Dear colleagues: It's unusual that the GW Academic Competition Club has any reason to contact the West Coast. By and large we're blissfully ignorant of each other; this, of course, allows us to swap questions with a certain degree of impunity. While I'm on the subject, you should all go to UC-Berkeley's mirror of Capitol Punishment IV this summer. But to get to the point: as a result of one of these mirrors -- as a result of GW's generosity -- our questions are being pirated, and our reputation slandered, by Willie Chen and UC-Irvine. I've already contacted some of you about this, to get a clearer picture of what happened. This is what both sides agree on: Late in 2001, GW and UC-I, along with Wisconsin and Boston University, agreed to a mutual packet swap for our tournaments on the 3rd of February; Irvine's tournament was supposed to be a mirror of all the above, and a tournament at Stanford was added to the mix later. Irvine and GW agreed to a fee of $275 and two packets from UCI for 15 packets from GW. Irvine announced its tournament as a JV collegiate event; GW annouced its tournament as a master's/open event. Due to some last-minute surprises and an error in packaging on Wisconsin's part, we were only able to send 13 complete rounds, and one round of just tossups, to Irvine. We informed Chen of this and, though taken aback, agreed to the adjustment without comment. Irvine sent its two packets, and the JCV packets were sent from GW to Irvine after GW's tournament and a week before Irvine's tournament. No further information was received from Irvine. After Irvine's tournament was run, we got wind of complaints from several high school teams that the questions at Irvine's tournament had been far too difficult. Interviews with players at that tournament revealed that the advertised "JV tournament" had actually consisted of 26 high school teams and one college team (Arizona State). Some time later -- the end of March, seven weeks after our tournament -- while making arrangements for ACF Nationals, we contacted UC-Irvine and inquired as to when we were going to get paid. Chen informed us that he had no intention of paying us for the packs, although Irvine wasn't short of money. The reasons he gave were that the packets were "unsuitable" for the field, and that he'd had to go to an "undisclosed source" for replacement questions. These are the issues of contention: a) Chen admits that he was "trying to get away without paying" us, but stated that if we made a reasonable offer for the worth of the packets, he'd "cut a check today". We made an offer of $247 for the 13½ rounds that were delivered, and he rejected it. If he admits that he owes us money, why does he refuse to pay us? b) Chen asserts that the questions were too difficult for the field. We do not dispute this. However, we clearly cannot be held responsible -- we were misled as to the nature of the tournament. Furthermore, JCVs 4 through 7 are publicly available for free on various Archives. JCV, like all GW tournaments, maintains a tradition of rigorous question difficulty; it is unreasonable to say that Chen didn't have access to this information beforehand to take into consideration when seeking mirrors. Why does Chen hold us responsible for his mistake? c) Chen asserts that he had a right to reject the questions. We do not necessarily dispute this notion. However, it is important to point out that at no point, until we asked him when we were getting paid, did he state that he had rejected the questions. Indeed, we refer you to e). Furthermore, he states that he wrote two of his best packets for our tournament. The Irvine submission to JCV consisted of one packet from Irvine, and one from UC-Riverside. These packets can be provided on request; quick inspection shows that they are not suitable for even the lowered standards of most high school tournaments, to say nothing of a collegiate event. An example tossup (emphasis ours): << These *units* are used in *astronomy* to designate the distance of one body from another. A light year is made up of 63,000 of these *units* while our solar system is only 80 wide. FTP, name these units which are equal to the earth's distance from the sun. A. Astronomical Unit >> d) Chen asserts that, as a result of his "under-the-table deal" with his "undisclosed source" for questions, he had to turn away several collegiate teams, and claims that GW owes him the lost revenue. This notion is on its face absurd. However, I address it here because, in inquiries with some of the California collegiate teams Chen claims he had to turn away, it was revealed that he turned these teams away, not because of the question, but because these teams didn't meet his definition of "JV eligibility", and that this definition of eligibility was almost entirely arbitrary. e) Most seriously, Chen asserts that he did not use the JCV questions. In interviewing teams attending Irvine's tournament, as part of our responsibility to find out what happened, we confirmed that Irvine's tournament did, in fact, use at least some JCV questions (specifically, the Virginia packet for the Finals round). In summary: Willie Chen of UC-Irvine stole our questions and lied to us about using them. At the very best, he admits that he was not straightforward with us; as best as we can ascertain, he lied to us. Why do we bring this to a public forum? Multiple attempts to reach a negotiated solution privately have failed. I quote from Chen's aforementioned ACN article: "all parties involved in the packet swap should operate under mutual respect and integrity....Responsibility precedes profitability." Has Chen acted with respect for GWACC or for the community as a whole? Clearly not. Has he acted with integrity? No. Has he acted responsibly, before considering profit? He himself admits as much -- he has not. What do we recommend? Already GWACC has suspended all future trades with UC-Irvine. What we call for is an embargo on commerce with Irvine and with Willie Chen until such point as we are paid for our work. This action may well be unprecedented in the QB world, but we ask: is this kind of dishonest, bad-faith behavior tolerable? Is it itself with precedent? The many of you who have swapped rounds with GW in the past know that we don't short-change, don't double-deal, and perform our own business with integrity. We are not unreasonable; we are not, furthermore, absolutists. We are certainly open to negotiation on this issue, and we invite the UC- Irvine team to join us in seeking an impartial arbitrator to resolve this matter. To request further information on the situation, please contact trivia_at_... Edmund Schluessel, GWACC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST