I'd rather avoid the mass of flames, anonymous posts, and rumor mongering on this mailing list that has accompanied such events as NLIT 1999 or the Cam Affair. I don't really care if you do it in chat, by email, or in private. Also, my long missives tend to end debate, so maybe I can save us all some grief, at least until anyone else with relevant information supplies additional facts. contact info as mentioned in previous posts for involved parties: Willie Chen: willchen_at_... GWACC: trivia_at_... Edmund Schluessel: ers_at_... To summarize: According to Edmund Schluessel's missive, GWU agreed to swap questions used at Wisconsin, Boston, Stanford, and GWU on February 3 for two packets and cash in return. Fifteen rounds were promised, 13.5 delivered. Schluessel, quoting private email, holds that Chen gave the following reasons for not paying: the questions were too hard and had to be replaced, and that Chen has stipulated that he owes money and has admitted to trying to get out of payment. At this point in time, Willie Chen has not given a rebuttal of these allegations. Supplementary information and notes of where as-yet unnamed sources have been used as well as a question or two: I assume this is Baby Anteater Bowl III, held on what appears to be February 16. I can find no record of an announcement or results eminating from Willie Chen or UCI for this particular tournament, however. The complaints Schluessel alludes to are presumably include those found on the message board of http://www.hsquizbowl.org which is run by Matt Weiner. To quote Charles Meigs of Los Alamitos HS: In short, a decently well-run tournament marred by at times ridiculously hard questions with scattered ridiculously easy questions (Louis XIV, the Ottoman Empire) thrown in. To basically sum up the packets at the UCI tournament, the two Los Al A/Edison A games were won by Los Al by scores of 90 to 75 (of which one third of our points came due to a bonus on the Soccer War), and 135 to 110 (such is what happens when ACF packets are used at high school tournaments). Los Al was the only team to break the 300-point mark at the tournament. Other good teams included Arizona State, Dana Hills, and Torrey Pines. The curious question remains whether or not the "undisclosed source" can be identified. It may or may not be implied that such a source does not exist. Unnamed sources described only as "California collegiate teams" were allegedly turned away for not meeting an arbitrary definition of JV eligibility. Ths subjective was used--"it was revealed"--begging the question who revealed this information. One also wonders what definition of JV eligibility was used and whether or not this is more or less arbitrary than whathe various different standards used by other tournaments. References are made to interviewing teams that attended the tournament, but no teams are as of yet specifically named. The following are available examples of UCI's writing/editing on the Stanford Archive. One can judge for one's self whether or not the question cite or packets received in private are representative of the question writing of Willie Chen and/or the UCI team. http://www.stanford.edu/group/CollegeBowl/Archive/uci99/ http://www.stanford.edu/group/CollegeBowl/Archive/uci99/UCI.html http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:0KphaYDtWy8C:www.stanford.edu/gro up/CollegeBowl/Archive/CCXI/r1-Irvine.doc+irvine+bonus+site:stanford.e du&hl=en http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:DSpWPxLvk1kC:www.stanford.edu/gro up/CollegeBowl/Archive/CCXII/UCI%2520Edited%2520013102.doc+irvine+bonu s+site:stanford.edu&hl=en
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST