Samer said: In addition, as an educational opportunity, I will present "Penn Bowl: The Unexpurgated Version", questions that we did NOT use at Penn Bowl 10 this year, for various reasons. [As this is not meant to attack anyone in particular, authors of the questions will not be divulged. The point of this is to give examples of things people should avoid when writing questions.] If teams want to see examples of how not to run a tournament, and how to squander more packets than any other TD could possibly dream to work with, all they have to do is think back to Penn Bowl 10. Maybe Penn shouldn't attempt to hold a 64-team tournament if they don't have the sufficient resources to do so, instead of churning out the same inferior product year after year. Sheer inertia and the opportunity to see teams from different areas of the country are the only reasons many teams come back. At least we got a nice break from playing during the great packet mixup after being hurried through a half-hour lunch on Saturday. If Penn had put half as much time into editing the questions as they did in making computer graphics and pretty typesetting, maybe it would have been a good tournament. Our team only got through 15-16 questions in several rounds because the the questions weren't edited properly for a timed tournament - too much unnecessary verbiage and long bonus intros. At least in an untimed format, you're guaranteed to get through 20 tossups and bonuses. But, hey, it's penn bowl, so no one expects a decent product anymore.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST