Though I do see your point Edmund, and it is a valid one, Subash's caveat is still useful for individuals and teams in the early stages of writing questions. Not only will you write questions that get answered, but for your own improvement it pays to know certain things-- mies van der rohe , for example, will come up sometime this year at naqt, acf, invitationals, so it pays to write a question on him. This is also part of ACFs flavor, in order to learn about a subject people write questions on it, thus inevitably some questions are written and rewritten. (This, of course, happens with some frequency in NAQT as well, I can't wait to her another question on "Bell for Adano" at SCT or ICT). This is not to say that I laud repetition, in fact I welcome innovation (though it should be noted that some thought I went to far with this in last year's regionals). Suffice it so say that editing regionals as far as question difficulty and the introduction of new subjects and answers is concerned often feels like you are a walking tight rope at times... Finally, I think the large number of regionals packets that Subash is pointing to as a potential guide: everything from 99 on, averaging about 18 packets per tourney, would (doing a little math, always dangerous for an english major) result in 72 rounds of at least 25 and 25. And while I do note the preponderance of some subjects in my own survey of the questions it seems to me that a vast field of potential question subjects is represented. I would suspect that it is a much larger field than some would expect. hope to see many of you at penn bowl, ezequiel speaking only for himself blah, blah, blah --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, cooterchekov <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > While I agree with the spirit of keeping difficulty reasonably > accessible for incoming players...well, I question the wisdom of the > guideline of an answer's acceptability solely being whether it's > appeared in an ACF regionals packet before. ACF and hardcore-style > rounds have had a problem in the past with either chasing their own > tails, and I wonder if this policy might not just be carrying the > mistakes of the past along. > > Edmund
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST