> I have a question about playtesting. The above suggests (to me at > least) that individual questions are playtested, but are entire > packets playtested after they are assembled? > > Occasionally (maybe once or twice per NAQT tournament) I'll hear two > toss-ups from a subcategory that should not come up more than once or > twice per tournament _in the same packet_. The SCT had perhaps the > most blatant example of this I've seen to date: two toss-ups on > early Italian Renaissance architects in the same packet. This does occur a little too frequently, I agree. "A little too frequently" is, for this problem, "ever." It creates massive competitive imbalance. Hockey seems to come 2-in-a-packet or not at all. I'm not complaining about the inclusion of hockey (like some folks will invariably do). I'm complaining about the in-round double-dip, perhaps the gravest distribution offense in all of quizbowl. Is there a way to ensure better in-packet distribution? Adam's suggestion is (sigh) a Fine one. > Now this certainly helped our team, but it wasn't right. I'd like to take a moment to point out Adam's repeated criticism of things like this and power-matching that helped his team but actually suck. Huzzah for honesty. >I think that NAQT should playtest the assembled packets (if they don't do so > already) to ensure that meta-distribution errors such as the above > are avoided. > > It's not a big thing, but I think it's quite correctable. -Steve Bahnaman, Emory
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST