--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "Samer Ismail <stipenn_at_y...>" <stipenn_at_y...> wrote: > > Quoting said results: > > << > worst TD: > Samer Ismail (4) > > worst editor: > Samer Ismail (5) > > worst tournament: > Penn Bowl (3) Like the old saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished. I've never attended Penn Bowl and couldn't speak to the TD part. But as probably the only person not named Samer Ismail who has seen the bulk of both unedited and edited Penn Bowl questions for the past three years, I feel qualified to address the editing issue. All I can say is, if you didn't like the finished product, you shoulda seen 'em *before* Samer worked on 'em. Are the Penn Bowl questions perfect? Of course not; I doubt if any editor has ever nailed the perfect tournament. (God knows *I* haven't; even on the fourth or fifth reading I find changes I wish I'd made.) But whoever voted Samer the worst editor has obviously had the fortune never to go to a tournament where the editing REALLY sucked. (Sunshine State Invitational 1992, where a first- and last-time editor opted to leave intact a packet where about 15 boni were on music theory because "they were all good questions," comes to mind.) All that being said, while the poll is about as scientific as phrenology, I think onlysomewhatevil has done this group a service by opening this line of discussion. If you voted for someone as worst anything, I suggest you put your thoughts on paper (well, e-mail) and tell that TD/editor/moderator privately where you think they're off base. Those of us who run tournaments do so out of love, and I'm sure 99% of us would welcome ideas on how to get better at something that matters this much to us. And if you voted for someone as best something-or-other (or if you disagree with someone else's negative rating), maybe that person would appreciate a quick pat on the back. It might even dislodge a dangerously lodged piece of beef.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST