I don't feel like tracking down the old posts, but I recall that WhatScience? used to be against making tests available to the public, for various reasons. But that was months ago I think, so it's not being hypocritical. People are allowed to change their minds after all. Also, one-word replies aren't exactly a good way to get your point across.daydreamer0023 wrote:1stBroshi, if you don't agree with someone or their stances, that's fine. Just please refrain from one word comments unless you have something constructive to add. Test trading/release has been a subject of much debate and many people have changed places from their original stances after a good amount of discussion.NeBH wrote:What do you mean, "hypocrite"? Would you please elaborate on that?1stBroshi wrote: hypocrite.
This seems like a pretty good idea, but if tournaments make it too far after the tournament day then online trading will happen anyway. Tests can usually be obtained by traders within days of their release to attending teams; anyone who doesn't feel like waiting months could get them anyway. But it will definitely slow down public releases like this.daydreamer0023 wrote:If anything, my two cents to the discussion is that tournaments could specify a specific date/time 1-2 months after the tournament is held to release the tests to the public (instead of after Nationals). That way, if teams want to use said tests for tryouts or the like, they can maintain security that the test questions are not already shared, and teams who did not go to the said invites, they can still use those questions to prepare for future tournaments after the tests go public 1-2 months later.
Thoughts?
About this discussion in general:
I feel like the idea of getting tournament consent for this sort of publication seems contradictory to the entire premise, which is that these exchanges/publications occur precisely because tournaments don't publish tests themselves. Let's say a setup is created where students post tests and they stay up until a tournament asks for them to be taken down (as was suggested earlier, I think). In such a case, the only thing keeping the tests online is the tournaments' lack of awareness about their presence online in the first place. After all, if a tournament didn't publish the tests themselves, then why would they be okay with someone else posting them online? No, I think the only way this would work is without consent (either the tournaments don't know about it or don't have a say in it) which is not good for this site, I imagine; or with consent, in which case the best course of action would be to convince more tournaments to release tests publicly.
I also feel like the need for all of these sets is vastly exaggerated. If anything, having >20 sets will hurt your success as a competitor by spending time trading rather than studying. Right now, there are at least 5 invitationals that post tests publicly (UMich, UT-Austin, UGA, UF Regionals, and Princeton) although I'm sure there are more that I forgot about. Add to that the Captains Tryouts (they are released in January/February, right?), and you easily have 6-8 tests per event. (For C, probably less so for B but I'm focusing on C because it has more populous trading networks and tournaments that are more likely to complain about trading.) Admittedly, 6-8 tests is not that many, but that number will increase as more invitationals begin releasing tests publicly.
Anyways, my point is that while making tests public is great for the community, you can't truly do it with tournament consent unless you convince more tournaments to release tests publicly. Until that happens, postings like this (and private trading as well) will only worsen the relationship between tournament organizers/test writers and competitors.
But if you still wish to increase the availability of tests, then perhaps you could email tournaments themselves before releasing tests like this? Many will say no, I'm guessing, but some might say yes. Doing so will keep the tournaments happy, keep the site out of trouble, and help competitors.
