Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Old college threads.
Locked
User avatar
Mike Bentley
Auron
Posts: 5808
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by Mike Bentley » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:22 pm

I'll have another Eyes That Do Not See, a visual tournament mostly on the visual arts, ready circa January 2017. The tournament will be similar to previous incarnations in terms of length and difficulty (although I hope it ends up a bit easier than last year's set). It's free to mirror. Let me know if you're interested.
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008

User avatar
Mike Bentley
Auron
Posts: 5808
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Re: Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by Mike Bentley » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:13 am

The plan is to have this ready for WAO mirrors.
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008

User avatar
Mike Bentley
Auron
Posts: 5808
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Re: Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by Mike Bentley » Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:38 pm

I've sent the set to Chicago, Virginia and Missouri. If there are other people planning on mirroring this and didn't receive that e-mail, please let me know.
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008

Nice hockey Cote d'Azur
Wakka
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 9:51 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by Nice hockey Cote d'Azur » Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:01 pm

Unfortunately we couldn't read this at UChicago due to WAO running late, but a group of us got together and played it later. Scores are below:

Athena Kern - 305
Rob Carson - 115
Will Alston - 110
Dylan Minarik - 95
Bryan Berend - 80
Bernadette Spencer - 75
Tejas Raje - 75
Ike Jose - 75
Alex Damisch - 45
Andrew Wang - 30
Morgan Venkus - 15

The set was as fantastic as ever, many thanks to Mike for writing it.
Tejas Raje
Cornell '14

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

Re: Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by Ike » Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:27 pm

Actually,

I think it's about high-time someone call out the poor quality of these sets. While I hesitate to complain about free quizbowl, this set...was not very good, much like the last 2-3 iterations. I'm reminded of a particular tossup involving a painting where I wrote a whole 10 page paper on, took a class under a professor who wrote 3 or 4 articles on said painting, and couldn't buzz until the third or fourth slide, which turned into a buzzer race with drunk Andrew Wang. Numerous tossups were just absolutely overkill.

Mike, I get that you don't want to recycle clues, but like you're not even producing a set that's remotely difficulty-controlled, reasonable, or even gradating! Half of the time, I think you've run out of material that we end up looking at the same image in just a slightly zoomed out fashion. The other half of the time, you're writing the most buzzer-racey, cliffy, questions I've seen in a long time. And if you're going to innovate, it'd be nice if you can innovate across all areas of the sub-distribution. I guess what I'm saying is, can you take these considerations into mind, and cave a little bit on your repeat policy if you're going to produce a set like this in the future, so that it's at least a bit more rewarding / enjoyable?
Ike
UIUC 13

RexSueciae
Rikku
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:24 am

Re: Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by RexSueciae » Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:15 pm

Um.

I'm no arts player (hence why I was the guy presenting the questions at both UVA's WAO mirror and in practice later on) -- but that is the opposite of the impression I got, considering the reactions of everybody present.

There were a few jokes tossed around, especially in the early clues of certain questions with really zoomed-in portions of comically minor details. Still, from what I remember, nobody was raging that they weren't doing as well as they thought they ought to have done, or making sustained criticisms of the set's quality, or being quite so vehement about their own accomplishment. Eyes That Do Not See is a quirky visual-arts side event that bears certain hallmarks of its creator, and like most side events meant to be played for fun after a larger event, isn't something that really managed to grind people's gears.

The people whom I personally know to have deep visual arts knowledge demonstrated this by getting questions. The people who aren't particularly known as visual arts experts, who were playing for fun against a very decent field, got fewer.

By all means, let's discuss this set (I have only just realized that there was a private discussion forum which I have now applied to join) but have you considered that maybe you just have an oversize view of your own proficiency?
Vasa Clarke

Maggie Walker '14
Virginia '18
William and Mary '21

User avatar
Mike Bentley
Auron
Posts: 5808
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Re: Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by Mike Bentley » Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:12 pm

Ike wrote:Actually,

I think it's about high-time someone call out the poor quality of these sets. While I hesitate to complain about free quizbowl, this set...was not very good, much like the last 2-3 iterations. I'm reminded of a particular tossup involving a painting where I wrote a whole 10 page paper on, took a class under a professor who wrote 3 or 4 articles on said painting, and couldn't buzz until the third or fourth slide, which turned into a buzzer race with drunk Andrew Wang. Numerous tossups were just absolutely overkill.

Mike, I get that you don't want to recycle clues, but like you're not even producing a set that's remotely difficulty-controlled, reasonable, or even gradating! Half of the time, I think you've run out of material that we end up looking at the same image in just a slightly zoomed out fashion. The other half of the time, you're writing the most buzzer-racey, cliffy, questions I've seen in a long time. And if you're going to innovate, it'd be nice if you can innovate across all areas of the sub-distribution. I guess what I'm saying is, can you take these considerations into mind, and cave a little bit on your repeat policy if you're going to produce a set like this in the future, so that it's at least a bit more rewarding / enjoyable?
Yeah I think it's a fair criticism that this tournament has gotten harder over the years as many of the more obvious answer lines have been exhausted. It's just not that interesting to me to do the same tossup on a work of art I've already done, but I don't have a problem re-doing a tossup on an artist with different works than I've done before. I set out to do a bit more of this than in previous years, but not sure that I succeeded here. In general I'm okay with this tournament having more hard answers than a typical tournament due to the relatively fast nature of playing these questions.

As Vasa mentions, there's a private discussion forum where we can probably have a more direct discussion. I'm particularly interested in the comment "if you're going to innovate, it'd be nice if you can innovate across all areas of the sub-distribution".
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008

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

Re: Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by Ike » Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:32 pm

I'm willing to believe that I'm not very good at quizbowl, but the only arguments you have are "I saw other people having a good time" and "lol Ike maybe you suck?!?!?" Vasa I've never met you outside for a brief moment; you've never met me and you certainly have no idea how little or how much i do or don't know. So some friendly advice from someone who knows more than you. Before posting, remember the Dunning-Kruger effect: you're much dumber than you think you are, even after you've incorporated the Dunning-Kruger effect into your calculations; so instead of trying to feebly make an argument by attacking my skill, which you know nothing about, maybe you should just :capybara: off?

Sorry Mike I didn't realize there was a sub-forum, I'll post specifics in the thread. Just to be clear, I thank you for your work, but I just think the repeat policy in general is causing the set to be really imabalanced.
Ike
UIUC 13

RexSueciae
Rikku
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:24 am

Re: Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by RexSueciae » Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:48 pm

Overestimating one's own intelligence is hard to guard against, which was a pretty big reason why I specifically avoided pretending that I am in a position to directly judge the set. I can, however, offer empirical observations of the set's apparent quality (i.e. what I learned from people who know visual arts better than I do, and whom I suspect were not attempting to mislead me when they said they had fun) which contradicted so thoroughly with this sudden bout of -- I suppose you could call it vitriol? -- that I had to take a moment to wonder if we saw the same questions. For the record, the second half of your post sounds like a sensible critique, but the first half sounds a lot like sour grapes blended with a heavy helping of dismissive condescension. Nothing that's been said really gives me (or anyone) reason to think otherwise.

I can confirm that I have never personally met you, either, and I have no real desire to do so.
Vasa Clarke

Maggie Walker '14
Virginia '18
William and Mary '21

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

Re: Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by Ike » Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:55 pm

For the record, the second half of your post sounds like a sensible critique, but the first half sounds a lot like sour grapes blended with a heavy helping of dismissive condescension. Nothing that's been said really gives me (or anyone) reason to think otherwise.
Nice backpedal. Look, obviously your argument that I'm "bad at quizbowl" had no merit. Now that you've been called out, you resort to this "sour grapes / civility" argument that doesn't have any merit either. If you don't like the way I post, report me to the board staff, send me a PM, or just ... don't read HSQB. I don't equivocate, and I only use sarcasm when people are being insincere (as in your previous post.), the point of HSQB is for discussing quizbowl -- I intend to have a productive dialogue with Mike Bentley and anyone else who knows anything.
I can, however, offer empirical observations of the set's apparent quality (i.e. what I learned from people who know visual arts better than I do, and whom I suspect were not attempting to mislead me when they said they had fun) which contradicted so thoroughly with this sudden bout of -- I suppose you could call it vitriol? -- that I had to take a moment to wonder if we saw the same questions.
Did you suspect that *I* was trying to mislead you? It's True! This is all my way of negging to pick up Mike Bentley! Seriously, you yourself admit you know nothing about art. You yourself admit that you only can "offer empirical observations," why you use those two premises to make the leap that I must have an overinflated view of my skill just means you're a moron.
Overestimating one's own intelligence is hard to guard against, which was a pretty big reason why I specifically avoided pretending that I am in a position to directly judge the set.
No, I'm not saying you're someone who doesn't know art, I was saying you're a total :capybara:ing moron in general. Even if you don't get it, other people will for sure with the way you're posting!* Being good or bad at quizbowl is immaterial here, and you should have known that!
I can confirm that I have never personally met you, either, and I have no real desire to do so.
What?!?! ... My entire existence!

*I guess they'll know I can be an ass, but seriously, who doesn't know that?
Ike
UIUC 13

User avatar
Jeremy Gibbs Paradox
Rikku
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:54 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by Jeremy Gibbs Paradox » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:47 pm

TINA! BRING ME THE AXE!!!!

Sean Phillips
Boonville HS 00
WUSTL 04
SLU Law 07
Member MOQBA 2008-present
Is it wrong I like Boonville most of those 3?:)

gyre and gimble
Tidus
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:45 am

Re: Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by gyre and gimble » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:17 pm

Here are the stats from the Stanford site, in order of finish. Most of us played all of the questions, including tiebreakers (for a total of 109). Rahul and Aseem had to leave after 90 though.

Stephen Liu: 34/14/22 = 540
Nathan Weiser: 10/4/5 = 165
Aseem Keyal: 3/9/8 = 95
Henry Baer: 3/3/2 = 65
Rahul Keyal: 1/5/1 = 60
Hidehiro Anto: 0/3/2 = 20
PC Chauhan: 0/3/3 = 15
Nikhil Desai: 0/1/5 = -15

I thought this was a great set, and significantly better than last year's both in terms of creativity and manageable answerlines. I'd say it's on par with Eyes IV or V as one of the best iterations. I don't understand Ike's criticisms at all, but I haven't looked at the discussion forum yet. Anyway, thanks as always to Mike for writing it.
Stephen Liu
Torrey Pines '10
Harvard '14
Stanford '17

User avatar
Mike Bentley
Auron
Posts: 5808
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Re: Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by Mike Bentley » Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:30 pm

If anyone else plans on mirroring this, let me know soon. Otherwise I'll post the set.
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008

User avatar
Pilgrim
Tidus
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:20 pm
Location: Edmonton

Re: Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by Pilgrim » Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:34 pm

Mike Bentley wrote:If anyone else plans on mirroring this, let me know soon. Otherwise I'll post the set.
Can this be posted now?
Trevor Davis
University of Alberta
CMU '11

User avatar
Mike Bentley
Auron
Posts: 5808
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Re: Eyes That Do Not See VIII - January 2017

Post by Mike Bentley » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:05 pm

Yeah I think all of the mirrors are done. Here's a temporary link. I'll get a more permanent one posted later: https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ag6r4laHo3wdie0-kDqppQ1Tzg4D9Q
Mike Bentley
VP of Editing, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008

Locked