[Hunt03] 2004 MIT Mystery Hunt and Large Teams

[Eric Albert <Eric Albert alumni brown edu>]

The restrictions on team size for the 2004 MIT Mystery Hunt are just fuzzy 
enough to make life challenging for me as a team leader.

If the Hunt leaders had forbidden teams of larger than 15 members, things 
would have been clear: I was fully prepared to have our team opt out and 
instead *run* our own Hunt during IAP (on a different weekend, of course).

We could thereby have carried on the traditions of the Mystery Hunt 
(which, among other things, has for ever and for always been a large-team 
hunt with loads of non-MIT participation) for the hundreds of people who 
have come to expect and love this event, and who, most importantly, cannot 
imagine breaking up their close-knit teams of more than a decade's 
duration.

And I would have been delighted to also participate in the 
kinda-Mystery-Hunt-like thingamabob that the current Hunt leaders wanted 
to do.

BUT.  The Hunt leaders seem to have left large teams some wiggle room to 
stay together.  There is the strong implication that the Hunt may not be 
as much fun for such teams, and that it would behoove all teams to make 
sure they have some (current) MIT students in their ranks.  BUT, large 
teams do not seem to be forbidden.

So what do we do?

* * *

Well, I *like* being on a big team.

Not because it gives an advantage in winning the Hunt.  Anyone who's been 
on any of my teams has heard me say I don't care if we win, and anyone 
who's been on many of my teams knows I mean it.  Besides, I don't think 
having a large team (at least, our kind of large team) maximizes our 
competitiveness.  If I were to cherry-pick our top 15 solvers and 
rigorously ride herd on them throughout the weekend, I think we'd have a 
better chance of winning.

I just don't see why I'd want to do that.  It sounds like WORK!

*My* idea of a fun weekend is hanging out with friends and friends-to-be, 
collaboratively working on challenging tasks at a (relatively) leisurely 
pace, while catching up on each other's lives, reminiscing about past 
Hunts, and bringing newcomers into the fold.

And that could be Plan A.

Bad point:  1) The only way I know to design a Hunt for teams of 10 to 15 
is to hand out only a small number of puzzles at a time.  Big teams then 
have little advantage, or maybe even a disadvantage, because having ten 
people look at each of five puzzles doesn't speed things up much -- the 
fastest solver of the ten is usually going to be the deciding factor.  So, 
for all but our top solvers, the weekend could be lots of chatting, 
interspersed with not so much solving.

Good points:  1) Our team gets to continue to enjoy each other's company.  
2) Our team gets to stay together for future Hunts, which, if there is a 
God, will immediately revert back to their correct large-team, 
no-holds-barred format.  (And, if they don't, we can still step in at any 
time and run one to show how it should be done.)  3) Our team isn't the 
one that starts the two-Popes schism.

Here's a Plan B:  Folks on this team who want to ensure themselves of lots 
of solving in January could break off into a separate team.

Bad points:  1) No matter how the team splits, there will be people on 
both halves of the split who miss being with people on the other half of 
the split.  2) History says that, despite the best intentions in the 
world, this would be a permanent split.  We would never be one team again. 
 3) Our team has a very wide spread in solving skill levels (with a much 
higher variance than many teams).  If most of the good solvers ended up on 
one side of the split, the weaker solving side would be at a significant 
disadvantage in the next Hunt, and perhaps for the next several years.  
This could make Hunts much less fun for them. 

Good points:  1)  Both sides would get more stuff to solve in the 2004 
Hunt.

* * * 

Our team has split several times in the past, and will continue to do so.  
This is unavoidable because: 1) we maintain an open- door welcome policy, 
and 2) we're really fun.  These two conditions ensure our membership grows 
and grows.

Then, at some point, some people feel the team has grown too large for 
their tastes.  Or, they want to test their own leadership skills.  Or they 
identify with a subgroup of the team more strongly than the team itself.  
Or all three.  And they break away.

I was very sad the first time this happened.  Now I've come to accept it 
as part of life's ebb and flow.  I look out proudly at all the Mystery 
Hunt teams being lead by alumnae/i of this team.

But such splits should not be casual and happenstance, based on external 
ahistorical fiat.  Such splits should be organic, based on internal 
decisions in the fullness of time.

* * * 

I'm going with Plan A.  I think the benefits of keeping our team together 
outweigh the penalties of one year of reduced solving opportunities.  
(Remember, if we'd won last year, we wouldn't be getting to do *any* 
solving in 2004!)

Team members are, of course, encouraged to send their thoughts to this 
list.  (I've also CC'd this message to the leaders/members of several 
other large teams that have been around for a while, and would be 
interested to hear their plans for 2004.)

-- Eric

P.S.  If the ridiculous small-team idea continues after 2004, I will call 
on our crack team of constructors in 2005 and we'll bring back the 
original Mystery Hunt tradition: *two* Hunts each January, one for small 
teams (then, one or two people), and one for big teams (then, mostly 
fraternities).  The small-team Hunt quickly died out for all sorts of good 
reasons (here's one: a ten-person team can't put on a good 3-day 24/7 Hunt 
for hundreds of people), and it will again.