<<It also seems that the other team might have the advantage of hearing the original team confer, thus eliminating certain answers (the prototypical "I think it's _X_. No, I'm sure it's _Y_" conversation).>> Not the way PACE does it: both teams have to (or should) confer simultaneously. The second team is given about two additional seconds to confer after the first team, but they don't get an additional five seconds. In theory at least, though, they have the benefit of one wrong answer being thrown out. <<It also seems that 30-20-10 questions get eliminated, as do 15-10-5s and 10-5s.>> It might seem that way, but at least for PACE, it doesn't. We HAVE used 30-20-10s and their variants for the last two years, with essentially no complaints. As long as they're not overused--and that both teams know IN ADVANCE how bouncebacks will work--I see no problem with using "progressive" boni. In fact, there are only three types of questions that we have had to eliminate because of bouncebacks: (1) "For 10 points if exact, and 5 points if within N....". (2) "Place the following items in order, 5 points each...." (3) ".... with an X point bonus for all correct." And all of these have relatively straightforward "workarounds", which I can describe in another post, if anyone is interested. [In some cases, for the record, these workarounds are made simpler by the way the PACE format works.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST