Adam Fine wrote: "Nice job, Roger, in summarizing the complaints any non-ACF hardcore player has with the ACF philosophy and attitude. I thought maybe at first you missed the fact that Stan put the word "MORE" in caps, meaning that he felt the questions accelerated the advantage of experienced players over newbies compared to previous events, not just that experienced players had an advantage. But through your response, you made it perfectly clear that you understand what the CAPS LOCK key on your keyboard does." The caps lock key is for pansies. It's all about the shift key, dude. Adam Fine also wrote: "Now I did not hear the packets this past weekend, so I have no way to judge if they have skewed more toward experienced hardcore veterans. But having played ACF many times in the past, I do know that it is the format where you hear classic "straight outta Benet's" and other lead-ins more often than the other formats. If there were more of these recycled classics, then those who had heard the clues a dozen times before will have an advantage." This is completely absurd. You've just judged a tournament without having heard a single question from it based on past tournaments. I wouldn't even address this issue if it weren't for another blatant piece of ridiculousness embedded in this paragraph. Did you ever wonder where ACF questions come from? Contrary to popular belief, ACF editors do not own magic trees that grow quality TUs. Nor do we lord over a tribe of goblins that mine good bonuses for us from the center of the earth. ACF questions come from the people who play on ACF. You can thank yourself and all the non-professional question-writers who have submitted packets to an ACF tournament for any "chestnut" clues you may have heard or will hear in the future. There is a difference between an "editor" and a "re-writer." As much as we enjoy providing quality questions to the circuit, I would bet that none of us have the time to re-write every question submitted. And that applies to the editors of all formats and invitationals. Adam Fine continued with: "In any case, if ACF has any desire left to expand its base audience, then it cannot respond to complaints by neophytes with the classic Colvinesque refrain: "Hey, dumbass. That's not my problem. Go write some questions and you'll get better." Try to respond fairly to customer concerns instead of putting them off, and if possible, have a Division II for teams who have not head the stock lead-ins 47 times before." How am I supposed to respond with pleas for a division II when there ALREADY IS (all shift keys, baby) a division II? Stan's arguments (and what appear to be your arguments now) amount to nothing more than whining about getting beat by teams with greater experience and greater knowledge through effort. I cannot address that complaint "fairly," Adam. Regardless, it's a flawed argument. There are plenty of ass-kicking division II players out there who aren't complaining. Plenty who will be at ACF Regionals in February, having spent the months in between preparing to wreck shit on that Berdichevsky-edited goodness. Roger Bhan (speaking for no one but himself)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST