I recognize that Edmund did not call anyone unreasonable or ignorant. I used those words to characterize his original post: (emphasis added) <<<I think at this point it's safe to say that, in the eyes of _EVERYONE_ except school administrators and the _dim fringes of consciousness_ in the mass media, the ACF-NAQT-TRASH trifecta is more legitimate than the ACF-NAQT-CBI thingie.>>> Edmund, It was the assertion that _everyone_ considered the ACF-NAQT-CBI triple crown less legitimate than the ACF-NAQT-TRASH triple crown and the reference to "dim fringes of consciousness" that prompted me to react as I did. I don't think that it is unreasonable that some consider CBI to be less than ACF or NAQT. But I don't think I should be considered unreasonable for thinking that CBI is not less. And while some people do have biases against CBI and some of them were legitimately earned years ago, there has been little of the horror stories of years past. (The two biggest problems this year thus far have seemed to be issues with one region's lack of round robin and another region's playoff system--both being the responsibility of regional ACUI committees this year--and CBCI [in a post made on 2/16/01] has indicated they are seriously addressing this problem for next year.Contradicting your statement: "furthermore, despite repeated public outcry, it has shown itself to be inflexible -- inertial -- unwilling to respond effectively to what the players ask for.") In many ways, the quiz bowl community is willing to accept that individuals who make serious mistakes can be forgiven and accepted within the community. (In my playing career I can think of Shawn Pickrell's Harvest Bowl, Andy Goss' phantom tournament, the mysterious Princeton disappearing questions, Penn's plagarism of the Stanford archive.) If we can set aside the anger and biases accumulated against these folks for stuff they did 2-4 years ago, can't we move past the stuff CBI stopped doing around the time of the 1997 NCT? Two months ago Michael Davidson indicated :"Given my expectations and knowledge of how CBI and NAQT write questions and how they reward knowledge and how they are different, I'll say quite confidently that the questions for CBI Regionals were simply better this year then NAQT Sectionals, accounting for differences inherent in the two formats." For that statement, he was nominated for a now-infamous Deb Fuller award. To me that sounds like a reasonable _opinion_ offered by an experienced member of the quiz bowl community is being met by some (at least the mysterious "nominators" cited in your Fuller Awards listing) as being laughable. Kenny (And what exactly are these rumors you are hearing anyway?)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST