The Quizbowl Resource Center

page 15!! Take THAT Rob Carson!!!!

EDITED to clarify that the above comment was not directed to the State of Minnesota and their quizbowl board, rather at Rob Carson of the U, who has stolen our milestone for the past two pages...

Woody Paige wrote:page 15!! Take THAT Minnesota!!!!

i bet that thread has a much higher substance density than this one does

this whole "beating someone to the next page" thing is unbelievably stupid and unfunny

dtaylor4 wrote:

cornfused wrote:Simple answer: Stop negging, people. Problem solved.
But anyway, the problem with three buzzes per tossup is you're going to have a buzzer race after a "clear" of the system. That's just plain luck.

Dude, buzzer races already exist in regular quizbowl. Luck is a part of it. You're never going to eliminate it entirely. Also, the only way to stop negs is to get rid of those who neg, namely every quizbowl player.

Also, I'm not sure you get it. It's three buzzes after the tossup is finished, then it goes dead. In theory, every single person could neg on a tossup, if they all buzz in before the end.

My point is that the buzzer races that already exist in quizbowl are occurring when the system is primed - so it's about who hits the button first. That's speed. Buzzer races with 3+ teams playing at once can occur when the system is locking people out - so it's about who hits the button first after the moderator clears. That's luck.

Also, my "stop negging" was in response to:

BG MSL Champs wrote:In contrast, people were penalized one point in the finals for every neg that they had. This produced a low scoring final as every time that somebody got a question right, they would lose that point seemingly immediately.

...to which I was saying, if the final was low-scoring, it's because the Sivas, Donalds, and Greg Petersons of the world are being too aggressive, not because the format is bad. In my experience, this format usually rewards people with a high tossup-to-neg ratio (for instance, Carlo.)

In my opinion there shouldn't even be a big room match. Instead, I think there should just be an upper, championship bracket to decide the winner.

No offense Ben but doesn't the power matching already create one of those?

cornfused wrote:Also, I'm not sure you get it. It's three buzzes after the tossup is finished, then it goes dead. In theory, every single person could neg on a tossup, if they all buzz in before the end.

My point is that the buzzer races that already exist in quizbowl are occurring when the system is primed - so it's about who hits the button first. That's speed. Buzzer races with 3+ teams playing at once can occur when the system is locking people out - so it's about who hits the button first after the moderator clears. That's luck.

Also, my "stop negging" was in response to:

BG MSL Champs wrote:In contrast, people were penalized one point in the finals for every neg that they had. This produced a low scoring final as every time that somebody got a question right, they would lose that point seemingly immediately.

...to which I was saying, if the final was low-scoring, it's because the Sivas, Donalds, and Greg Petersons of the world are being too aggressive, not because the format is bad. In my experience, this format usually rewards people with a high tossup-to-neg ratio (for instance, Carlo.)[/quote]

Ultimately, I side with Ben on this one, which is why the Solo I run is set up the way it is (bracketed round robin, rebracket, ACF Final.) 1v1 is always going to be better than 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1.

Also, any format that has negs worth the same amount as a tossup (unit value negs) is going to severely hamper scoring, as people won't be buzzing. I understand that Solo is used as evidence when determining Team Illinois (I'm not wanting to open that can of worms), but I still believe that the format needs to change.

No, the Solo has been used as A factor in determining Team Illinois.....we've looked at other tournaments, info, etc. as well. Aklthough this year the question may be moot...

If you or anyone you know is interested in moderating at The Decemberist at RVC on December 6th, email me at styxman42 at gmail dot com. We're having funn with staff dropping like flies right now.

In case you may be interested, I posted an analysis of the solo question conversion here

On an unrelated note, Mr. Reinstein, one of our former players is interested in moderating NT varsity, do you need moderators/who should I tell him to contact?

Have him contact me at [email protected]
I'm just starting to get organized with NTV now. I'm not worried about having enough moderators given the date, but we'll take him if he's willing.

As far as some of the Solo criticisms above are concerned, I agree most with the Desperation Shot. It needs to be a written contest that can be taken and graded quickly, but I should think of a way of making it more meaningful.

As far as other 1 v 1 v 1... competitions are concerned, are there written rules somewhere showing how other competitions do it?

The question by question results of the Championship Match have been added to the results spreadsheet, and thanks to Greg for his data analysis on the questions.

Shcool wrote:As far as other 1 v 1 v 1... competitions are concerned, are there written rules somewhere showing how other competitions do it?

Somewhere on here, I outlined ones I've played under and find fair:

Anyone who buzzes before the end and misses is negged.
Three incorrect buzzes (no penalty) after the question is finished, and it's dead.

Just out of curiosity, when does confrence play start for all of you guys? I know ours unofficially officially starts on the 9th, and am curious to what confrences other than the MSL do.

Metro North has already started. Each team plays on 4 different dates. Two of the dates are small short affairs between three or four teams, and two of the dates are among all teams in the league. We have had one small date, and one large date. Here are the scores (all rounds were 16 questions). Upshot is that St. Viator is probably the strongest team in our league this year.



Round Team 1 Team 1 Score Team 2 Team 2 Score
1 Latin 205 St. Ignatius 165
2 Latin 280 Whitney Young 55
3 St. Ignatius 145 Whitney Young 105
4 Carmel 170 St. Ignatius 100
4 St. Patrick 165 Whitney Young 140
4 St. Viator 230 Roycemore 85
4 Latin 245 Driscoll 65
5 St. Ignatius 135 St. Patrick 90
5 St. Viator 135 Carmel 115
5 Roycemore 105 Latin 80
5 Whitney Young 110 Notre Dame 95
6 Latin 190 St. Patrick 130
6 St. Viator 240 Notre Dame 25
6 St. Ignatius 155 Driscoll 40
6 Whitney Young 175 Roycemore 120
7 St. Viator 185 St. Ignatius 110
7 Latin 175 Notre Dame 125
7 Carmel 180 Whitney Young 135
7 Roycemore 130 Driscoll 20
8 Roycemore 160 St. Patrick 50
8 Latin 255 Carmel 45
8 Notre Dame 130 St. Ignatius 90
8 Whitney Young 180 Driscoll 20
9 St. Patrick 165 Notre Dame 80
9 Carmel 195 Driscoll 10
9 St. Viator 230 Latin 115
9 Roycemore 140 St. Ignatius 110
10 Notre Dame 115 Driscoll 35
10 Carmel 150 St. Patrick 70
10 St. Viator 100 Whitney Young 75

THE MEDIA wrote:And the wealthy Chicago suburb of Kenilworth, which sits on Lake Michigan, is a tight-knit community with little room for new development.

JACK GLERUM!!

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/small ... money.html

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/11 ... wns/11.htm

BGSO wrote:

THE MEDIA wrote:And the wealthy Chicago suburb of Kenilworth, which sits on Lake Michigan, is a tight-knit community with little room for new development.

JACK GLERUM!!

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/small ... money.html

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/11 ... wns/11.htm

Uh, who cares?

Irving Alva Edison Hobophone Inventor wrote: Uh, who cares?

You've forgotten that this is the Illinois thread! Volume first.

Very big news today from IHSSBCA.

We welcome teams to apply for grants, and we welcome students to apply to become Liaisons. If you are a member and we have your email address, you either just received our newsletter or will receive it in the very near future.

Yay!

I suggest you name the grants Cary, Hugh, and Ulysses S.

This thread just keeps reaching new lows.

Also, as you might have deduced, the grants, whatever names they might have, are concomitant with IHSSBCA no longer sponsoring a team for PAC (or whatever it is now.) Well done on this decision, gentlemen.

MaS

edit: members only

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the grants sound like a wonderful thing, and I am most pleased that this development has occured. My new lows comment was directed at the Ulysses/Cary post and the Kenilworth nonsense.

Jack, did you put Vallosio & Riley's comments back-to-back on purpose?

No, Jack got that directly from the IHSSBCA Newsletter.

I'm not so sure that any sort of non-basic collaboration exists in quizbowl. Though a team's goal is common, I would say beyond sharing answers and delegating responsibilities, almost no collaboration occurs.

...This format really shows the difference between a strong and a
not-so-strong team. I don’t know if that’s a big deal to most of
our steering committee members, but I think that this format
might discourage some participation from the weaker teams.
David Adkins, Springfield HS

Isn't a good format is supposed to show the difference between a strong and a weak team?

I think a lot of this can be chalked up to the novelty of the format. My teams can get plenty of collaboration done in only 5 seconds on college questions because that's what we're used to; 10 seconds would be an eternity for us. I guess if one is used to 30, though, maybe this seems hindering? I guess I can't say.
However, a lot of the objections raised are valid. The non-controlling team should very much be allowed to and encouraged to confer (in a non-disruptive fashion) during the controlling team's time. Both teams should be allowed to confer while the question's being read (again, in a non-disruptive fashion.)* If possible, timing should be enforced by some regular mechanism like stopwatch use (that's what other Illinois-format tournaments do, right?) rather than counting off in the moderator's head. Also, I think the controlling team should be allowed to call time on each part or that rule should be abolished from the normal Illinois format.
Finally, a few things seem like nonsense to me. All the "this makes better teams win more!" stuff seems silly and wrong-headed. If that's even true, I don't see what it matters: I actually see that as a good thing, like Carlo is saying, because it accentuates the advantage of knowledge and preparedness. Also, the "this kills the team aspect!" is not right, either: after all, the same average time per bonus part is still available, so the same average amount of collaboration should still be going on if a team is trained to work in this format. That gets back to what I was saying before.

MaS

*I'm not sure the objections about non-controlling-team conferral during controlling-team conferral time or conferral during reading are objections to actual rules, or to someone's misunderstanding of the rules. Can anyone clarify that?

Captain Scipio wrote:*I'm not sure the objections about non-controlling-team conferral during controlling-team conferral time or conferral during reading are objections to actual rules, or to someone's misunderstanding of the rules. Can anyone clarify that?

I think there was misinterpretation at individual sites, or by individual coaches. We were allowing both teams to confer for as long as each bonus part was active (that is to say, before the controlling team gives an answer, regardless of whether the full 10 seconds has elapsed). That, and each rebounding team had an additional 3 seconds to give an answer/figure out an alternative if their first choice was given by the controlling team.

It appears that getting this going is going to be a rocky road, and I feel that coaches who have only experienced it once are prone to give a very myopic view of what they see. Their perceptions of a "lack of a teamwork", etc. are really precipitated by the fact that their teams are inexperienced with this format, and haven't figured out what new strategies they might need to make their team work together.

Can you point out to the coaches that all the states which use ACF-like formats (which is to say, every state except Illinois and Missouri, given that all the differences between NAQT and ACF are irrelevant to the differences between IHSA and ACF) do in fact have teams that are comprised of multiple players, "work together" to the extent that such a thing is an actual goal, and so on? I can't promise that ACF-format questions will allow "teams that are not as strong" to beat good teams, but preventing that is in fact the whole idea of good formats and good questions, so that particular coach probably needs a little more re-education.

Bottom line, reminding people that things beyond the borders of Illinois exist should put to rest the notion that Illinois format is necessary for high school quizbowl to flourish.

mlaird wrote: I feel that coaches who have only experienced it once are prone to give a very myopic view of what they see.

I seem to remember being anti-ACf style bonus the first time I encountered it (ACE camp I think). Therefore I would agree that it takes several exposures to get one to like it. I think it's clear from who was for/against above shows that teams who have played the format before like it more. Now that might just be because they are better teams (which might be the real reason they like the format) who showed initiative in the past to go to these tournaments or that they liked the format because they had a comparative advantage having experience with it. However, I claim that the teams with experience in the format like it because it is better and they have realized this fact over.

[LINK REDACTED] is what everyone is referring to, by the way. Announcement of grants & liasons, kickoff pictures, reactions to normal bonuses, a nice piece on Siva, the Coaches' Poll, and an article about writing questions by Laird are included, among others. I read it during a free today, and it's pretty good, actually.

edit: Sorry, didn't know it was private. Follow-up: If it is private, why is it open to the public on the internet? Isn't that sort of counter-productive? This is the only reason I posted it, since it isn't protected, password or otherwise, in the link.

REMOVE THAT LINK IMMEDIATELY! That is for members only!

Shcool wrote:REMOVE THAT LINK IMMEDIATELY! That is for members only!

So reported (with the forum's report feature).

On another note, I honestly wonder if there will be an NTAE 2009 after all. Seems like Illinois is not the only team defecting from an already small field.

Somebody voted Maine South as a top-ten team?

cornfused wrote:Somebody voted Maine South as a top-ten team?

Deveau by himself is a top ten team. He's nasty.

Woody Paige wrote:page 15!! Take THAT Rob Carson!!!!

EDITED to clarify that the above comment was not directed to the State of Minnesota and their quizbowl board, rather at Rob Carson of the U, who has stolen our milestone for the past two pages...

Next person to page snipe gets a tempban out of general spite.

FredMorlan wrote:

Woody Paige wrote:page 15!! Take THAT Rob Carson!!!!

EDITED to clarify that the above comment was not directed to the State of Minnesota and their quizbowl board, rather at Rob Carson of the U, who has stolen our milestone for the past two pages...

Next person to page snipe gets a tempban out of general spite.

I think we still have one more post until that happens, anyway. There it goes.

cornfused wrote:

FredMorlan wrote:

Woody Paige wrote:stuff

I think we still have one more post until that happens, anyway. There it goes.

This just in: 740 + 1 is not 751. Also, check out how dumb my 1000th post was.

Actual thoughts:

JackGlerum wrote:

cornfused wrote:Somebody voted Maine South as a top-ten team?

Deveau by himself is a top ten team. He's nasty.

I wasn't aware he'd gotten that good. Wow.

JackGlerum wrote:Follow-up: If it is private, why is it open to the public on the internet? Isn't that sort of counter-productive? This is the only reason I posted it, since it isn't protected, password or otherwise, in the link.

There are no links to it except those sent out via email. If some hacker has figured out a way to access IHSSBCA newsletter URLs, then he has earned the right to read them for free. Everybody else can pay $30 to get four newsletters and support Illinois Scholastic Bowl.

Shcool wrote:REMOVE THAT LINK IMMEDIATELY! That is for members only!

Are there jackets available?

Captain Scipio wrote:I'm not sure the objections about non-controlling-team conferral during controlling-team conferral time or conferral during reading are objections to actual rules, or to someone's misunderstanding of the rules. Can anyone clarify that?

Based on our interpretation of the printed rules and what generally seemed to happen in matches not moderated by Laird, teams were not allowed to confer during the reading of the bonus parts. I'd say that does make a pretty huge difference, especially for the non-controlling team who plays against a team with less knowledge on the topic of the bonus question. As a captain, I can attest to the fact that it was often difficult to produce an answer in time on rebounds.

Yeah, teams should be allowed to quietly confer.

As I said, do away with rebounds! A "bonus" by its nature goes to the team that "earned" the tossup. But it will probably be a long time before that happens in Illinois Scholastic Bowl...

Greg--just curious, who else has defected, recently?

David Riley wrote:Greg--just curious, who else has defected, recently?

I'm just going based on the following things we do know:

1. The number of teams at the tournament has decreased steadily over the last few years. Quizbowl strongholds like Virginia and Missouri have also stopped attending (they were not at PAC 2008).
2. Panasonic will not be sponsoring the 2009 tournament, so costs will likely go up, and prizes may go down, which may also cause other states to rethink their commitment to NTAE.
3. The fact that Team Illinois will not be defending their national championship speaks volumes (much like UVa not defending its CBI championship in 1997)
4. The tournament already has so few teams that it cannot stand to lose anymore. How can a tournament be "national" if fewer than 20 states actually send teams?

rjaguar3 wrote:Quizbowl strongholds like Missouri

Gotta love that Florida format.