> 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. Don't know that I'd agree with Charlie -- I really don't see a lot of good coming from voting on worst moderator, TD, etc, which is why I didn't send in a poll in the first place. Voting for the best moderator or TD seems OK, but voting for the worst ones ... I just don't see that being very productive. FWIW, from my experience, I'd probably pick Subash as best editor, Raj Bhan as best writer, and probably R (or maybe Chris Borglum) as best moderator (though my lone match with R reading was a Berkelian stomping). I wouldn't cite anyone as "worst." And while I'm here ... 1. I like Jon Couture's prize selection. For my first effort as a solo team, I won 4 boxes of flan. I've still got one of them. You just can't find flan in South Florida. 2. Matt Weiner noted the "integrity of the packet" issue in reference to the shootouts used in Chattanooga. FWIW, the outcome of the final shootout almost definitely would have been the same had the bonuses been read. UF won 75-65 on the last tossup, but UF had 9 tossups to Vandy's 7 (the closeness of the score resulting from my 3-neg streak). That probably isn't what Mr. Weiner was referring to, but I can at least say the outcome would have been the same (in all likelihood) had the bonuses been read. 3. Several players at UTC rolled their eyes at the number of literary theory questions in ACF Regionals, but I liked them. Like in art history, modern literary critics are unlikely to be mentioned vs such figures as Ruskin, Samuel Johnson, maybe Hazlitt, and so on. But since literary theory and criticism is such a large fraction of what an English major actually studies, it was nice to see a bit more of it in a tournament than usual. Paul de Man -- don't hear about him that often. The science questions also seemed more in line with material I see in classes. Overall, the questions in ACF Regionals probably bore closer resemblance to the material I've actually studied in undergrad courses and grad school(s) than those of any other tournament I can recall. Then again, I've never majored in art restoration. 4. Congrats to Matt Weiner and Wes Matthews for their spectacular performances as one-man teams at ACF Regionals. That's all. I'm posting too much these days. Bye. --Raj Dhuwalia, UF
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST