I have been critical of the ACF hierarchy in the past, but not because I disagree with their vision or see them as elitist. At times, they have been inaccessible, or at least appeared difficult to approach if you werent already in their inner circle. I was worried that the format would die out once they entered retirement. Ive been gratified over the past year to see that change. Kudos especially to Subash for this. On question difficulty, though I still like more difficult questionsI recognize that to keep the game broad-based we need accessibility. Though I think that ideally this is still supposed to be a game of 4 playerseach with a specialization and with questions deep enough that players will rarely know an answer out of their fieldthere are only a couple teams that could really survive on that sort of format. Maybe thats still appropriate at a masters tournament level at some point. Overall, I think Ive had a little bit of a conversion to the idea that tossups should be answerable by almost every team (or that they should have at least heard of the answers) and bonuses are where depth should be tested. There still will be individual disagreements on exactly what tossups are gettable(I dont quite understand why if Romance of the 3 Kingdoms and Dream of the Red Chamber are acceptable, that Golden Lotus, Journey to the West and the Water Margin are not)but theres still room to expand the canon through bonuses I suppose without ticking off too many people. As far as I can determine, Im responsible for Klopstock being asked in QBsince I included him as a bonus partat least two other ACF tournaments have included him and I suppose that once a few more bonus parts mention him, Klopstock or the Messiah would be acceptable as a tossup answeror maybe not, is a Novalis tossup gettable?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST