COTKU -- general comments

tgallows <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Mon, 21 Oct 2002 06:15:57 -0000

I don't like to be critical of any tournament, especially of one run
by the good folks at UTC, but I did want to make a few comments about
the COTKU tournament.  Although I still enjoyed the tournament and I'm
still glad I made the trip, it was by far the ... least successful of
the half-dozen or so Chattanooga tournaments I've attended.

The delays were much longer than at past UTC tournaments I've
attended.  It took (I think) about 9 hours to run 9 rounds of the RR
(not including the half-hour delay at the beginning), and it was
another two hours before the Div I semis and finals were complete. 
The tournament was understaffed, and the level of organization was not
that of a typical UTC tournament.

The questions were also in definite need of better editing (or better
writing before that).  Stephen Webb mentioned the difficulty level,
but I had no problem with that.  The bonuses were a bit easy for a
strong Div I field, and most of our matches had total scores of about
525-625 points, but as long as the bonuses are relatively consistent
in their difficulty (as they were), then it's fair for both teams. 

Two particular problems spring to mind -- the length of the bonuses,
and the organization of the tossups.

The bonuses in the tournament were WAY WAY WAY too long.  An
occasional long bonus part is fine in an untimed tournament, if
there's some amusing or interesting note which must be thrown in.  But
a 3-part bonus with each part having 3-4 sentences?  Collectively, the
bonuses just went on way too long, generally without providing any new
or useful information.  Long bonus parts should NOT be the norm -- if
there's some particular reason to do it, fine, but otherwise keep it
somewhat concise.  I only moderated one round (during a bye), and
those bonuses wore me down -- I'd hate to read a dozen rounds like
that.

The tossup topics were (I thought) OK, but the organization of the
tossups generally needed work.  Stephen Webb noted that the tossups
were OK for Div II but not Div I, but I think I'd phrase it another
way -- many of the tossups had organizational problems which were less
likely to be exposed in Div II than in Div I.  Just to choose one
entirely at random, a tossup on Main Street should not have Carol
Kennicott (the novel's main character) as the very first clue, no more
so than a tossup about Moby Dick should have Captain Ahab as the first
clue.  The Main Street tossup began with Carol Kennicott, then went on
to some plot elements before mentioning Gopher Prairie and Sinclair
Lewis at the end.  The material in the question was fine, but it was
simply out of order, and I'm sure that was a buzzer-race question in
most of the Div I matches, and a couple of Div II matches as well.

As a general piece of advice on question writing, I'd advise young
(and old) question writers to think about how a question will go when
it is actually used in competition.  (Reading the round in a team
practice before sending it out may help you catch some of the
problems.)  Long bonus parts may be well-intentioned, but a round of
3-sentence bonus parts is miserable for both players and moderators. 
Tossups which have easier clues at the beginning are less likely to
give any advantage to the player with better knowledge of the subject,
such that (to cite the same example) someone who knows Main Street
inside and out would have little advantage on that tossup.  It can be
tough to determine which clues are easy, but a novel's main character
is more likely to be an 'easier' clue than most plot elements of the
novel.  Think about whether your question will favor the better
player.  Think about whether a moderator will be able to pronounce the
scientific name of a platypus, and if not, put in a pronuncation for
it.  Think of whether a team really needs or wants to hear 9 titles
for an author in a bonus part if one of the 9 is going to be A
Farewell to Arms.  (Et cetera.)

Just wanted to mention those things.  All that said, I do thank UTC
for continuing to host tournaments, though I hope future ones run a
bit better than this one did.  I also congratulate Emory on their fine
performance, finishing an extremely close second in Div I and (if I
remember correctly) winning Div II.

--Raj Dhuwalia, UF