> The original reason that writer numbers were included was in the > belief that it would assist in protest resolution if we could > immediately know who had written the question so we could seek his or > her advice. In practice, I don't know if we have ever done this, and > the creation of so many NAQT invitationals and the extension of the > amount of writing done by NAQT contractors has made it ever more > unlikely in theory. So, we have no reason for including it. > > On the other hand, the ownership of NAQT writer numbers became one of > our worst-kept secrets and we found a significant amount personalized > blame, much of it rude, and some of it downright insulting, directed > at specific NAQT writers on the basis of their ostensible > responsibility for certain questions. We did not want our members, > editors, and contract writers subjected to that, particularly since > it was never counterbalanced by an equivalent, or even near- > equivalent, amount of praise for good questions. I don't know any diplomatic way to say this, so I apologize in advance for any rancor in the following statement. It seems that NAQT had the choice of firing certain writers who had been shown, time and time again, to be responsible for terrible questions, or hiding their identities in order to preserve their self-esteem and make it more difficult for NAQT's customers to identify the specific faults in the set. Instead of responding to feedback, NAQT chose the latter path. It is not realistic for a business to expect customers to praise more often than they complain; such is the nature of humanity and free enterprise, and it is unlikely that NAQT or any other entity in quizbowl will be able to change those things in the near future. While I do not have access to whatever private feedback NAQT may have received, I do know what is said on this board and in other public fora, and there is no parade of insults towards more than one or two writers. For the sake of civility I won't name them again, but anyone who is still reading this message knows who they are. I dare say that they deserve every bit of negativity directed towards them. Condemning your customers for well-justified outrage at receiving a tossup with the answer "logic" for their money, rather than taking action against the person who wrote it and everyone involved in allowing it into the set, is not the type of behavior I'd expect from a rational actor in a free market.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST