Difference between revisions of "NAQT Customer Service"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Dwight Wynne (talk | contribs) (Created page with "'''NAQT Customer Service''' is the assertion that NAQT intentionally ignores complaints of mainstream quizbowl participants and/or makes business decisions based on wh...") |
(division 1 -> I, 2 -> II) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*Allowing college tournaments to use [[IS|NAQT high school questions]] | *Allowing college tournaments to use [[IS|NAQT high school questions]] | ||
*Allowing [[SCT]] questions with the same answer to appear several years in a row, despite a lack of evidence that the answer was difficulty-appropriate (''L'Africaine'') and/or an inability to produce a competent, non-[[transparency|transparent]] question on the answer (Laplace transform) | *Allowing [[SCT]] questions with the same answer to appear several years in a row, despite a lack of evidence that the answer was difficulty-appropriate (''L'Africaine'') and/or an inability to produce a competent, non-[[transparency|transparent]] question on the answer (Laplace transform) | ||
| − | *The failure to publicly announce that [[UCLA]]'s 2003 Division | + | *The failure to publicly announce that [[UCLA]]'s 2003 Division II team would retain its Division II eligibility the next year, even after publicly announcing that players who qualified for the [[2003 ICT]] after a certain date, but did not attend, would retain their Division II eligibility the next year (see [[2004 ICT Division II Eligibility Scandal]]) |
*Asking questions on surveys at major national tournaments that rehash arguments long-settled in the mainstream community (for instance, the presence of "wordplay" questions) and avoid addressing more pertinent criticisms | *Asking questions on surveys at major national tournaments that rehash arguments long-settled in the mainstream community (for instance, the presence of "wordplay" questions) and avoid addressing more pertinent criticisms | ||
*Pursuing (and winning) a bid to supply [[MSHSAA]] with competition questions, even after many people involved in day-to-day activities in Missouri strongly cautioned NAQT against doing so | *Pursuing (and winning) a bid to supply [[MSHSAA]] with competition questions, even after many people involved in day-to-day activities in Missouri strongly cautioned NAQT against doing so | ||
[[Category: Quizbowl lingo]] [[Category: Bad quizbowl]] [[Category: NAQT]] | [[Category: Quizbowl lingo]] [[Category: Bad quizbowl]] [[Category: NAQT]] | ||
Revision as of 13:16, 14 August 2018
NAQT Customer Service is the assertion that NAQT intentionally ignores complaints of mainstream quizbowl participants and/or makes business decisions based on what it thinks a mythical group of casual players wants, rather than what a group of dedicated players is telling them.
NAQT Customer Service complaints were most prominent in the early- to mid-2000s. They have been greatly reduced, though not completely eliminated, since the appointment of Jeff Hoppes as the NAQT Vice President for Communications.
Examples of NAQT Customer Service
Note that these are primarily historical examples, although some of them are still considered current examples of NAQT Customer Service.
- Allowing college tournaments to use NAQT high school questions
- Allowing SCT questions with the same answer to appear several years in a row, despite a lack of evidence that the answer was difficulty-appropriate (L'Africaine) and/or an inability to produce a competent, non-transparent question on the answer (Laplace transform)
- The failure to publicly announce that UCLA's 2003 Division II team would retain its Division II eligibility the next year, even after publicly announcing that players who qualified for the 2003 ICT after a certain date, but did not attend, would retain their Division II eligibility the next year (see 2004 ICT Division II Eligibility Scandal)
- Asking questions on surveys at major national tournaments that rehash arguments long-settled in the mainstream community (for instance, the presence of "wordplay" questions) and avoid addressing more pertinent criticisms
- Pursuing (and winning) a bid to supply MSHSAA with competition questions, even after many people involved in day-to-day activities in Missouri strongly cautioned NAQT against doing so