Talk:2019 NHBB Online

From QBWiki
Revision as of 14:13, 31 March 2020 by Nate Kang (talk | contribs) (Nate Kang moved page Talk:2019 NHBB Online scandal to Talk:2019 NHBB Online: In hindsight, terming it a full-blown "scandal" honestly seems like yellow journalism at this point)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A few things..

Few things - NHBB Online is the name for this, I never "consistently" called this event an housewrite. I was clear in the Discord about this not being a housewrite, but more of past history TUs. What I posted in forums was vague and can be interpreted as false advertising. Making a page for this is redundant and is a improperly filtered version of the events that occured. I have a link to the entire unfiltered thing in my bio. - Ameya

This article should be improved by adding clearer information about what happened and didn't happen, who all was involved, and the community reaction to the concept. Jonah (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2019 (CDT)

The google docs of the three packets do not have public access. The one that claims to be marked for plagiarism is not marked for plagiarism. David Reinstein (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2019 (CDT)

Yes, I have removed the link to the doc that falsely claims to be marked. Nate Kang (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2019 (CDT)

Why are the docs no longer publicly accessible?

Ameya, since I suspect that you are the owner of the Google Docs in question that are linked in this article, please restore public accessibility to them for the sake of the QBWiki community! Don't fear; your past mistakes are largely forgiven, so please show transparency. I assure you that the purpose of this article is NOT to shame you. -Nate Kang (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2019 (CDT)

I'll make Packet 1 public (since it had the plagiarism). I'm gonna keep Packet 2 and 3 private mainly since it isn't my Intellectual Property (I only have them hosted on my Docs account, the writers were fine with me hosting the packets on there, but they weren't too happy when I had posted them on forums). Hope that's clear. - Ameya
OK, sounds good! Nate Kang (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2019 (CDT)

Editing War...

User Kevin Wang and I seem to have a disagreement on what this article should look like. What do we do? Nate Kang (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2019 (CDT)

I rewrote it extensively. I'm not sure it's strictly better, but let's all take a breath and discuss issues/further changes here before making the edits. Jonah (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2019 (CDT)
Honestly, thank you for doing this. Furthermore, I'm sorry about the 'editing war'. Though I still do not agree with Kevin totally, I do agree that this article needs a 'break' for a little while, especially given how contentious the debate over this issue has been recently. Nate Kang (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2019 (CDT)

"Defended them at length"

Could you elaborate a bit on "defended them at length and refused to change course."? - Ameya

I guess the defense was more implicit, but your posts in this thread make the "refused to change course" part clear. I adjusted the wording. Jonah (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2019 (CDT)

Clearing things up

(Sorry if any of the contents below come off as condescending)
The article as it stands isn’t on a “satisfactory equilibrium”. It exaggerates the events that have actually occurred and there are incorrect and heavily misleading points.

First off – none of my promotions before the event insinuated that I would be doing a full housewrite. Linked are screennshots of my promotions on the 3 Discord servers I advertised (HSQB Discord which has 800+ members, Quizbowl Discord which has 1000+ members, and NHBB Discord which has 100+ members):
Another thing to note is that the following is incorrect:
“The event was promoted on HSQB as a "housewrite based off of NHBB/IHB packets".
The only promotion on forums didn’t use the word housewrite. The quote was from a misleading clarification mentioned after Prelims had concluded
Screenshot of the promotion on forums:

“A minor aspect of the controversy concerned the name: the tournament's name seemed to suggest affiliation with NHBB, but in fact the tournament was in no way connected to NHBB or International Academic Competitions, it merely sought to emulate some stylistic aspects thereof.”
I was clear about the event not being linked to NHBB or IAC in any way whatsoever. The registration form clearly mentions that there is no affiliation whatsoever and claiming there is a controversy is misleading and false.

I understand that I wasn’t transparent in many instances, but the article misrepresents the entire situation and I want to clear up any question marks on this. Is it possible to rename this page “2019 NHBB Online" or something of that as calling this event a "scandal" is loaded? —Ameya Singh

From what I see and saw on HSQB, it seems clearly correct to say the event was promoted as a housewrite. It was also promoted in a variety of other confusing, often contradictory ways. Your description of your own "clarification" as "misleading" is suggestive of the same. I also don't see anything wrong with the sentence describing the (lack of, but arguably ostensible) connection to NHBB. I think the word "scandal" in the page title is appropriate, as the tournament is primarily notable for the scandal associated with it rather than for the tournament itself, but I do think the page's name can be improved, and I will do so. Jonah (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2019 (CDT)

Word choice

Should this article be renamed to something like "NHBB Online controversy" (or even "incident") rather than explicitly using "scandal? (i.e., is that name too harsh?) I have reconsidered my initial thoughts on this matter, and I feel regret that Ameya perhaps received more shame than he should have for this incident-- and I am partially to blame because of my hand in the way this article looks right now. Nate Kang (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2019 (CDT)