Re: Trash and its relationship to qb

Sean Phillips <*allythin_at_allythin.yahoo.invalid*> · Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:10:02 -0000

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, ater31337 <no_reply_at_...> wrote:
>
> I know it's far from the first time we had this debate, but this 
past
> weekend re-raises the question of whether there still is (and 
should
> be) any viable connection between academic quiz bowl and trash.

I think it's funny that you choose to term this as a "debate" 
because anytime some permutation of this topic comes out it really 
just becomes a screaming match.

> While I wasn't directly harmed by Cancel Bowl's disruption of the
> Brown tournament, I am speaking out because I think it sets a
> dangerous precedent.  It's always been a tacit rule on the circuit
> that tournaments (regardless of academic or trash status) should
> respect each other's scheduling, and Cancel Bowl basically raised 
its
> leg and urinated on that rule.
> 
> I'm not here to pile on Mr. Coen, whom I've met in the past and got
> the impression he was a perfectly nice guy, nor make any 
accusations
> of malice, but it's simply disrespectful to step on the toes of
> another tournament, even if it's an innocent mistake, and refuse to
> budge when the mistake is pointed out.  I know someone like myself,
> Jerry (who actually did bend over backwards to accomodate this
> intrusion on his tournament), or any experienced academic 
tournament
> director would have graciously tried to move or work something out;
> should we not expect trash tournaments to abide by the same 
standards
> anymore?

See my response to Matt via hasty generalizations; unfairness to 
people who play trash for imputing blame for this guy's actions etc.

> If so, that segues into my question of why trash should even be
> considered as part of quiz bowl.  At this point the common thread 
of
> questions, answers, and some sort of recognition machine doesn't 
even
> make sense anymore, or else we'd count pub trivia as quiz bowl 
(which
> apparently at least some "quiz bowl" teams prefer to the actual
> academic quiz bowl that defines the activity).  
> 
> If the message from this past weekend is that trash organizers 
don't
> have to play by the same rules as everyone else in quiz bowl, is 
there
> any reason why trash players (and I mean the people who only play
> trash and the occasional NAQT high school tournament, not people 
who
> actually write packets and attend academic tournaments as well) are
> still considered part of the circuit, given deference in their
> tournament scheduling, able to use the same public resources (e.g.
> message boards) and university resources (e.g. school funding and
> hosting space for tournaments; as I imagine you're much more 
likely to
> get support in the name of college-level academic competition than 
in
> the name of joining a bunch of bored, out-of-school 35 year olds in
> answering non-pyramidal questions on 1970's sitcoms and last week's
> hot radio singles)?

You've basically defined quizbowl as anything above NAQT SCT level 
and ACF.  This narrow exclusionary view is short sighted as it 
encourages less participation in the activity and remarkably 
offensive.  Instead of trying to push trash players to the back of 
the bus, perhaps you need to take an honest assessment of who 
actually plays these things.  They are not "bored, out-of-school 35 
year olds (sic)" but quite a few of them are *GASP* college age and 
*FAINT* damn good on questions that really have nothing to do with 
1970's sitcoms that don't air regularly on Nick at Nite or TV Land.  
By the way: syndicated reruns, look into them.  

> I don't know, it just seems that academic and trash tournaments and
> players inherently seem to be at odds, especially given the way in
> which the broadest attempt for both factions reach out, the ACF
> Fall-TRASH Regionals partnership, turned out to be a mutual
> disappointment.  

I don't see trash people starting anti-academic threads in here, so 
it seems that the two sides are "at odds" whenever yourself or 
Weiner or someone else gets their panties in a twist about something 
somewhat contained and then broadens it into something its not.

>I don't hate trash by default; I enjoy it when well
> done (i.e. when people who aren't TRASH and can/make the slightest
> attempt to write questions even minimally approaching today's 
circuit
> standards are running things, but that's another diatribe), but it
> seems to make more sense to keep it separate from college quiz bowl
> and let the people who want to do academic do their own thing and 
the
> people who want to do trash do theirs (either through their own
> private funding and organization or as part of a distinct
> trash-specific university one) and the people who want to do both
> bounce around between two different entities on their own time, 
rather
> than try to force this uneasy coexistance.
>

Again the only people uneasy with this "coexistance" is you.  And 
that's by and large because of your own snobbery which none of us 
should have to take responsibility for.

Sean