Mike Usher wrote: "Perhaps NAQT should have sent out a note to the hosts reminding them of the format requirements; alternatively, this could have been avoided if the hosts had announced the intended format publicly, so that someone from NAQT could have caught the problem." As Jon Couture mentioned, NAQT did send out a note to the hosts. Since the note came with the questions themselves, it was a bit late as reminders go. I had intended around the holiday/New Year season to send gentle reminders to SCT hosts on NAQT's behalf about everything from format to schedule. That I didn't follow through with this is my fault. People in the quiz circuit periodically suggest that NAQT have more of a hands-on relationship with tournament hosts. There's a fine line, of course, between giving hosts a specific set of requirements and trusting them, as experienced clubs, to have common sense. Some of the proposed SCT host requirements that didn't make the final draft included things like posting campus instructions and hotel info by a certain date in advance of the tournament, publicizing the entry fee, giving teams a rough timetable in advance, and so on. Instead of formalizing those as requirements, those are things that someone at NAQT (possibly me) will stay in touch with hosts about. In addition, as hosts provide it, look for more of that information to be more readily available through the NAQT web site. My biases (see below) prevent me from giving the definitive word but by all accounts this year's NE SCT ran smoothly, with good officiating and no complaints. Matt (NAQT member but also recent Boston University quiz bowl alumnus)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST