RM+TP Housewrite available for Mirrors!

[sir negsalot]

This is a preliminary announcement for the Richard Montgomery + Torrey Pines Tournament Set and its respective mirrors.

Richard Montgomery in Rockville, MD, Torrey Pines in San Diego, CA have collaborated on a regular difficulty tournament set to be used in early 2012.
Questions were written by team members from both schools. The set will be edited by Arun Chonai, Raynell Cooper, Daniel Galitsky, Auroni Gupta, Justin Song, Sharad Vikram, and Ankit Aggarwal and Nikhil Desai from Bellarmine Prep.

Style:
This is a regular difficulty set in every sense. We intend our set to be similar in quality and difficulty to HSAPQ and NAQT IS, with slighly longer tossups at 6 lines of 10 pt TNR. If you liked last year's Torrey Pines/St. Anselm's set, you will like this set. Tossups are powermarked.
The distribution is as follows:
4/4 Literature
4/4 History
4/4 Science
3/3Fine Arts
2/2 RMP
1/1 Geography
1/1Trash
1/1 Social Sciences
EDIT: We have decided to eliminate the current events portion of the distribution

We are seeking mirrors in all areas of the country in 2012. Email me dgalitsky94 at gmail dot com if you are interested. The set will be available for mirrors beginning January 1. We are open to delayed mirrors also. Mirror fees are currently $12 per team.

Locations currently scheduled for mirrors:
Richard Montgomery HS (Washington DC region) (2/25)
Torrey Pines HS (Southern California) (2/25)
Bellarmine Prep (Bay Area/Northern Cal) (Date TBA)
Northern Illinois University (Northern IL and Chicagoland) (1/28)
Macomb HS (Central IL and St. Louis area) (1/7)
Truman State University (Missouri) (3/10)

[sir negsalot]

This set was successfully used at Macomb on January 7th, with approval from coaches and players alike. The last few errors are being eliminated in preparation for the next few mirrors. Most of quizbowl country is still not covered yet, so I encourage any school hosting a tournament in 2012 to take advantage. Im looking at areas like Texas, Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, New York, and New England as good potential hosting sites.

[sir negsalot]

Truman State in Missouri will now be hosting a tournament on our set on March 10th! Link: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12657

Most of the country still will be unable to play on these questions unless more hosts come forward.

[Frater Taciturnus]

Most of the country still will be unable to play on these questions unless more hosts come forward.

Even though it was from Illinois, based on what got posted about the set this weekend I'm kinda perfectly okay with that.

[1992 in spaceflight]

The stuff in the Northern Illinois thread has me concerned about the set, also. Is there any way that an independent party (such as Dan Donohue or Matt Weiner or Mike Bentley or somebody like that) could verify that the set has remarkably improved once you all have had time to make edits to the set? I'm saying this because my college club, Truman State, is hosting a mirror of this in March, and I really want to be able to present to the teams that attend the best possible pyramidal set we can get.

[Stained Diviner]

In the Google Doc, it says you want only the worst examples of poor wording. Before the next group of mirrors, is somebody going to read through the set to try to correct a lot of the grammar/wording issues and make sure the underlining follows quizbowl standards? I am hopeful that the answer is Yes.

I sent this message to Dan Galitsky a week ago and got no reply. Perhaps I used the wrong email address, or he was the wrong person to ask. I would be grateful to get a response either via email or on this board.

[sir negsalot]

A lot of minor changes have been made and will continue to be made, in addition to those mentioned in that google doc, as you mention. In about a week, it should be ready for any neutral quizbowl expert to look through and approve.

[sir negsalot]

Any one who is neutral is now welcome to look at the google doc for the set. email me at dgalitsky94 at gmail dot com

[Black-throated Antshrike]

In the Google Doc, it says you want only the worst examples of poor wording. Before the next group of mirrors, is somebody going to read through the set to try to correct a lot of the grammar/wording issues and make sure the underlining follows quizbowl standards? I am hopeful that the answer is Yes.

I sent this message to Dan Galitsky a week ago and got no reply. Perhaps I used the wrong email address, or he was the wrong person to ask. I would be grateful to get a response either via email or on this board.

I've worked with them a lot the last few days trying to make this better, but I don't have the necessary editing experience to do a perfect job on this. This really needs someone that's really familiar with literature and biology and social science to go over this. If those categories are anything like the history and chem/physics and literature that I knew about, then this would definitely help this out a lot. Sorry to post this, but I feel like this is in the best interest of everybody and this will (hopefully) get some people on board that are better than me to help before Saturday.

EDIT: Donald Taylor and Raynell Cooper have both agreed to look over this already.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

I just wanted to drop in to say I am mightily amused that somebody decided that Macomb, IL is somehow a St. Louis area mirror. It's 3 hours away from St. Louis and is literally at the same line of latitude as Iowa.

[i never see pigeons in wheeling]

Bellarmine will still do much of the (great amount of) editing required, but please pull any mention of our school's name from association with this set.

[AKKOLADE]

This set sure sounds like worst song, played on ugliest guitar.

I really hope that the issues have been addressed, but it doesn't sound like they have.

[Black-throated Antshrike]

This set sure sounds like worst song, played on ugliest guitar.

I really hope that the issues have been addressed, but it doesn't sound like they have.

We're busy creating an answer document to try and figure out what the hell is going on and what is missing. This set is like the Hydra, any time we address one problem, two more appear that are even worse.

[Down and out in Quintana Roo]

Wow. It's too late to change our minds about the tournament on Saturday, but please be aware that i now wish we were playing on a different set. If our experience is anything like the teams in Illinois that had to suffer through this last month, then teams may deserve a lesser admission price for the competition this weekend. Please fix these questions to the best of your ability, and try not to ruin an entire tournament again in the future.

[Black-throated Antshrike]

Wow. It's too late to change our minds about the tournament on Saturday, but please be aware that i now wish we were playing on a different set. If our experience is anything like the teams in Illinois that had to suffer through this last month, then teams may deserve a lesser admission price for the competition this weekend. Please fix these questions to the best of your ability, and try not to ruin an entire tournament again in the future.

I'm working with Ankit and Nikhil to make this as presentable as possible, even though I have no stake in this and just started looking at this recently. Honestly, at this point, unless everyone involved in editing suddenly finds a way to create 30+ hour days, this isn't going to be up to the standards it should be. I'll put in as much work on this as my classes allow, if for no other reason than that I don't want the teams attending to be screwed over, not because I think RM and TP deserve to be bailed out of this giant quagmire they've created for themselves.

EDIT: It would be nice if some of the people actually associated with RM and TP other than the person who's questions we have to almost totally rewrite and caused this entire problem would get on the documents and help out.

EDIT: 'cause I can't do much right at 6am

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

I'm just going to point this out - RAVE is a pristine set of excellent quality that is available at the drop of an email to Lloyd Sy or Abid Haseeb. If the editing work doesn't work out in the next 24-48 hours, you should probably cut your losses and provide your tournament with quality questions.

[nadph]

40 hours remain until this set is played; I do not have confidence that the issues can be fixed in time. I would recommend a set like VCU or RAVE be mirrored instead at the two 2/25 mirror sites.

[Down and out in Quintana Roo]

I would not object to a change of the set, especially to one that i've heard nothing but "rave" reviews on. Certainly this would be better than the alternative, if i'm to believe what is being posted here.

[Matt Weiner]

40 hours remain until this set is played; I do not have confidence that the issues can be fixed in time. I would recommend a set like VCU or RAVE be mirrored instead at the two 2/25 mirror sites.

While I'm not involved in the writing of the set that the VCU team is collaborating on for use at our March 10 tournament, I'm pretty sure there are no plans for it to be complete by February 25. George can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure there are other sets available to switch to, RAVE or otherwise.

[Frater Taciturnus]

40 hours remain until this set is played; I do not have confidence that the issues can be fixed in time. I would recommend a set like VCU or RAVE be mirrored instead at the two 2/25 mirror sites.

While I'm not involved in the writing of the set that the VCU team is collaborating on for use at our March 10 tournament, I'm pretty sure there are no plans for it to be complete by February 25. George can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure there are other sets available to switch to, RAVE or otherwise.

Yeah the VCU/Ohio State set is not available until March 3, but as far as I know OSU and VCU are the only two mirrors.

[Dogberry]

Due to ongoing internal and external concerns about the TP/RM set, RM has contacted Auburn in the hopes of using the RAVE set for our tournament Saturday. We plan to continue to edit the TP/RM set so that it may be available to use at a later date, whether this year or next.

[Black-throated Antshrike]

Due to ongoing internal and external concerns about the TP/RM set, RM has contacted Auburn in the hopes of using the RAVE set for our tournament Saturday. We plan to continue to edit the TP/RM set so that it may be available to use at a later date, whether this year or next.

It can't be used next year. It's alreasy been played on and that completely removes your question security.

EDIT: also, since I have no way of contacting any of you readily to make you do stuff outside of this forum, would you please fill in the answer document that we created over your old one, so that we can know where all of your crap went.

[Adventure Temple Trail]

I'm working with Amit and Nikhil to make this as presentable as possible

I don't have much to add to the rest of the thread, but I really, really hope you misspelled "Ankit".

[Black-throated Antshrike]

I'm working with Amit and Nikhil to make this as presentable as possible

I don't have much to add to the rest of the thread, but I really, really hope you misspelled "Ankit".

This just confirms the fact that I can't do anything when I've been up forever. Especially with the headache that this has been causing me. I fixed the original post.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

It can't be used next year. It's alreasy been played on and that completely removes your question security.

What the hell?

[Black-throated Antshrike]

It can't be used next year. It's alreasy been played on and that completely removes your question security.

What the hell?

There's already been two mirrors of this, so how can you just say, we'll keep these until next year and use them then, when people have already heard the questions

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

The same way you deal with mirrors during the same year! Don't let somebody in Illinois mirror it again!

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

Also, if RAVE isn't used, LIST II is also a rockin set.

[Black-throated Antshrike]

The same way you deal with mirrors during the same year! Don't let somebody in Illinois mirror it again!

I guess, although this set really shouldn't be used.

[jonathanmarx]

Also, if RAVE isn't used, LIST II is also a rockin set.

Except that local teams heard it at TJ last month...

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

The same way you deal with mirrors during the same year! Don't let somebody in Illinois mirror it again!

I guess, although this set really shouldn't be used.

That's fine since this set s, but don't come up with non-problems and act like there's only one way to handle them as if it's some kind of standard practice that allowing mirrors at a later date = a bad quizbowl practice. Nobody ever decided that, and people like NAQT in fact have decided the opposite. The set shouldn't be mirrored on its own merits.

Post sanitized by the capybara --Mgmt.

[Mewto55555]

Also, if RAVE isn't used, LIST II is also a rockin set.

RM couldn't mirror it due to overlap with TJ's already-run mirror, but if Torrey Pines needs a set in a jam, LIST II would definitely be available if they shoot me an email ([email protected]) sometime today or tomorrow if the set doesn't come together.

[Black-throated Antshrike]

The same way you deal with mirrors during the same year! Don't let somebody in Illinois mirror it again!

I guess, although this set really shouldn't be used.

That's fine since this set blows, but don't come up with non-problems and act like there's only one way to handle them as if it's some kind of standard practice that allowing mirrors at a later date = a bad quizbowl practice. Nobody ever decided that, and people like NAQT in fact have decided the opposite. The set shouldn't be mirrored on its own merits.

True, I just thought that mirroring a set over a year after it's original play date would probably be a bad idea. I guess I was wrong

[Coach G]

At practice today after school Abid told me about the request from RM to use RAVE, and we are happy to provide that set for your tournament this Saturday. Abid will be contacting you this evening regarding details, and has the final proofread set (12 rounds plus a set of tiebreaker/replacement questions) to send you. We hope everyone enjoys the questions, and welcome any feedback people wish to provide after the event.

[Down and out in Quintana Roo]

Thanks so much Linda, and Auburn kids. I'm sure the set will be great, and we're looking forward to hearing it.

[abnormal abdomen]

Yeah, so this sounds fine to me.

Just a question, though: How are you guys handling formatting for the tournament on Saturday? From what I see, you guys have 24 teams, and we have 12 packets + a good amount of tiebreaker/replacement questions (a little less than 20/20 I think). Unless I'm overlooking something obvious, you can't safely run a a good format + guarantee 2 extra packets for a possible advantaged final with 24 teams unless you do 6/6/6/6 and then go into another 6/6/6/6 using whatever statistic you choose for your "wild card" teams. If you guys were planning on doing some other format, we might need to work that out.

Wait, actually... I'm guessing that isn't an issue, because I believe the original set had 12 packets at Huskie Bowl.

[Dogberry]

Many thanks to Auburn for allowing us to use RAVE this coming Saturday.

In terms of bracketing, we are planning to do a round robin in the morning with 4 brackets of 6 teams, so 5 prelim games. Then, the top two teams from each bracket will form the top tier of 8 teams, followed by a second and third tier of 8 teams each. Each tier of 8 will be split into two brackets of four, which will each play three round robin games. Within the tiers of 8, there will then be cross-bracket placement games between the brackets of four, and the winning team must clear the field by two or more games (meaning we will do an advantaged final if necessary). Therefore, we will be using 9-10 packets, and perhaps more in case of a circle of death.

[Angry Babies in Love]

The same way you deal with mirrors during the same year! Don't let somebody in Illinois mirror it again!

I guess, although this set really shouldn't be used.

I don't think there really are that many major flaws with this tournament that can't be fixed by someone more experienced than you or me looking it over. I wanted to keep mum on this but I really don't agree at all with you on this. I agree with this decision to switch the set used at RM and the set in the state it's in now would lead to a subpar tournament experience, but you're making it seem like the worst set ever created and I just don't see where you're coming from with this.

[Black-throated Antshrike]

The same way you deal with mirrors during the same year! Don't let somebody in Illinois mirror it again!

I guess, although this set really shouldn't be used.

I don't think there really are that many major flaws with this tournament that can't be fixed by someone more experienced than you or me looking it over. I wanted to keep mum on this but I really don't agree at all with you on this. I agree with this decision to switch the set used at RM and the set in the state it's in now would lead to a subpar tournament experience, but you're making it seem like the worst set ever created and I just don't see where you're coming from with this.

The reason I'm saying this, is because every single time I look at it again, I keep finding more and more things that need to be changed. Also, the main reason I'm saying this is because of the unacceptable amount of plagiarism in this set. In retrospect, I guess it's not terrible, it's not good, but it's not terrible; but I ethically can't recommend a set where there are so many issues of obviously plagiarized material. I feel that if people are going to be paying vast sums of money to attend and play on a set, the set can be at least original, and not borrowing sources directly from the internet. There has also been little effort put forth to change any of the mistakes that have been pointed out.

Also, after not even creating a full answer document (thanks for help with this everyone that was supposed to have written this *sarcasm*) I can tell you that there is almost no distribution in the set. There are entire categories across the 7 rounds that I have entered into the answer document so far that are just plain missing, or only appear once or twice, and I'm talking big things like World History, or British literature, or philosophy. Also, while editing this tournament with Ankit and Nikhil, we continuously had to just leave out bonus parts and whole clues because we couldn't determine if something else has been used. There are just two part bonuses floating around that just have a note saying, write another part for this if we can find out what hasn't been already used. Also, of the members on the teams of RM and TP, I've seen exactly one person from each school make any change at all to the questions; the people I have seen the most there are Ankit, Jonathan Lam, and Donald Taylor, when most of them don't even want there name associated with these questions anymore, and honestly I can't particularly blame them.

I wish I didn't have to say this, but I felt ethically bound to post about how the tournament was not close to the standards that it needs to be at. I have little doubt that if someone better than me spent a long time going over this, and all the plagiarism was removed, then in fact the set would be fine, but as it stands, it's pretty piss poor.

[Angry Babies in Love]

OK regarding the "plagiarism": I talked to Daniel about this and the instances of plagiarism you've cited aren't full lines or sentences but are very short fragments that can't really be reworded. They were just facts that appeared both in sources and in the question. In quizbowl, using facts from sources isn't really considered plagiarism, it's considered writing factual questions. If I saw instances of entire sentences being lifted then there might be an issue (not anything worth scrapping a set over in my opinion, but an issue none the less), but the things you are citing as plagiarism are petty and don't really impact the set. Just because a source and the packet both use the word "exemplify" doesn't mean it's not an original set.

Regarding the answer document: I don't know what happened after RM started collaborating with TP, but before that there was a color-coded Google spreadsheet in which the questions were inputted. I don't know if you have access to that or if at all reflects the progress of the set since RM and TP joined forces, but that exists. A distribution was created and questions were written to fit it.

I have no real investment in the quality of the set but I feel like that many of the criticisms you're launching are off-base. Maybe I have a bias that I can't discern; I'd love to hear a critique of this set by someone in addition to you so I can better understand what makes this set as awfully unusable as you claim it is.

[Black-throated Antshrike]

OK regarding the "plagiarism": I talked to Daniel about this and the instances of plagiarism you've cited aren't full lines or sentences but are very short fragments that can't really be reworded. They were just facts that appeared both in sources and in the question. In quizbowl, using facts from sources isn't really considered plagiarism, it's considered writing factual questions. If I saw instances of entire sentences being lifted then there might be an issue (not anything worth scrapping a set over in my opinion, but an issue none the less), but the things you are citing as plagiarism are petty and don't really impact the set. Just because a source and the packet both use the word "exemplify" doesn't mean it's not an original set.

Regarding the answer document: I don't know what happened after RM started collaborating with TP, but before that there was a color-coded Google spreadsheet in which the questions were inputted. I don't know if you have access to that or if at all reflects the progress of the set since RM and TP joined forces, but that exists. A distribution was created and questions were written to fit it.

I have no real investment in the quality of the set but I feel like that many of the criticisms you're launching are off-base. Maybe I have a bias that I can't discern; I'd love to hear a critique of this set by someone in addition to you so I can better understand what makes this set as awfully unusable as you claim it is.

Well half of what I found as plagiarism has been already corrected or uncommented and I have neither the time nor the willpower to go looking for them again. I think Ankit got rid of most of the worst examples, but we found instances where entire sentences were taken from Britannica and Wikipedia, but we replaced those almost immediately. Also, there was an instance of plagiarizing from an old NASAT question, which there is absolutely no excuse or defense for. Ask Donald Taylor or Ankit or Nikhil or Jonathan Lam, or whomever the only TP person I've seen so far. They all agree that this is just a load of terrible crap.

Oh yeah, the answer document was just wrong and horribly inaccurate as to what was actually there, so we scrapped it and are completing a new one now. Also, if any of you (RM/TP) people want to actually help make this better, please help us make this answer document, so we don't have rounds with 6 history questions in them, or rounds with 2 trash and one general knowledge.

[cchiego]

I just read this set today and this iteration wasn't horrible. In fact, the first few rounds were actually pretty good and kept the difficulty nicely under control. Later rounds suffered from a bit more variation in bonus difficulty (as well as length- some were 6 lines total while others were 12-13 lines), there were still a few first-few line clunkers, a few pet topics came up to much, and there's more of a drop-off in copy-editing quality as the packets progressed (though overall, they were on par with the HSAPQ set I read earlier this year--there, but not too distracting in most cases). I wouldn't necessarily recommend this set, but there's no reason why with a bit more editing it wouldn't be playable and enjoyable.

[Black-throated Antshrike]

as well as length- some were 6 lines total while others were 12-13 lines

As far as I know from being up till 5am editing this, I don't remember there ever being a question that went more than 6.5 lines, unless it was added after I went to sleep.

I just read this set today and this iteration wasn't horrible. In fact, the first few rounds were actually pretty good and kept the difficulty nicely under control. Later rounds suffered from a bit more variation in bonus difficulty

The first ~6ish rounds were the ones that saw the most work put into editing, so that's probably why. We basically ran out of time editing this, so some of the later rounds definitely had some harder bonus answers that I commented on, I just don't know if they were able to be fixed in time.

there were still a few first-few line clunkers

I was afraid of this on a couple things. If you email me the list of anything you remember, I'll definitely make the necessary corrections.

a few pet topics came up to much

I didn't really notice this all that much (although I'm not an expert). If you send me a list of these things, I'll also look into altering them.

more of a drop-off in copy-editing quality as the packets progressed (though overall, they were on par with the HSAPQ set I read earlier this year--there, but not too distracting in most cases)

again, I'm sorry but this was a result of us running out of time.

If anyone has any remarks/criticism/anything that needs to be changed, I'd more than like to hear about it. I'm actually a lot happier with how this ended up than at the beginning of the week, although that's not to say that we couldn't have done a better job.