While I find this story interesting, I can't stop thinking the research was done at the Sebastian Janikowski Institute.

If only I could get joy from this argument, but I don't,

I should, I should, be happy in seeing that I was forthright enough in arguing about the issue of packet quality. I had argued that by having packet swaps we had effectively mortgaged the future of question writing, by not giving vital feedback to new writers by seeing their packets read. Problem is, I argued that in fall 1996, before NAQT had even gotten a tournament out.

The problem is, in order to facilitate this (more writers doing better) we need two things, neither of which people are going to be willing to do.

The first is being tolerant of new packet writers. I don't see this as happening any time soon. Every tournament editor seems to be so afraid of having a single bad question, that the entire packet gets edited or rewritten. They have to learn somehow, and we are failing to teach people what is right and wrong by seeing their own questions judged in this way.

The second is realizing that by piling restriction upon restriction, the unwritten rules of what you can and can't write about, we make the process of writing an order of magnitude harder than it is. We've now gotten to the point where we're arguing that you must know the subject to write about it so the person who knows the most about the subject will get it, and it befouls the packet for this to be otherwise. That's the route to making writing the duty of the priestly class, and that's an even worse path.

Why don't I think these will happen? Well, put yourself in the editor's chair? You don't want to offend established players, and risk having your touranment trashed in a forum. You also do get a better quality tournament in the short term, but at the longterm cost to the circuit. And if the
majority of circuit players can't see past the next round, much less the next year, there's no benefit.

The irony is quiz bowl writing has never been easier, and it should never demand massive amounts of writing. It merely demands a dedicated approach.

Fun fact: If you have 10 people in your club, and they simply wrote one tossup and one bonus every week, you'd have 500 questions on April 1, 2003. And more interestingly, if they keep that rate up, by the first of September, you'd have 920 questions. Roughly enough for 15 packets.

So how do we solve this? Watch this space I guess. I'll see if I can come up with any ideas. And encourage everyone to write, even just a little.