Simply because the people who are complaining seem generally to post one heck of a lot more than people with unfanatically positive things to say on this board, I felt a need to give some props to Samer for what was, in my opinion, a vastly improved question set and a well- run tournament. I enjoyed almost every question as much as it could be enjoyed, and I relished the opportunity to play against teams Emory never gets to play against. Were there hoses? Yep. I counted about 4: the Glass Menagerie tossup, the possibility of giving "Citibank" instead of "identity theft" on an edited version of Rutgers-NB's tossup, the Kukulcan tossup that I myself wrote that didn't make him sound terribly Mayan (Quetzalcoatl was given in a lot of rooms, I'm sure--sorry about that), and one other whose particulars are escaping me now. Fact is, though, the coverage was good, the trash content was down, the difficulty level seemed pretty good, and I liked the questions. They probably weren't ACF-tourney-level excellent, but they were really good. Information matters more than question format, when all is said and done, especially if format is adequate. Overall, the PB13 format was more than adequate. Georgia Tech got love on this board for questions from its January 2002 tourney, whose question set wasn't as good as this year's Penn Bowl. Huzzah to Samer etc. for a good tournament, if the power-matching setup was a little confusing. Between NAQT '03 and PB13, can we agree that power matching sucks? Please? Do something else. That's my only real complaint. -Steve Bahnaman, Emory
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST