Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Elaborate on the merits of specific tournaments or have general theoretical discussion here.
Post Reply
User avatar
naan/steak-holding toll
Auron
Posts: 2146
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:53 pm
Location: New York, NY

Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by naan/steak-holding toll »

I posted this in the SCT D1 general discussion forum. Mike Cheyne helpfully suggested that I make it public, since it doesn't spoil set content but touches on an important issue.
me, in SCT discussion wrote:I very much appreciate the fact that NAQT continues to appeal to a broad range of people by including general knowledge, geography, pop culture, and a more fast-paced gameplay style; I think these are features, not bugs, and the precedent of strong sets such as the 2014-16 SCTs and 2016-18 ICTs suggest that the organization is very capable of producing tournaments that have a wide range of interesting content.

That said, I think the experiences I observed for both strong and weak teams at this weekend's SCT suggest that the current timing rules are frustrating and disliked by a substantial majority of players. There are several reasons:
  • The percent of players who are punished by the shrinking of timing (compared to ACF rules) is much higher. Simply, if you give people fewer seconds to pull an answer when buzzing in, then they're much more likely to get a neg when they know the correct answer and "deserve" points. In a fast-paced game format like NAQT, I think you definitely get higher stress levels, which can make it even more challenging to pull things quickly - so you get a doubling of this frustration. It's especially discouraging to see new players buzz in and not be able to remember that quickly.
  • Players with, for lack of a better term, "technical knowledge" of subjects are further disproportionately punished. NAQT tossups, like other good question sets these days, have a number of "technical" clues in music and science (equations, score clues, etc.) that can take a few seconds to parse - a player who recognizes a clue thus faces a really big risk when buzzing immediately that they won't have time to think through and give a correct answer. This was made doubly worse by several descriptive clues being outright non-unique, causing more buzz hesitancy.
  • Not the fault of the rules per se, but rather of there only being two college NAQT events per year: Moderators are not very used to enforcing these rules, so it naturally leads to some variance - some mods will hesitate a bit and end up giving you three seconds, others will be super strict and fast. This inconsistency also frustrates the player experience.
I think it's possible to compromise and maybe change to 3-second timing, taking a midpoint between the current fast paced-format and the slower format of mACF. This also has the aesthetic advantage of giving a more consistent set of timing rules with 3 seconds after buzzing, 3 seconds at the end of the tossup, 3 seconds on bonus prompts (the exception is 5 seconds on bonuses, which I think is generally agreed to be something that you can't change). It should also be plenty possible to implement with the new 11-minute timing rule, under which a good majority of games at the ICT level finish more than 20 tossups per packet already.
I think all NAQT tournaments could stand to adopt 3-second timing instead of 2-second, but college tournaments in particular have plenty of time on the clock to allow this to work, while the clock (at ICT/HSNCT at least) would serve to keep the game moving quickly.
Will Alston
Bethesda Chevy Chase HS '12, Dartmouth '16, Columbia Business School '21
NAQT Writer and Subject Editor

User avatar
ValenciaQBowl
Auron
Posts: 2391
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by ValenciaQBowl »

I like the idea of a consistent three-second count for everything but bonuses; that makes it easier for moderators, especially new ones, to keep things straight.

On a separate timing issue, I've been arguing for years that 11-minute halves (instead of the current ten) should be used for CC SCTs and CCCT. It would help ensure all rooms get to 20+ toss-ups, and would only add about about 26 minutes to the overall tournament length.
Chris Borglum
Valencia College Grand Poobah

Jack
Lulu
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by Jack »

I think I speak for everyone at Princeton when I say we would all favor 3 seconds instead of 2. All the points Will brought up, especially about inconsistent timing rules being applied by mods who just feel bad negging after 2 seconds, seem to suggest that 3 would be a constructive and welcome change.
Jack E.
Bermudian Springs HS
Princeton University '21, Club president

CaseyB
Lulu
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 7:22 pm

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by CaseyB »

ValenciaQBowl wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:45 pm
On a separate timing issue, I've been arguing for years that 11-minute halves (instead of the current ten) should be used for CC SCTs and CCCT. It would help ensure all rooms get to 20+ toss-ups, and would only add about about 26 minutes to the overall tournament length.
I'll add that this would add consistency since 11-minute halves are now used at ICT.
Casey Bindas
Canton HS (MI) 2007-11
UCF 2011-15
VCU 2015-16
Michigan Tech 2016-18
PACE

User avatar
CPiGuy
Tidus
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:19 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by CPiGuy »

Yeah, I honestly think 5 is kind of on the high end for tossups and wouldn't mind seeing all of quizbowl standardize on 3/3/5. I also think it's reasonable for NAQT not to want to go to 5, given the clock (and I wouldn't want to do that if it would result in measurably fewer tossups being played, I think). 3 is a pretty good compromise, though.
Conor Thompson (he/him)
Bangor HS (Maine) '16
Michigan '20

User avatar
vinteuil
Auron
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:31 pm

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by vinteuil »

CPiGuy wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:05 pm
Yeah, I honestly think 5 is kind of on the high end for tossups
Why?
Jacob Reed (he/him/his)
Chicago ~'25 | Yale '19, '17 | East Chapel Hill '13
"...distant bayings from...the musicological mafia"―Denis Stevens

jonah
Auron
Posts: 2328
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:51 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by jonah »

For what it's worth, in summer 2019 I proposed changing to 3/3/5. Only one member other than me supported the proposal, and they did so very lukewarmly by my reading. Quite a number of members explicitly opposed it.

edit (see later post): Only two members other than me supported the proposal; one did so very lukewarmly by my reading, and the other voted for it without any comment.
Last edited by jonah on Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jonah Greenthal
National Academic Quiz Tournaments

User avatar
CPiGuy
Tidus
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:19 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by CPiGuy »

vinteuil wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:12 pm
CPiGuy wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:05 pm
Yeah, I honestly think 5 is kind of on the high end for tossups
Why?
Mostly because I think it creates situations where the person with the faster reflexes is rewarded, rather than the person who actually figured out the answer first -- I think players should be encouraged to decide what they think the answer is *before* pressing the buzzer and discouraged from making reflex buzzes without processing them.

Other people can disagree -- I think there are merits to 5 seconds and certainly don't find it unreasonable -- but IMO the rules should make it so that if you don't know the answer when you press the buzzer you're in for a bad time.
Conor Thompson (he/him)
Bangor HS (Maine) '16
Michigan '20

User avatar
naan/steak-holding toll
Auron
Posts: 2146
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:53 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by naan/steak-holding toll »

jonah wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:38 pm
For what it's worth, in summer 2019 I proposed changing to 3/3/5. Only one member other than me supported the proposal, and they did so very lukewarmly by my reading. Quite a number of members explicitly opposed it.
Appreciate this info, Jonah! That being said, I think it's worth thinking more critically about what the rule has done for player experience, particularly as NAQT has continued to move towards more "modern-style" questions with technical clues, etc. Obviously this topic has been talked about before, but I think the iron's a bit hotter right now to strike, and player discontent with this rule seems pretty palpable. NAQT has done a fantastic job attracting a ton of teams to quizbowl, as seen by the record sizes of this year's field, and I think paying keen attention to the player experience is very important at retaining a bunch of these folks.
Will Alston
Bethesda Chevy Chase HS '12, Dartmouth '16, Columbia Business School '21
NAQT Writer and Subject Editor

User avatar
CPiGuy
Tidus
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:19 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by CPiGuy »

Perhaps NAQT would be more amenable to changing the rule for college quizbowl only?

I don't think high schoolers have similar complaints, especially because NAQT timing rules are pretty standard for high school, whereas the vast majority of college tournaments use different timing rules (5/5/5).
Conor Thompson (he/him)
Bangor HS (Maine) '16
Michigan '20

User avatar
naan/steak-holding toll
Auron
Posts: 2146
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:53 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by naan/steak-holding toll »

CPiGuy wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:54 pm
Perhaps NAQT would be more amenable to changing the rule for college quizbowl only?

I don't think high schoolers have similar complaints, especially because NAQT timing rules are pretty standard for high school, whereas the vast majority of college tournaments use different timing rules (5/5/5).
That's fair, since high school tournaments also have many fewer of these "technical" and meaty descriptive clues that often require time to carefully think through to get to the answer.
Will Alston
Bethesda Chevy Chase HS '12, Dartmouth '16, Columbia Business School '21
NAQT Writer and Subject Editor

jonah
Auron
Posts: 2328
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:51 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by jonah »

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:51 pm
jonah wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:38 pm
For what it's worth, in summer 2019 I proposed changing to 3/3/5. Only one member other than me supported the proposal, and they did so very lukewarmly by my reading. Quite a number of members explicitly opposed it.
Appreciate this info, Jonah! That being said, I think it's worth thinking more critically about what the rule has done for player experience, particularly as NAQT has continued to move towards more "modern-style" questions with technical clues, etc. Obviously this topic has been talked about before, but I think the iron's a bit hotter right now to strike, and player discontent with this rule seems pretty palpable. NAQT has done a fantastic job attracting a ton of teams to quizbowl, as seen by the record sizes of this year's field, and I think paying keen attention to the player experience is very important at retaining a bunch of these folks.
Well, I agree (and thanks for the compliment), and "player preference" was one of my main arguments for the proposal. Obviously, it wasn't convincing to many people. The main arguments against it were that it was change for the sake of change and/or for the purpose of emulating other quiz bowl rules, that players should be ready to answer as soon as they buzz in, simply not believing that people would be happier with this change, and not thinking that 3 seconds was any easier for officials to time (I had claimed it was easier).

Also, I miswrote earlier: it was actually three members for, seven against, five not voting. (The third "for" member had not actually said anything about the proposal during discussion, but did vote for it.)


CPiGuy wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:54 pm
Perhaps NAQT would be more amenable to changing the rule for college quizbowl only?

I don't think high schoolers have similar complaints, especially because NAQT timing rules are pretty standard for high school, whereas the vast majority of college tournaments use different timing rules (5/5/5).
I feel pretty strongly about NAQT having a unified rule set for all levels of play. I think (but am not sure) that sentiment is generally shared by other members. I perceive the different half-length rules as a significant downside (especially that some levels use untimed matches while others use timed matches; if it were just variations in half length, that would be easier to stomach). I don't know that I'd oppose 3/3/5 if it were to be at the college level only, but I'd consider it pretty poor.

Is it really true that NAQT timing rules are commonly used in high school? I would have thought not; at any rate it wasn't the case in my local circuit when I worked at local tournaments.
Jonah Greenthal
National Academic Quiz Tournaments

User avatar
a named reaction
Rikku
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:16 am

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by a named reaction »

My memory of playing in high school (mostly in NYC+New Jersey and Boston-area events) is that being given five seconds to answer tossups was typical, even on IS-sets.
Eric Wolfsberg
Bethlehem Central High School 2016
University of Delaware 2020
Stanford 2025 or whatever

User avatar
Zealots of Stockholm
Rikku
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:28 am
Location: Auburn, AL

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by Zealots of Stockholm »

Personally I would love this change. I don't buzz on more "technical" subjects (music/science), but in literature I would find this helpful, especially when trying to answer questions clueing specific quotations (lots of poetry questions, sometimes other forms of lit). I think I also generally just take longer to think about things though, such as at regs when I buzzed on the Allende tossup on what I think was an Eva Luna clue, and thought out loud by saying "so that's from Eva Luna.. that's by the woman who wrote House of the Spirits... Allende!" which probably would have gotten me negged at an NAQT tournament.
Chandler West
Auburn University '20
Good Hope High School (Cullman, AL) '16
Member, PACE

Votre Kickstarter Est Nul
Wakka
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 2:09 pm

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by Votre Kickstarter Est Nul »

Milhouse wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:15 pm
My memory of playing in high school (mostly in NYC+New Jersey and Boston-area events) is that being given five seconds to answer tossups was typical, even on IS-sets.
I played at this time in this region (and host tournaments there now) and this is also my experience.

Also, with respect to the "three seconds universally" point that I'm too lazy to quote: I think there is merit to rewarding players who buzz on something they know but need a second to figure out (I think primarily of a situation where person A knows clue A, person B knows clue B, which is one line later than clue A. Person A does not buzz in because they need an extra second, and person B buzzes in on the next clue in that time, effectively beating a more knowledgeable player to a question). Buzzing in on a piece of information knowing you know it, but also knowing you need a second to process it, seems to me a skill worth rewarding (say, buzzing in on an Ogaden War clue that says "fought with its eastern neighbor" and waiting until after buzzing to fully process which country is east of the other).
Emmett Laurie
East Brunswick '16
Rutgers University '20

User avatar
naan/steak-holding toll
Auron
Posts: 2146
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:53 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by naan/steak-holding toll »

players should be ready to answer as soon as they buzz in
I think this counter-argument that Jonah mentions (though does not make) is probably the least meritorious - expecting players to be 100% ready all time to buzz in - especially when clues can be particularly hard to process in a fast-paced in-game environment. Without wanting to do too much motivation attribution, I think a lot of this may come from not having as much familiarity playing on more modern quizbowl questions. I think quizbowl already does a plenty good job challenging players to effectively process information - making this part more difficult seems both unnecessary and frustrating.
Will Alston
Bethesda Chevy Chase HS '12, Dartmouth '16, Columbia Business School '21
NAQT Writer and Subject Editor

User avatar
1992 in spaceflight
Auron
Posts: 1364
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: St. Louis-area, MO

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by 1992 in spaceflight »

Speaking as someone who moderates NAQT Nationals, I'd be fully in support of a 3/3/5 adoption at all NAQT tournaments.
Jacob O'Rourke
Washington (MO) HS Assistant Coach (2014-Present); MOQBA Secretary (2015-Present)
Formerly: HSAPQ Host Contact; NASAT Outreach Coordinator (2016 and 2017); Kirksville HS Assistant Coach (2012-2014); Truman State '14; and Pacific High (MO) '10


"And here we are as on a darkling plain, Swept by confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night."
Matthew Arnold, Dover Beach.

bkmcavoybickford
Lulu
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 6:40 am

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by bkmcavoybickford »

CPiGuy wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:54 pm
Perhaps NAQT would be more amenable to changing the rule for college quizbowl only?

I don't think high schoolers have similar complaints, especially because NAQT timing rules are pretty standard for high school, whereas the vast majority of college tournaments use different timing rules (5/5/5).
(Feel free to move this post to another thread if you want to keep the discussion college-focused)

I'm a current high school quiz bowl player, and, where I have played in NC, 2/3/5 is fairly common as a timing rule, though some moderators vary the times either accidentally or because they do not want to be too harsh on time. There's no clear reason 2/3/5 is good for high school but bad for college; in my experience, all the reasons outlined in the initial post apply well to high school. Even the point that 3 seconds would help moderators who have never moderated an NAQT event before applies, albeit for slightly different reasons, to high school and middle school tournaments, which have a high proportion of moderators who have never read questions outside of practice before. I feel that the cushion of having 3 seconds would make tournaments less affected if a moderator accidentally begins their count a bit too early or a bit too late, since most people can answer by then.

Increasing the time past 3 seconds seems like it would have marginal benefits and encourage buzzing in, figuring out what the clue is saying, and then answering, which I'm not convinced is a good idea because that overly rewards buzzer speed, though it seems worthy of more debate. In NC middle school tournaments, moderators traditionally gave extra time for computational math tossups- I don't remember how long- and some players definitely used that strategy.

What do other high school and middle school players think about these timing rule changes, and how they compare to the rules used in you all's circuits?
Benjamin McAvoy-Bickford. Smith 15-18. East Chapel Hill 18-?

User avatar
cchiego
Yuna
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by cchiego »

jonah wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:03 pm
Is it really true that NAQT timing rules are commonly used in high school? I would have thought not; at any rate it wasn't the case in my local circuit when I worked at local tournaments.
Oh yes, it is. While it varies somewhat depending on the host, I know in PA at least Manheim Township's tournaments are always strict NAQT timing and I've seen it used at various other events as well (it's one of the main questions we have on the morning of tournaments as readers).

Newer hosts especially seem to be bound and determined to stick to everything that's printed in NAQT's official rules; back in the day, this was part of the weird "official" vs. "unofficial" NAQT event language in hosting instructions that thankfully seems to have been dropped over the years. It is still, however, a strange experience at events that do use 3 or 5 seconds after recognition since if you do change the timing then you have to tell the teams that you're handing a printout of the rules to to disregard (or manually scratch out by hand like I've seen in some cases) some of the on-paper timing policies (including all the references to timed matches and such). Just take a look through some of the tournament announcements on here and note that the biggest "exceptions" tend to be untimed vs. timed and timing-after-recognition changes. This is, suffice to say, rather confusing to newer teams. And as others have mentioned in this thread, the 2-second timing tends to be variably enforced by readers.

I understand the desire to want all NAQT events to be run on the same ruleset, but I really think some kind of "untimed regular season event" set of rules that focuses solely on what a typical non-nationals event might have (i.e. no mentions of the clock, perhaps versions with different timing rules or just 3 seconds for everything like the thread discussion suggests, etc.) would be helpful for hosts to have to print out instead of printing out a sheet of paper and then telling teams "here are the changes to make" every time.
Last edited by cchiego on Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chris C.
UGA '09, UCSD '12, UPenn '19
Greater Pennsylvania QuizBowl
http://gpqb.wordpress.com

whatamidoinghere
Lulu
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:07 pm

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by whatamidoinghere »

I'd be fully in support of changing the timing to 3/3/5 even for high school tournaments, since I've felt in my cases that mods tend to be overzealous with the 2 seconds they give, perhaps even cutting players off if they don't say their answer immediately after being recognized. If there were a three second time limit, I feel that mods would be more likely to give players the full three seconds required for answering questions. 3/3/5 would also help teams which are used to the 5/5/5 timing scheme (which is used in NorCal among other regions) to adjust to the fast pace of HSNCT play without really having to deal with disadvantages due to a lack of time. I've seen the lack of time personally affect my teammates who are used to the 5/5/5 scheme, where they may have been able to get multiple buzzes correct had they had the extra second. I don't believe there's much of a point to having a 2/3/5 scheme aside from possibly appearing faster, but IMO it leads to fewer people buzzing when they know they'd be able to parse the answer, and instead doubting their answer.
Avinash Iyer
Mission San Jose '21
A person on either Team Escobar, Escobar, MSJ, Mission SJ, or Mission San Jose
"Franklin the Turtle"- Karan Gurazada, Josh Rollin, and the rest of 10ppgcorner
"You're only as good as your last haircut"

User avatar
Mike Bentley
Auron
Posts: 5933
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by Mike Bentley »

jonah wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:03 pm
The main arguments against it were that it was change for the sake of change and/or for the purpose of emulating other quiz bowl rules, that players should be ready to answer as soon as they buzz in, simply not believing that people would be happier with this change, and not thinking that 3 seconds was any easier for officials to time (I had claimed it was easier).
The way I've thought about this is that moderators probably have a 0.5 to 1 second variance in accepting a 2 second answer. I'd be surprised if this changed significantly when increasing to 3 seconds. But since you'll now up the baseline from 2 to 3, the percentage of variance is reduced.
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
naan/steak-holding toll
Auron
Posts: 2146
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:53 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by naan/steak-holding toll »

I think the bigger factor is, as others have noted, the moderator hesitancy. Negging people after two seconds, especially without the clock, just "seems wrong" to many people. There was at least one instance where I was talking through an answer out loud at SCT and gave it but the moderator insisted they had called time, when I didn't even hear it - under the rules I probably deserved the neg, and shouldn't have gotten mad about it, but this was yet another very frustrating experience from the player's point of view.

Much worse than moderator hesitancy, though, was watching a less experienced player on a B team that we played against stumble through his answer out loud after buzzing on a clue from a book he had read, and come up with it only one second after being negged under the two-second rule - said player then (justifiably, in my view) complained about the timing rule really "messing him up" throughout the tournament. He seemed really, really frustrated with his playing experience.

Perhaps I'm being a bit idealistic and naive in saying this, but I think the quizbowl rules should really aim at not only making sure the outcome of a game is fair, but that it's enjoyable and rewarding. Anecdotal, I know, but I have only ever seen the two-second rule generate immense player frustration of the type noted above, much more than I see with other timing rules - and it occurs multiple times, in memorable incidents, at every NAQT tournament that I've played or moderated.
Will Alston
Bethesda Chevy Chase HS '12, Dartmouth '16, Columbia Business School '21
NAQT Writer and Subject Editor

User avatar
Aaron's Rod
Sec. of Cursed Images, Chicago SJW Cabal
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:29 pm

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by Aaron's Rod »

I'm glad this is being discussed, and particularly grateful for Jonah's input.
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:42 pm
I think the bigger factor is, as others have noted, the moderator hesitancy. Negging people after two seconds, especially without the clock, just "seems wrong" to many people. There was at least one instance where I was talking through an answer out loud at SCT and gave it but the moderator insisted they had called time, when I didn't even hear it - under the rules I probably deserved the neg, and shouldn't have gotten mad about it, but this was yet another very frustrating experience from the player's point of view.

Much worse than moderator hesitancy, though, was watching a less experienced player on a B team that we played against stumble through his answer out loud after buzzing on a clue from a book he had read, and come up with it only one second after being negged under the two-second rule - said player then (justifiably, in my view) complained about the timing rule really "messing him up" throughout the tournament. He seemed really, really frustrated with his playing experience.

Perhaps I'm being a bit idealistic and naive in saying this, but I think the quizbowl rules should really aim at not only making sure the outcome of a game is fair, but that it's enjoyable and rewarding. Anecdotal, I know, but I have only ever seen the two-second rule generate immense player frustration of the type noted above, much more than I see with other timing rules - and it occurs multiple times, in memorable incidents, at every NAQT tournament that I've played or moderated.
As someone who deals with this rule exclusively as a moderator, I completely agree with this.
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:55 pm
CPiGuy wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:54 pm
Perhaps NAQT would be more amenable to changing the rule for college quizbowl only?

I don't think high schoolers have similar complaints, especially because NAQT timing rules are pretty standard for high school, whereas the vast majority of college tournaments use different timing rules (5/5/5).
That's fair, since high school tournaments also have many fewer of these "technical" and meaty descriptive clues that often require time to carefully think through to get to the answer.
My worst experiences with enforcing this rule are actually with younger players. At least college players are used to having to "lateral" their way through a question, and are much better at keeping multiple (ACF/NAQT) formats straight in their heads. Anecdotally, at least on a sample of some dozen-ish national tournaments, this rule is most likely to trip up middle schoolers and less-experienced high schoolers. That means they're much more likely to feel their playing experience is negatively affected (as Will said, but to an even greater extent because they're less resilient). I hate negging a player for time. I would more than welcome an extension on tossup timing, as soon as possible.
Alex D.
ACF
http://tinyurl.com/qbmisconduct

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

User avatar
i never see pigeons in wheeling
Rikku
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 3:57 am

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by i never see pigeons in wheeling »

As someone who’s moderated 1000+ official tournament qb/HB matches in the last 10 years, I wholeheartedly support this change. It feels weird and alien to switch to NAQT timing when I staff SCT/MSNCT/HSNCT, and anecdotally it seems to adversely impact the players who use less binary association-based buzzing styles. Quiz bowl is at its best precisely when it discards outmoded traditions that no longer serve its purposes.
Ankit
Cal '16
Bellarmine College Preparatory '12

User avatar
Wartortullian
Rikku
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:02 pm
Location: Boulder, CO
Contact:

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by Wartortullian »

Aaron's Rod wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:06 pm
My worst experiences with enforcing this rule are actually with younger players. At least college players are used to having to "lateral" their way through a question, and are much better at keeping multiple (ACF/NAQT) formats straight in their heads. Anecdotally, at least on a sample of some dozen-ish national tournaments, this rule is most likely to trip up middle schoolers and less-experienced high schoolers. That means they're much more likely to feel their playing experience is negatively affected (as Will said, but to an even greater extent because they're less resilient). I hate negging a player for time. I would more than welcome an extension on tossup timing, as soon as possible.
I couldn't agree with this more, and it's actually the reason we run all our high school tournaments on mACF rules.

Even as a pretty experienced player, though, it's very annoying (in part do to my habit of saying "so this is, like, <answer>" after I buzz). It's been a couple years since I've been negged for this, but in that time, I've seen it happen to dozens players at all levels who I could tell were a second away from the answer.
Matt Mitchell
Colorado '20
Treasure Valley '16
QBNotify creator, Colorado Quiz Bowl founder, PACE member

User avatar
naturalistic phallacy
Auron
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by naturalistic phallacy »

Chiming in to say that the 2-second limit to say one's answer after buzzing in is also frustrating and inopportune for those of us who have speech delays.
Bernadette Spencer
University of Minnesota, MCTC
Member, ACF
Event Manager, PACE
Order Support and Administrative Assistant, NAQT

User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6695
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by Cheynem »

My thoughts:

1. I don't believe any NAQT college tournament needs to be timed. SCT doesn't use the timer and ICT, which attracts excellent staffers and logistics people, doesn't need to use the clock.

2. Because of that, I would be fine with NAQT's college tournaments adopting 5/5/5 (well, I don't really care if you still want to do 3 after the question is read).

3. I think the sheer shortness of "2" seconds lends itself, as people have noted, to readers almost overadjusting and being very quick to rule people out of time.

4. For timed tournaments, such as HSNCT and the like, I would support 3 seconds after buzzing in, which as people have pointed out, gives just a touch more time when answering without sacrificing too much time off the clock (as I think 5 seconds would in a timed format).

In short, I think we should get rid of the clock in college and go to 5/5/5. For timed tournaments or if we can't get rid of the clock at ICT (but why?), then 3/3/5.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger

Bensonfan23
Wakka
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 7:50 pm

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by Bensonfan23 »

Cheynem wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:12 pm
My thoughts:

1. I don't believe any NAQT college tournament needs to be timed. SCT doesn't use the timer and ICT, which attracts excellent staffers and logistics people, doesn't need to use the clock.

2. Because of that, I would be fine with NAQT's college tournaments adopting 5/5/5 (well, I don't really care if you still want to do 3 after the question is read).

3. I think the sheer shortness of "2" seconds lends itself, as people have noted, to readers almost overadjusting and being very quick to rule people out of time.

4. For timed tournaments, such as HSNCT and the like, I would support 3 seconds after buzzing in, which as people have pointed out, gives just a touch more time when answering without sacrificing too much time off the clock (as I think 5 seconds would in a timed format).

In short, I think we should get rid of the clock in college and go to 5/5/5. For timed tournaments or if we can't get rid of the clock at ICT (but why?), then 3/3/5.
Mike's thoughts pretty succinctly capture my own on these suggestions to change naqt's timing rules. I also agree that ICT staff is consistently excellent, and dropping the clock altogether and just using mACF timing rules would be a particularly welcomed change. Not to mention this would also eliminate scenarios where different teams hear different amounts of questions in each round (24 tu vs. 21 for instance) and thus miss whatever categories happen to packetized late that round.
Ryan Humphrey
UT Austin (Cell & Developmental PhD Program, 2018-?)
Duke University (Biology and History, Class of 2018)
George Washington High School (Charleston, WV, Class of 2014)
Former PACE Member (2017-2019)

User avatar
naan/steak-holding toll
Auron
Posts: 2146
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:53 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by naan/steak-holding toll »

Personally, I'd like to keep the clock at ICT - I still think its very important to keep a brisk pace of play and discourage excess chatter.

I think a pilot of 3/3/5 at ICT would be very welcome.
Will Alston
Bethesda Chevy Chase HS '12, Dartmouth '16, Columbia Business School '21
NAQT Writer and Subject Editor

User avatar
ValenciaQBowl
Auron
Posts: 2391
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by ValenciaQBowl »

SCT doesn't use the timer
Wait, really??? Never actually having gone to one of those (the D2 set is used for CCCT, so no-go for me), I didn't know that. Crazy.

In previous discussions of this, I've argued that I think the clock is good, but I'd be completely fine with increasing to 12- or 13-minute halves to ensure all teams reach 24. What the clock adds is focus for the players to avoid between-question commentary and for readers to emphasize keeping a brisk pace. More importantly, having timed halves really keeps the tournament on schedule, something that can only rarely be said to be true of non-timed tournaments. And the length of the day for ICT really puts a premium on keeping things on schedule.
Chris Borglum
Valencia College Grand Poobah

eygotem
Lulu
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 12:57 pm
Location: Observable Universe

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by eygotem »

One thing I'd like to add is that having only 2 seconds to answer can make a major difference when it comes to players who are used to game formats with verbal recognition rules (i.e. (Ocean) Science Bowl, some wacky state formats etc.), since those players are likely used to waiting a several seconds to answer after buzzing in. Having done personally done Science Bowl in middle school for several years before joining quizbowl, I can attest that I often find myself making an instinctive post-buzz pause before answering (though it's rarely affected my scoring, due to attending almost exclusively tournaments with 5/5/5 timing rules). Increasing the time limit to 3 seconds would definitely help alleviate any potential issues and make NAQT more accessible to new players coming from these qb-adjacent activities.
Eric Yin
Ladue Horton Watkins '21

User avatar
Auks Ran Ova
Forums Staff: Chief Administrator
Posts: 4090
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Re: Cross-Post: NAQT Timing Discussion

Post by Auks Ran Ova »

Cheynem wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:12 pm
My thoughts:

1. I don't believe any NAQT college tournament needs to be timed. SCT doesn't use the timer and ICT, which attracts excellent staffers and logistics people, doesn't need to use the clock.

2. Because of that, I would be fine with NAQT's college tournaments adopting 5/5/5 (well, I don't really care if you still want to do 3 after the question is read).

3. I think the sheer shortness of "2" seconds lends itself, as people have noted, to readers almost overadjusting and being very quick to rule people out of time.

4. For timed tournaments, such as HSNCT and the like, I would support 3 seconds after buzzing in, which as people have pointed out, gives just a touch more time when answering without sacrificing too much time off the clock (as I think 5 seconds would in a timed format).

In short, I think we should get rid of the clock in college and go to 5/5/5. For timed tournaments or if we can't get rid of the clock at ICT (but why?), then 3/3/5.
I would like to co-sign all of this.
Rob Carson
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??
Member, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT

Post Reply