5. Staffing -- for three of my seven staff members that stayed the whole time, this was their first tournament officiating experience. EVER. One of them had been a scorekeeper at NAQT ICT, three others (myself, Edmund and Hayden) were veterans. -- 6. We intended to reward teams who won without using "sink-a-Shaq" techniques and winning every game by low scores. These fears proved (IMO) to be not as prevalent as we had thought. I would recommend that next year, even if bounceback-sinking is used, to go with straight W-L, and have head to head and total points be the tiebreakers. -- 7. Pyramidal structure. We could have spent aeons studying the proper method of structuring the question and still gotten some people who buzzed in disgustingly early, thinking the lead-ins too easy. (For example, I thought the Gomer lead-in at the ICT was very easy.) However, when played in a tourmament, some lead-ins prove less thoughtful than others. -- I acknowledge that many of our leadins were less than inspired. I also acknowledge that some of our power marks were a bit ... early. (I don't think we erred so much in going the other way.) All I can say is that we will aim to correct that in future Capitol Punishments. But in the end, it seemed the general tone of the criticism (both here and on-site) was that this was a tourmanent that had tremendous potential to be a great tournament. Most of Mike's criticism I think is valid; I have attempted to address them here. Where I have disagreed with him, I hope I have not come off as sounding overly defensive. I hope to see Mike -- and as many of you as possible -- at Capitol Punishment 3, which will be in July 2001. Shawn Pickrell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST