Re: Reaction to TRASHionals

For what it's worth, both Carey and I are no longer undergraduates, 
as we are 2001 graduates of our respective institutions (CMU & 
Pitt), currently acting as hangers-on.

That said, I did edit Ironhead 2001 as an undergrad and wrote the 
functional equivalent of 4 packets for it without complaint.

With respect to TRASH, I think they largely serve a different niche 
and clientele than other "trash" invitationals.  Admittedly, I 
haven't seen an actual TRASH set in a few years, but my impression 
has always been that they focus more on older material and more 
detailed, in-depth "shame" knowledge, as well as things outside the 
mainstream of American Popular Culture.

I would say that Trashmasters, Capitol Punishment, and Beltway 
Bandits are fairly similar to TRASH in that regard.  On the other 
hand are tournaments like Ann B. Davis and Ironhead, where the focus 
is a little more on current pop culture and a basic knowledge of 
older material.  

As always, though, submitted packet quality plays a large part in 
flavoring an event one way or another, regardless of the host's 
standard distribution.  Inexperienced teams write crappy trash, but 
they learn.

People who do well in TRASH-like tournaments will generally also do 
well in the ABD/IH style.  The converse is not always true, probably 
owing to differences in age and life experiences.

Is either one better?  Hardly.  It's more personal preference than 
it is a format war ala CBI/ACF.

Just my thoughts,
-- eps

> Slurring hard-working writers and editors like Carey Clevenger 
> (undergrad, Carnegie Mellon) or Allison Manzuk & Josh Levit & 
Brandon 
> Eilerston (undergrads, Case Western) -- that's immature. Trying to 
> dodge the response by trying to talk around it, and say something 
> like "inexperienced people aren't good at things", when 
confronted -- 
> that's immature.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST