--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, grapesmoker <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
>
> The point here is that if you have a surfeit of questions like Penn
> Bowl does, you have the freedom to pick and choose the best of
those
> questions. You don't need to lump good and bad questions together.
>
> Jerry
Not about Samer's Penn Bowl editing (never been to the tournament),
but using this to comment on the NAQT complaints. Are NAQT writers or
editors to blame for the inconsistent question set? You can have the
most wonderful questions in the world, but if they're edited by people
who aren't competent, you get crap. I mean, it's wonderful that
Subash and Ezequiel and other luminaries are planning to work for
NAQT. But if their questions have to pass muster with the likes of
Matt Bruce before they can appear, what's the point? Great question
writers are wasted if the editors can't recognize good questions, or
mangle them in a misguided effort to "improve" what doesn't need
fixing. From comments about the unevenness of the product, it seems
like the problem with NAQT might lie with the editors more than the
writers.