Matt Weiner wrote: > > 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. > For the sake of civility I won't name them > again, but anyone who is still reading this message knows who they are. Well, I don't. > 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. Jeezus H. Christ and his brother Ted. This is EXACTLY what Rob was talking about as to why they don't publish writer numbers. I don't remember the specific question, but apparently enough people thought it of sufficient quality to include it in a set. Thus your point becomes "I didn't like that question; therefore all responsible for it should be fired". For Pete's sake, stop making a mountain out of every damn molehill that displeased you about the tournament. You -- Mr. "for ten points each, name these three Bhutanese novelists" -- are not the absolute arbiter of every issue of what makes a good quiz bowl question. Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST