With the first deadline approaching, I'd like to just point to some recurring problems I've seen in questions - problems that I hope to have teams address before they submit their packets.
1. Extended and vague stylistic references to a writer, painter, musician, philosopher, or other figures in the humanities are unnecessary and often frustrating to those listening to the question, particularly when they come early in the question.
Example: "His intermittent surrealist depictions and use of vivid color belied the realism and monochromatic pigments that the public associated with him."
Why this is bad: Unless you have incredible art knowledge (and even then you can't be sure), you have no way of knowing that this is uniquely identifying. These sentences simply serve to cause many players to drone the question out, slow down the flow of the packet, and are usually a clear indication that the information was plagiarized from a reference source (paraphrase to your heart's content). Even if you can determine with confidence that it is a unique description, you should never begin the question with it, as you've most likely created an immediate buzzer race.
What you can do about it: Keep stylistic descriptions succinct and use them only with the foreknowledge that they bring important and unique information to the question.
2. Beginning a tossup on a person with a quote about that person is often a bad idea.
Example: When Emerson asked this man, "How many men possessed of your views, who will remain after you, are going to put them in practice?" he candidly replied, "Not one."
Why this is bad: These quotes usually exemplify the frequent problems of vague clues and unnecessary filler alluded to above. If it's a good quote, then it's probably a well known quote and makes a bad lead-in. If it's a quote that you know is not well known, then what's the point - use something more concrete. A rare exception is a humorous quote that does not exceed 1-2 lines (every packet needs humor but not to the exception of brevity), but keep in mind that more than one of these in a packet is not a good idea. Note that your use of a clue with a quote that also dicusses stylistic details is anathema and will result in the wrath of both Earl Boykins and myself.
What you can do about it: Don't use quotes as leadins.
3. Beginning a tossup on a major individual with that individual's first or last work should be done with caution and should be avoided in the majority of biography questions (keep in mind that questions about creations are almost always preferred to questions about their creator)
Example: "His first novel Cup of Gold . . . "
Why this is bad: Players with no knowledge of John Steinbeck's body of work will be able to buzz in right away with simple list knowledge. Clearly my use of the word "major" above is highly subjective, but for ACF Regionals I trust A teams to be able to understand why Dostoyevsky would be major and Lermontov wouldn't or why Monet would major and Camille Pissarro wouldn't. (strictly in a QB sense)
What you can do about it: Simply reorder the occurrence of your titles - "His early novels like To a God Unkown and The Pastures of Heaven were less successful than his first, a life of Henry Morgan entitled Cup of Gold.
4. Reorder your clues when describing characters in a work and their occupation or significance, i.e. when you're using appositives.
Example: "Its protagonist Clym Yeobright, a former diamond merchant in Paris, loses his eyesight."
Why this is bad: The use of appositives, however grammatically correct and appropriate to the smooth flow of a tossup, often damages the pyramidality of a tossup. Someone who only has quizbowl knowledge about Return of the Native is just as likely to buzz after the first four words of that clue as someone who has read the novel (the clue itself is not ideal, but at the point at the question in which one would refer to the protagonist it should be appropriate).
What you can do about it: Reorder your clues - Begin with your noun phrase or noun instead of the noun it renames. For example: "The former diamond merchant in Paris who is now losing his eyesight is this novel's protagonist, Clym Yeobright."
5. Beginning science tossups with the inventors or formulators of the apparatus or concept being asked about is almost always not a good idea. On a related note, a tossup on a concept that primarily discusses its formulator is not really a substantive tossup.
Examples: "Cornell, Ketterle, and Wieman won a Nobel for achieving it . . ." or "Its formulator, younger brother of physicist Karl, became head of the physics department at Washington University in St. Louis in 1920."
Why these are bad: Someone who knows nothing about the Bose-Einstein condensate (and I mean nothing) would be able to buzz on that first leadin. The second leadin, purportedly a tossup on the Compton effect, tells us nothing about the effect and only gives us some data on Arthur Compton. The latter, though poorly written and far from preferred, is still within the bounds of usability, whereas the former is not.
What you can do about it: Get facts on the Bose-Einstein condensate and Compton effect and try to organize them to the best of your ability from most obscure to most well-known.
6. When trying to assess the appropriate difficulty level for a tossup answer, consult Regionals packets from 1999 onward. If your answer has not come up AT LEAST twice as a prior tossup or bonus answer, then you should almost certainly not be writing a tossup with said answer.
It is for this reason that an individual, having read Balzac in an freshman or sophomore class but being new to the game, will be able to discern that a tossup on Pere Goriot or Cousine Bette is greatly preferrable to a tossup on Lost Illusions or The Wild Ass' Skin. Note that this is not a value judgment on the works themselves, only their gettability at the Regionals level.
7. Very sparingly or never write a tossup on a subject that is only gettable by a "cutesy" or "sounds like" or "shares its name with" type giveaway.
Example: "After ordination as an Anglican priest in 1883, this historian moved to Europe to pursue another profession. As an Alpinist he made 1,750 ascents by 1900, including the first winter ascent of the Jungfrau. FTP, name this American mountaineer, who shares his surname with our 30th president"
Why this is bad: This question is bad for many reasons, but illustrates the fundamental point I am trying to make. I don't mean to belittle the historical importance of William Coolidge, but I would suspect that 99% of the players would not be able to answer this question until the last two words. These questions simply make players angry, create the wrong kind of buzzer race, and, in my opinion, show a total lack of regard on the part of the question writer.
What to do about it: Don't write questions like this. If the only clue you can find about an individual or thing is its similarity to another more well-known thing, then it's not question worthy. If you still feel the need to include it in a question, then use it as a lead-in.
A good example: a tossup on the English architect John Nash would be a bad idea, but a tossup on the American mathematician John Nash in a "name's the same" vein with substantial lead-in information on said architect would certainly make for an interesting question, and serve to introduce John Nash the architect (who is a significant architect) to the majority of Regionals level competition (Perhaps paving the way for a John Nash architect TU a few years down the road). How's that for a run-on sentence.
8. Distribution diversity requirements apply over every aspect of your packet.
A packet with tossups on King Lear, Waiting for Godot, Travesties, Heartbreak House, and The Alchemist is as equally bad as a packet with tossups on the Vichy government, treaty of Verdun, Francis I, and the Estates-General. For the same reason, a packet with a science tossup on Eratosthenes (science biography is bad), a philosophy tossup on Thales, a history tossup on Philip of Macedon, and a literature tossup on The Thebiad is unacceptable. Just because you don't repeat genre, convention, race, nationality, or format within a category, you do not have license to repeat them across categories.
9. Don't write your questions with the purpose of having them read for the benefit or any indvidual player.
Example: I know that Team X is obsessed with the work of David Hockney, so I'm going to write this wonderful tossup on "A Bigger Splash," or I know that Bill Williamson is a big fan of Schumann, so I'll write this tossup on Kreisleriana.
Why this is bad: (I'm sure I don't have to say, but . . .) Most importantly, these questions even if they are written with the strictest pyramidality, show a fundamental favoritism that should absolutely be avoided. As a consequence, they also end up being way too difficult, as both of the above two examples would be for Regionals (and Nationals as well). I don't know how frequently this happens, but I know that I have been guilty of it in the past. If you catch yourself doing this, please correct it right away, as it's completely unfair to the other teams.
10. If you're unsure about difficulty or characterization of a subject within categories (or anything about packets), consult me.
Generally, these decisions are pretty subjective and will vary depending on the editor, but for each year the head editor's say is final. So for example if you're wondering whether your tossup on The Chocolate War, or Flatland, or The Time Machine is considered literature (for the purposes of your packet), then please ask me. I would tell you the latter two are, but the The Chocolate War is not. If you asked me why, then I would respond: in general sci-fi and children's lit do not satisfy your literature quota, but certain novels can transcend their genre. I would argue that Flatland and The Time Machine do and The Chocolate War does not. Feel free to debate this point to your heart's content, but if you are unsure please ask and save me the trouble of possibly having to replace a question and give you the luxury of possibly having another one of your questions heard.