, I should definitely apologize for the way I portrayed the current state of the SoCal circuit. SoCal did get to hear a very reasonable number of tossups in each round, specifically because they had a good moderator team, and I used biases that existed from when I still lived in SoCal when looking over stats (also I'm real dumb and forgot that there's literally a tossups heard statistic so that was stupid of me). I jumped the gun on quoting their stats, so my b guys; sorry if I offended the good people of UCSD. Hopefully people can forgive this mess up on my part when considering my argument.

The numbers I got for last year's event (which, granted, was forced to have a combined field) are still accurate, as were the numbers I quoted for Amherst at the New York site. If we assume 2 tossups a round went dead, it would probably be fair to say Amherst still only heard 17 tossups a round, which is still incredibly low. Would this problem have been fixed by having better moderators? Definitely yes, as one can plainly see from the increase in tossups heard at the SoCal site from last year to this year, which can be attributed to good tournament directorship and experienced readers. But not every site gets to have the luxury of top-tier moderators. I am appreciative of Hamilton for helping organize an event that otherwise ran very well, but it would be unfair to force them and other small sites to exclude readers that volunteered their time to help out for failing to meet a threshold of quality, especially in an area with few large programs and a small pool of potential staffers. It's either they use what they have or there is no mirror in that region.

But I find it patently false that we would have a worse time with full 24/24 packets read instead of a timed system. Even if for some reason it took the same amount of time to read the last 8 questions as it did the first 16, they would merely be twice the ~20 minute round times that exist anyways, hardly the "45-60 minutes" per round that you suggest. I think that would it would be more likely to take a proportional amount of time (i.e. 10 extra minutes). If we took this assumption, that I think is fairly reasonable, the nine round tournament we had at Hamilton would take an extra one and a half hours, which could have been easily compensated for by starting the tournament at 9 rather than 10 (though I did appreciate the extra sleep, if it meant playing 40% more questions I would have been down with it).

I feel like the fact that bad moderators do exist is more of a reason to remove the time limit than not. Whether it should be replaced with a full 24/24, 20/20, or some other minimum is a very valid topic for debate, but the idea that playing literally twelve questions in some rounds is better than having a tournament cut into dinner time is ridiculous. One can't just wave their hands and pretend that this sort of thing isn't happening with a timed system, because it is, and the only solution is either to somehow ensure every moderator in the nation is excellent or to set a minimum number of questions a round.

(Also, I agree with Jacob that the difference in playstyle between timed and untimed rounds isn't really a big enough factor in and of itself to warrant keeping the timer; I'm high-school we were more concerned about the introduction of comp math at HSNCT than about timing)
Kevin Wang
Arcadia High School 2015
Amherst College 2019

2018 PACE NSC Champion
2019 PACE NSC Champion

User avatar
Cody
2008-09 Male Athlete of the Year
Posts: 2314
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:57 am
Location: Richmond

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Cody » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:47 am

Per Ike's request, I am posting a sanitized version of my comment from the D1 SCT discussion thread
Cody wrote:My problem with [this question with a 4-line answerline] was that the answerline was far too long to properly parse in a timed tournament (especially given the lack of formatting cues). I think any answerline longer than 2 lines should be a no-go at a timed tournament.
Pausing the clock is an acceptable solution, and I did do so, but it's not an ideal situation to place moderators in since not everyone is experienced enough to do that.
Cody Voight, VCU ‘14. I wrote lots of science and am an electrical engineer.
VCU Tournament Director ‘13-‘17. HSAPQ President ‘15-16.
Hero of Socialist Quizbowl Labor (NSC ‘14). “esteemed colleague” of Snap Wexley, ca. 2016. Stats Hero (Nats ‘16).
Quizbowl at VCU

Adelaide Glaciarium
Lulu
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:20 pm

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Adelaide Glaciarium » Wed Feb 08, 2017 4:42 pm

ValenciaQBowl wrote: But dang, you'd sure like to think that even far-flung SCT sites could find readers who could hit 20 in 24 minutes;
As someone near the far-flung SCT site of Upstate NY who has consistently hit at least 20 in normal length SCT rounds (at other sites), I might be able to shed some light on why some sites are having issues with this.

In 2016, I contacted U of R about staffing their SCT mirror. I was informed that it was being run by the people who run the local HS quiz bowl league, and try to run college quizbowl in Upstate NY too. I was told (by someone who has been a moderator for them before) that those people tend to be very difficult to work with, and I would almost certainly be viewed with distrust as an "outsider" [read: didn't go to HS in Upstate NY]. Between that and a previous bad experience with this organization while I was at RIT, I decided not to offer to staff the U of R site. It would not surprise me if, in addition to general moderator slowness, one or more of the following things that organization has done before at college tournaments contributed to the low amount of questions heard:

- Insistence that answers are only acceptable after a player has been recognized by name and school (and negging people who answer before that recognition)
- Refusal to accept answers to bonuses until the full bonus part has been read (removing one method for teams to speed up the game)
- Attempting to slow down when there is a large score differential (supposedly to help prevent blowouts)
Adam Swift
RIT, 2015

tuscumbiaqb
Wakka
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:15 pm

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by tuscumbiaqb » Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:24 pm

Adelaide Glaciarium wrote:
ValenciaQBowl wrote: But dang, you'd sure like to think that even far-flung SCT sites could find readers who could hit 20 in 24 minutes;
As someone near the far-flung SCT site of Upstate NY who has consistently hit at least 20 in normal length SCT rounds (at other sites), I might be able to shed some light on why some sites are having issues with this.

In 2016, I contacted U of R about staffing their SCT mirror. I was informed that it was being run by the people who run the local HS quiz bowl league, and try to run college quizbowl in Upstate NY too. I was told (by someone who has been a moderator for them before) that those people tend to be very difficult to work with, and I would almost certainly be viewed with distrust as an "outsider" [read: didn't go to HS in Upstate NY]. Between that and a previous bad experience with this organization while I was at RIT, I decided not to offer to staff the U of R site. It would not surprise me if, in addition to general moderator slowness, one or more of the following things that organization has done before at college tournaments contributed to the low amount of questions heard:

- Insistence that answers are only acceptable after a player has been recognized by name and school (and negging people who answer before that recognition)
- Refusal to accept answers to bonuses until the full bonus part has been read (removing one method for teams to speed up the game)
- Attempting to slow down when there is a large score differential (supposedly to help prevent blowouts)
I'd like to know why NAQT contracted with a host with such a history of incompetence. Were they under the impression that U or R would actually be running the mirror?
Jason Loy
Cutter Morning Star HS '00-'04
Harding '04-'08
Missouri State '08-'10
Coach, Tuscumbia High School
Member of HSAPQ, MOQBA, PACE

User avatar
Corry
Rikku
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: NAQT rules revisions 2017

Post by Corry » Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:30 pm

tuscumbiaqb wrote:
Adelaide Glaciarium wrote:
ValenciaQBowl wrote: But dang, you'd sure like to think that even far-flung SCT sites could find readers who could hit 20 in 24 minutes;
As someone near the far-flung SCT site of Upstate NY who has consistently hit at least 20 in normal length SCT rounds (at other sites), I might be able to shed some light on why some sites are having issues with this.

In 2016, I contacted U of R about staffing their SCT mirror. I was informed that it was being run by the people who run the local HS quiz bowl league, and try to run college quizbowl in Upstate NY too. I was told (by someone who has been a moderator for them before) that those people tend to be very difficult to work with, and I would almost certainly be viewed with distrust as an "outsider" [read: didn't go to HS in Upstate NY]. Between that and a previous bad experience with this organization while I was at RIT, I decided not to offer to staff the U of R site. It would not surprise me if, in addition to general moderator slowness, one or more of the following things that organization has done before at college tournaments contributed to the low amount of questions heard:

- Insistence that answers are only acceptable after a player has been recognized by name and school (and negging people who answer before that recognition)
- Refusal to accept answers to bonuses until the full bonus part has been read (removing one method for teams to speed up the game)
- Attempting to slow down when there is a large score differential (supposedly to help prevent blowouts)
I'd like to know why NAQT contracted with a host with such a history of incompetence. Were they under the impression that U or R would actually be running the mirror?
At the Hamilton College mirror last week (which was also hosted by the local HS league), only the 2nd point--refusing to accept answers until bonuses were fully read--was an extent issue. And even then, it wasn't widespread. Neither of the other two points really came up. Although some of the moderators were clearly used to "recognizing" players before the answer was given, in practice, it wasn't a problem for us to just blurt answers out.

That said, yeah, the moderating was really still slow. Most of the mods weren't used to reading especially quickly, and the transitions between tossups, bonuses, and individual bonus parts tended to take longer than you'd expect in a college tournament.
Corry Wang
Arcadia High School 2013
Amherst College 2017
NAQT Writer and Subject Editor

Locked