I won't bother responding to your whole post, because I don't really have the interest, and I don't care whether you get the last word on the argument. However, I will just point out one thing and then hope that we can put this whole argument to rest. I really did not start the thread with the intention of making this a discussion on grad participation. But since you keep bringing it up, I will take one final opinion on the topic. You make the argument that if juniors and seniors are upset about not being allowed to participate in all tournaments, then shouldn't grad students feel the same way when they're excluded from tournaments? While that makes sense in the abstract, or in how quiz bowl has operated in the past, applied more generally, that argument doesn't hold water at all. When you think of every competitive sport AND activity that are contested at colleges and universities across the country, most of them are not open to undergrads and grads together. Obviously, the NCAA has restrictions on this for all of its sports, but if you look at Model UN, Mock Trial or just about any college activity, grad student participation is limited or non-existant as far as my knowledge. Furthermore, I don't know of any sport or activity which caters a large amount of tournaments exclusively for 1st and 2nd year participants, and then prohibits juniors and seniors from participating in those tournaments. Again, I don't say this to make any comment on grad partcipation in quiz bowl. We all know that it's inevitable, and I'm just going to reserve commentary on whether I think it's good or not, because it's obviously a complicated issue. I just point this out because drawing a line after sophomore year to exclude people from competing in tournaments IS a much more arbitrary standard (by any non-quiz bowl standard at least) in my opinion than drawing that line after somebody receives their undergraduate degree. That is all. --Nick Walters --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "Michael Angelo Sorice" <msorice_at_u...> wrote: > --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "nicolas_walters" <Sywolf_at_a...> > wrote: > > ... All the Penn hating should really stop, because it was never > > prompted by anything. > No, this is a cop-out. The replies to your posts couldn't be > characterized in any way as a bitter Penn hate fest, and it's too bad > to see this discussion reduced to people trying to defend themselves > rather than their positions. It was you who saw fit to make the > unprompted and unsupported claim that grad participation isn't in the > long term interest of the circuit and that non-submission events held > on high school questions are. Frankly, I don't see how you can be less > than overjoyed that the tone of the replies to such a claim have been > even so civil as they have, much less claim to be shocked that people > have taken issue with you said (or that they're taking issue with the > wrong part of it, or whatever you're trying to say.) > > > ... I'd love to hear how you run question-writing workshops, and > > whether you make people write questions even if there's no > > tournament coming up? > While I'm glad that you've decided to consider some more circuit > events this year, I really have to take issue with this last > statement. Nobody can make anyone do much of anything and I, for one, > would not want to make someone put time into this game if they didn't > want to, even could I. To me, it sounds like your situation really > isn't all that dissimilar from anyone else's. I've yet to meet a > freshman who could write questions at a level that I'd consider > acceptable as an editor. That said, the solution is not (must not be, > in fact) to simply never have them write, as they then probably never > get better at writing (nor very much so at quizbowl.) Rather, the > answer must be to show your new kids the ropes and have them write a > little. I don't intend this to be a polemic on bringing along > "prospects" and I do appreciate the difficulty of attempting to > execute an officer's duties to a quizbowl team as an underclassman, > but I am absolutely positive that not writing and the kind of > segregation (on the basis of commitment to the game, of age, etc.) you > seem to be advocating (implicitly or not) cannot be the answer any of > us are looking for. > > > ...Also, I really have no fear of grad students. I never really > > mentioned them as my biggest problem with our region. Rather, this > > whole thread started because of the proliferation of junior bird > > events in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, which I just happened to > > note could be opened up for all undergrads. > Yes, but you did mention grad participation as being contrary to the > long term good of quizbowl, and as being against an imperative of > yours that, apparently, does not extend to question writing, i.e. > "[that quizbowl] should be an activity primarily for college students > and run by college students." My point is simply that, if, as you say, > you don't mind playing grads (outside of trash tournaments,) there are > numerous nearby tournaments that you might attend, if you so chose. > Since your argument for changing junior birds to undergrad tournaments > is rooted in your purported inability to attend events in your area, I > really have to question that argument. > > > Also, I will keep insisting that more tournaments are opened up to > > non 1st and 2nd year players, through two divisions or CUT- > > style eligibility. Still waiting for someone to make the argument > > against that, instead of flaming Penn's team for no good reason. > There are a couple arguments against this that I can think of off > hand. In the first place, there ought to be some events for novices > and novices alone that may not be attended by experienced players. My > conception of things is that such events serve as an often necessary > introduction to college quizbowl against competition of similar > experience and (ideally) skill. Opening such events to all undergrads > may defeat the purpose of allowing a relatively "painless" > introduction to the game and will also retard the growth of the > upperclassmen playing at the events by denying them interaction with > the circuit at large. Moreover, since most tournaments (including all > nationals) still allow grad participation, the creation of a large > number of novice-only events will create a group accustomed to > artificially low levels of competition (assuming there are any good > grads about,) and one likely unprepared should it decide to venture > out into the larger world. Finally, grads are still people, too. Since > your whole point is that you don't see why you should suddenly be > excluded from some events just because you're a little older and > cagier, well, why shouldn't grads get the same treatment? > > Anyway, I hope that this allows us to put some of this to rest, or at > least to make some progress (maybe even beyond "DON'T TALK ABOUT MY > PROGRAM THAT WAY!") > > MaS
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:48 AM EST EST