I find this a highly evasive, disappointing, and incoherent answer. Even if I accept the premise that NAQT is writing these sets to get exposure for quizbowl (to whatever salubrious ends,) I think that quality and production of quality in sufficient quantity ought be a concern above getting the type of exposure for quizbowl offered by television shows that use speedcheck questions and, consequently, that minimal resources should be devoted to the goal of gaining quizbowl exposure in that way until the goal of providing sufficient questions of sufficient quality is met at a significantly higher level of satisfaction than it is now. To my view, NAQT has acted otherwise, which is precisely the type of resource/action conflict that causes me to call NAQT's priorities and intentions into question in my own mind and to conclude that, thought I do not know those priorities and intentions, they are seemingly at odds with my own.Brian Ulrich wrote:I have no idea whether NAQT is keen to increase IS quantity, though quality is always a concern. As far as the other uses of resources, though, I think you're missing the other end of things. As I noted on the other end, NAQT produces questions for TV shows that air in a few limited markets. These competitions are usually not as prestigious among quiz bowlers, but they are the highest levels of exposure academic competition receives and hopefully create a groundswell of support that could be used to support local hs programs. NAQT introduced the Speed Check sets later as practice material, and I got the distinct impression this was just a case of realizing they got get more mileage out of questions already written. In other words, no one is writing and subject editing just for Speed Check sets, and only minimal set editing is involved.
However, I find even that premise highly unsatisfactory. I don't understand how providing speedcheck questions in quantity is meant to (or even ever going to) create "a groundswell of support" for bona fide quizbowl questions when providing the latter isn't evidently a priority (or, at least, not one on a par with providing same speedcheck questions) and NAQT has repeatedly stated that it's strapped for factors of production (vis a vis writers in the main.) In other words, if NAQT thought its production of speedcheck questions was creating demand for normal questions, it should be producing more normal questions to meet that demand, but it's not clear to me that that's what it is doing or wants to do.
Compounding these issues here, I think that NAQT's practices act to exacerbate its scarcity of writers, especially of high-quality questions. For example, I am hardly the only, most ardent, or even most prolific expositor of reservations regarding NAQT's intentions, aims, and practices that have a significant bearing on my assessment of NAQT as a potential outlet for my writing (thought these are perhaps not important in my case, as I outline later) but I don't see anyone responsible clarifying what NAQT's intentions, aims, and practices are to my satisfaction. As a further example, I have long held and continue to hold that NAQT's practice of providing high school questions to college tournaments has served to decrease the number of questions written by college students and poison its own writers' pool.
Thus, I'm not sure what "the other end of things" that I'm ostensibly missing is. To me, NAQT clearly has conflicts for its scarce resources and is choosing to resolve them in a way that either doesn't make sense or is at odds with what I think their priorities ought to be and even with what their stated priorities are, to the extent that the latter exist. I further argue that NAQT's own practices tend to exacerbate these conflicts.
I'm unconvinced that this was the case. By instructing me “not [to] forget,” you're stating this as a matter of public record. Okay; fair enough: show me the record.Brian Ulrich wrote:Let's also not forget that several years ago, in 2000-2, at least, NAQT's biggest problem was that it was satisfying the market for upper end high school questions, but receiving numerous complaints that its questions were too hard for most teams.
However, even if I uncritically accept this, it seems to have no bearing on the present state, in which NAQT is producing as many nominally introductory questions as and many more speedcheck questions than nominally normal questions by its own reckoning, in which the quality of all these questions is far from unimpeachable, in which there seems to be a great deal of feedback from many quarters decrying these facts, and in which no good justification or even explanation is being offered by a responsible representative.
Well, I'm not sure, because I don't have in mind an attempt to convince me, but others, and I don’t know what assurances others might seek. This question is designed more to ascertain what assurances NAQT is prepared to give, independent of what assurances might be necessary.Brian Ulrich wrote:I'm sure I can't give whatever it is, but what types of assurances did you have in mind?
However, I will try to answer your question on the premise that you're trying to convince me to write for NAQT (a moot end, since I'm too busy to write much of anything.) I suppose the first, most basic thing I'd ask for is a public statement of principles and direct, substantial answers to my questions by someone accountable at NAQT. There are many things that one might do to back up such statements, but I don't think I can say at this time what would be sufficient, even for me, because the nature of the requirement for backing of such a statement depends sensitively on its contents (mainly on how at odds I consider them to be with observed practice.) For example, I might consider the statement itself sufficient. I'll consequently leave it until such a statement is made to comment on whether I consider such backing sufficient and, if not, what I might prefer to see.