Fancy Store-Bought Dirt

A: Rats live not on evil star.

b. Race, --- car.

I like the question, although I don't remember whether I read it during the tournament. I've always wanted to introduce occasional wordplay bonuses (especially anagrams) into collegiate play.

We 30ed this bonus, with no particular difficulty on the first part, the third part we remembered with no problem, and I got the second part just under the wire.

I'm not surprised that this would generate complaint (not that I've read it), but jeez. It was a fun bonus.

Responses might vary based on the context. The question may be appreciated as a change of pace in an intramural packet, but it may be perceived as a discontinuity in other settings.

The first two are simple, but not knowing the last one is going to keep me up at night.

Though you did not mention it, what I found most disconcerting was the information about editing comments that I had the chance to see. Apparently, it was noted early on that this question would be very likely to cause complaints among players, and yet somehow it was still allowed into NAQT's national tournament.

Regardless of whether you're writing these questions because you personally enjoy them or because you want to spite people who wouldn't, shouldn't either agenda take a backseat to offering a product that the customers will enjoy? I'm not trying to berate you since the question's inclusion in ICT was ultimately the result of an outside editing decision, but I'm concerned at the general philosophy being exhibited.

At least from what I see in public discussion, the most voluminous source of criticism about questions comes from such so-called "NAcuties," so I have to ask why writers/editors continue to insist on pushing them on people, especially given the degree at which NAQT asks for customer input. I agree that NAQT is entitled to have its own format-specific nuances, but the "A" is still supposed to stand for "Academic," and the tournament is still supposed to take comments from customers seriously. Wordplay bonuses??? What's next, spelling tossups and physical challenge bonuses? Please don't ignore customers just because your personal philosophy differs with theirs, after all they're the ones supporting your product. Take a serious look at what they say, especially when they talk nigh-unanimously!

Everyone makes mistakes, and I've certainly written my share of questions that didn't go over well, but instead of being proudly "unfazed" about being criticised for poor writing decisions, I do my best not to repeat the mistake. I wouldn't have bothered to write this post if your entry had been more to the effect of "Though I didn't write this bonus for ICT, it got used there and was the most complained about question, so I'm going to accept that it was a bad idea to write it and not write something like it in the future." After reading your entry, I'm worried that I'm going to run into another palindromes bonus next year at ICT, and I hope that isn't the case.

I recently had a conversation about another, minor ICT issue with a certain NAQT member and got the impression that NAQT was really going to take a serious look at my input and that of others. I hope that trend carries over to the questions too.

To me, that's a terrible question. Straight memorization of childhood stuff, with not enough time to figure out the answers.

Personal feelings, of course.