Where to start? I am thrilled to see USC with a tournament after a couple year hiatus - this is great. While it is unfair to demand perfection, especially from a club whose members are, as far as I can tell, fairly new to the circuit it would be likewise unfair to say that the packets were pristine and immaculate - in fact far from it. While no one, again as far as I've read, disputes the fact that the tournament was enjoyable, it would be misrepresenting the west coast to say that the finished product is typical output. Please correct me if I'm wrong but questions do not become packet worthy once one learns a few terms in a class on feudal custom, much less worthy of having two questions in a packet. That is something I learned early on and if you talk to anyone in the Berkeley club who had the pleasure of editing packets with questions I wrote will attest that certainly I was guilty of writing to my interests to the exclusion of knowledgeable material. Again, this is not to say that those questions are not "important" to the understanding of Western European feudalism, it is unclear the value they bring to a packet where a reasonable goal in terms of answerability is in the 85% range. The maxim that one's specialty is another's obscurata certainly holds true, and admittedly where the line is crossed is the subject of repeated debate. What I can argue is that a packet dominated by "non-canonical" questions, coupled with lack of reverse-pyramidality and poor editing is by all counts approaching the realm of "unplayable". I think giving USC the benefit of the doubt in the sense that this is probably the first time this group has edited a tournament is certainly in order and they should be left with the understanding that there is room to improve. It is fathomable that yes the tournament editor could send a packet back for a rewrite and it is also possible that 1) due to lack of experience USC did not feel the packets needed rewriting, or 2) by the time the packets came in there was not time to edit them as appropriate. With no disrespect intended do I say that it's not clear that the editor did a good job of pulling together the UCI packet. Paying attention to this board, I am not hard pressed to recall instances where packets were returned for rewrites and a significant amount of a packet (over 75%) had to be rewritten to make it playable, and in some cases, the editor had to insert his or her own questions. So no, I don't think the quality of a packet is subjective. When tournament announcements are sent out if it's not done everytime I believe packet guidelines, in terms of line numbers, reverse pyramidality and other elements are specified. I would say that when those guidelines are met it can be said that a packet is one of quality. It was the case, having reviewed the UCI Ghetto Warz packet, that some questions did have grammatical confusion and that clues were not logically arranged. This calls for heavy editing as internal consistency is indeed the hallmark of a quality packet. While people tend to dislike change and often times some people will try to be an instrument of change we all have a responsibility to our opponents and to those attending the tournaments we host to as much as possible generate quality as a result of our efforts. This responsibility falls to those who write as well as those who edit. Otherwise I feel teams should know up front what sort of quality to expect. TDs have stayed up all night editing packets and morphing them into a state playable to those teams attending. So indeed, Willie claims that it is acceptable in packet writing to display disdain for the canon and lack of necessary quality control. Fine, then don't expect a lot of return business if this is your general attitude. What I really see here is immense disparity between what Willie Chen thinks is a good, well-written, well-edited packet and the vast remainder of the quiz bowl playing world. With anything there is always room for improvement: as USC as a club continues to play I have every reason to believe they will improve as players, writers and editors. It would be a huge mistake, however, for them, and everyone for that matter, to have the impression that the result of their tournament is #1 outstanding to the exclusion of anything else and is typical of what the west coast can do. Ross speaking for Ross --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, berkeleykaplan <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > I disagree with most of what Willie writes. His first and second > paragraphs seem to be dedicated to excusing both the poor writing and > poor editing of some of the packets. The quality of the tournament > does depend on the people who write the questions, but when many of > the questions within the canon are poorly structured (c.f. toss-ups > 15 and 17 in the UCI Ghetto Warz packet) or extremely vague in terms > of desired answer (c.f. toss-ups 9 and 14 in the UCI Ghetto Warz > packet) it should fall on the editors to do more than "as little > editing as possible." (For quote, see Y! message 14286). > Further, writers should worry about achieving minimum standards of > competence in questions within the canon before expanding into such > areas as 10th Century Saxon literature (toss-up 7, Feudal Customs > (toss-ups 2 and 23) and psuedo-science (toss-ups 4, 20, 22, and 24). > These questions combined with a healthy dose of children's > literature (toss-ups 5 and 16) make for a nearly unplayable packet. > The fact that a team submitted this, and that an editing team let it > through is a sad reflection on the quality of the west coast circuit. > Pretending that this sort of disdain for the canon, internal > consistency of packets, pyramidality in questions and objective > standards of quality is acceptable merely encourages lazy writing and > bad packets. For the foregoing reasons, the UCI packet from Ghetto > Warz (which can be seen on the Stanford Archive) is in my mind the > best available example of how not to write/edit a packet. I > encourage any new writer to take a look at it as a cautionary > illustration. > In addition, hastily written house packs and largely unedited > submissions are bad enough, but the problem is compounded when the > tournament staff uses its time to write a completely superfluous > trash packet rather than improving the academic questions. > I encourage USC to try hosting a tournament again next year, but > this year's version left an incredible amount to be desired. > > Steve Kaplan > Not speaking for any club I have ever been associated with > > > --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "Willie Chen" <williechen7_at_h...> > wrote: > > And here are my 2 cents: > > > > I think the tournament was *a lot* of fun, and the ghetto spirit > > really captured the "essence" of the day. I was especially pleased > > to hear so many questions that escaped from the usual "canon" of > QB. > > Whoever wrote that bonus on famous Chinese people--you rock!! And > > the surprise trash round was indeed a nice diversion. Kudos. > > > > I know there'd be a bunch of complaints about the packets--the > uneven > > writing, the wild distribution, and the lack of "editing." There > > were moaners and groaners in all rounds. But how much of that is > the > > fault of the editors? If it is a "packet-submission" tournament, > > then doesn't the quality of the tournament depend on the people who > > actually wrote the questions (i.e., the players)?? If a packet > > received is truly horrific, then the TD has all the right in the > > world to return it to sender for a rewrite. > > > > As the proud writer of the Hroswitha tossup, I just wanted to move > > beyond the usual pre-1600 canon of "literature" that has become > > repetitive from tournament to tournament (Hey, I even snuck a woman > > into the mix!). While I had no idea what questions my teammates > > wrote when they submitted them (e.g., Sailor Moon bonus), I was > > actually quite pleased with the variety and balance of our packet. > > The editor obviously did a great job pulling our packet together. > > > > I've heard so much rant about the "internal consistency" of a > packet, > > but isn't the quality of a packet something quite subjective, > > anyway? All I look for in a packet is that each individual > question > > be well written--factually correct, clues logically arranged, and > > free of grammatical confusion. It's just the luck of the draw that > > some questions "happen" to be in the same round. > > > > With all due respect to the rest of the QB community, I just think > > West Coast is an awesome circuit. The concept of fun is never lost > > among us. > > > > Okay, enough blabbing... > > > > Good job, USC!! Fun tournament! > > > > > > Willie Chen > > UCI quiz bowl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:48 AM EST EST