I like PennBowl...
but I thought many
more questions degenerated into buzzer races this year
than the past 3 PennBowls I've attended. Anyone else
get this feeling?
Maybe, this has something to do
with the way a lot of questions were structured. I
know that timed tournaments can't have the long trail
of clues as in last week's ACF Regionals, (btw,
excellent job on the questions Subash - best-edited
tournament I've ever played in) but the clue density seemed
strange in a lot of packets.
Long or vague lead-in
clues that often didn't seem to help (only MIT was
consistently hitting early clues in our bracket) were followed
by a spate of shorter factual clues that usually led
to a bunch of people buzzing at the same time. It
seemed to me as though many questions were answered off
of easy clues (excepting sitting, negging, and other
player error) that came before the FTP cue.
I'll
post Vandy's pre-editing half-packet if you'd like
(mainly written by Robert Trent, Tim Watts, and myself)
in case you'd like to point out similar flaws that
annoyed while you were playing our packet (the other half
was Rutgers' doing).
/\/\att Schneller