The arguments for mandatory packet submission (in its current form) seem to be as follows:
- Mandatory submission encourages people to learn and improve by writing questions.
- Mandatory submission allows editors to pick the highest-quality packets to be played, out of a list of 40 or more.
- New players are given a reprieve
- Beyond time in the circuit (the method currently used), there's no good way of deciding who should have to submit and who should be exempt
I'm sure very few would object to the third point--very few first- and second-year collegiate teams could put together a really stellar packet, and IMO, it is much more important to develop an appreciation for the game.
However, I know a lot of people have a problem with how unflinchingly the rule is applied. I hear every year that Canadian teams want to come to ACF Fall, but they don't want to have to write a packet. Their reasoning, it seems, goes like this:
- If I want to play, I have to write a packet.
- I realize that I don't write questions very well, so my packet will likely not be used.
- In the meantime, I have spent many hours writing questions.
- Since my time is valuable, I would rather not write (and consequently not play) than spend many hours writing a subpar packet that never will get used.
I sympathize more with the forst point of view than with the second (and I've written several unused packets in my day), but I am curious to hear from people who have chosen not to attend ACF tournaments because of the packet-writing restriction. Since the ultimate goal of ACF is
it seems right to me to explore other options which both allow more teams to compete and also maintain the tournament quality to which we are accustomed.to provide regional and national tournaments for collegiate academic competition and oversee the continued development of the ACF format as defined in the official ACF rules.