TWAIN packets

• From: williechen7 <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:14:18 -0000
• Message-ID: <egeokq+mv62_at_...>

Hey, everyone:

UCLA did a good job hosting TWAIN once again.  This year UCLA decided 
not to use NAQT packets for TWAIN and, instead, used packets written 
by three individuals.  For the most part, the questions were well-
written and edited to ensure proper structure, clarity, and 
accuracy.  However, there were just a few issues that I would like to 
raise:

1.  Rather than having each packet written by one person, perhaps 
it'd be better to pool all the questions together and then 
redistribute them evenly across all packets.  Toward the end of the 
tournament, moderators were catching repeats as they were reading.  
There were also a few problems with uneven distribution of topics 
within individual packets (i.e., one packet having all ancient 
history questions, or all math/physics/astronomy questions for 
science).  Despite the writers' best efforts at maintaining 
objectivity, there were moments when personally knowing the question 
writer actually helps answering the question.

2.  I know that bonuses should reward 10 points to most teams, 20 
points to good teams, and 30 points to teams with an expert on the 
subject--but PLEASE don't make it so blatant.  It is especially 
inappropriate for writers to insert condescending comments in the 
spirit of "let's make the first bonus question gettable for first 
graders" and "let's make the last bonus so hard so that nobody will 
get it."

3.  One person after the tournament voiced concerns over the fact 
that there were too many literature questions.  Although I disagree 
with that concern, I do see how the lit questions could be improved.  
Every lit question asked for titles, authors, or characters.  Perhaps 
we can expand the types of lit questions to include areas like 
criticism, theory, non-fiction, literary terms (drama and poetry have 
tons of these!), and relevant literary history [opera plot questions 
should be categorized here as well].  And questions that ask for the 
same word in different titles ["google" questions] should totally be 
abolished--it is almost as bad as asking for an element from a list 
of obscure compounds that contain the same element.

4.  I know the tournament is advertised as modified-ACF, but there 
were hardly any current questions.  In fact, there seemed to be an 
emphasis toward everything before the twentieth century.  Even 
working within the narrow requirements of ACF, one can sneak current 
events into the distribution.

That's about it for now...

Willie