A report on the SEQC October monthly by Aniruddha Sen Gupta
Never expect a lawyer to wind up anything quickly. Raunaq Rao lived up to professional stereotype with his quiz, the October monthly. At least, during its first couple of rounds. He had devised a complex, multiple-clue formula for the questions in the opening two rounds, which made for interesting quizzing, but involved a lot of people running helter-skelter, some vociferous arguments, much confusion regarding outcomes and the delivery of judgements from the bench. A typical day in court, so to speak.
After the first two rounds, though, the dust kind of settled, and the remaining eight rounds sped by like a... um, well... like a case on speed. The level of the questions was such that the quiz was enjoyed by everyone present. Those who often sit stupefied through SEQC quizzes, looking like they've suffered a roadroller incident, were for once animated and joining in the hubbub. One teammate of mine celebrated what he said was the first question at an SEQC quiz that he had been able to answer.
The scoring, however, went for a bit of a toss, with the two scorers split by irreconcilable differences. The hand of an international betting syndicate is suspected.
At the end of the day, we had probably the first SEQC quiz where the scores were not formally announced, as a combination of the lateness of the finish and the discrepancies of the scoring saw people departing sans results. I suppose we'll know who won when Rajiv puts up the scores on this blog.
As Rajiv put it (you know I'd never utter such words on my own), Raunaq lost his QMing virginity in style, and we all enjoyed the defloration. We all look forward to being party to more such cherry-picking incidents in future SEQC quizzes. Caligula never had it so good!