Believe it or not, my previous post was an attempt at constructive criticism. To my mind constructive criticism does not have to be accompanied by a pat on the back for what was done well. Let me restate my point in its most basic and least offensive form. Question writers and tournament editors share a duty to produce questions of decent quality. You wrote: "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." It seems clear to me that the writers did not hold up their end of the bargain, as you seem to indicate above. It seems equally clear that when the tournament director claims to do "as little editing as possible" the editorial process is flawed. Some sort of response was thus called for to dispel the notion that two toss-ups on feudal customs, two toss-ups on childrens literature, and science questions on "corn" and "muscles" constitutes a packet that you claim was varied and balanced. Some sort of response was required to dispel the notion that the editors who admit to doing virtually nothing "did a great job pulling our packet together." My criticism is constructive because someone needs to dispel the myth that "internal consistency" is unimportant in a packet. Likewise, I would be remiss to ignore a post that effusively praises the merits of a packet that was severely substandard because I was afraid to make people feel bad about themselves. Constructive criticism is criticism and has the capacity to hurt feelings, if I've hurt any I apologize as that is not my goal. My goal is to make people aware that quality matters. I don't think quick praise of bad questions serves that goal, but perhaps that's where you and I differ. Finally, the disappearance of some programs and the lack of CBI crossover is not a west coast specific problem. Programs such as George Washington, Randolph Macon, Florida Atlantic, Rhodes and Oregon have all seemed to go dormant in the last few years (please take no offense if I'm mistaken and these clubs are actually active). There are plenty of CBI only schools in other regions including several that were at CBI nationals this past week. To imply that constructive criticism drives teams out of existence is simply a red herring. I'm happy to respond publically to anyone who takes the time to post here on the subject, but I imagine people from other regions are not keenly interested in west coast affairs. As such, feel free to E-mail me at this Yahoo address if you wish to discuss this matter further in private. Steve Kaplan for himself only
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:48 AM EST EST