On the one hand, newcomers to the game may feel that they will never be able to win, since the established figures seem so dominant. But the fact that the game isn't static, that the body of knowledge in which the ACF community is interested does keep changing, means that it's impossible for anyone to just master all the material and become an unassailable god. Trends come and go, like deep interest in opera (which is being displaced by symphonic music of the 19th and 20th centuries at the moment) or Norse myth (which is still strong, but losing ground to Central and South American mythology). As people become interested in learning new things, the game shifts with them, which is what makes it enjoyable. That's why young players, like those of this year's Michigan B or Virginia teams, can compete with veteran teams like Michigan A, which almost got knocked out of the finals of this year's nationals. I'm sure nobody has bothered to read this entire post, but if you have somehow reached this point, thanks for making the effort. It seems obvious that ACF is never going to appeal to everyone, but I think the world of academic competition would be seriously impoverished if it were to disappear or collapse into NAQT. NAQT is wonderful for what it does, but I think the circuit would be likelier to stagnate were it not for the impetus to expand the field of accessible knowledge provided by ACF. I think that if we were all a little more clear as to what the format is and what it could be, a lot of useless posturing might be set aside. Even better, young players might get an unprejudiced understanding of what ACF is all about, and decide on the merits of the game whether it might be the kind of thing they could enjoy being a part of. Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST