Sorry if we're boring everyone y'all... :) Dave again: << Re the "fill-in-the-blank" critique, some thoughtful question writers will include (accept *blank* on early buzz). >> Not that I remember with Panasonic. It's all right or all wrong... unless that's changed. In which case, the next variation to that is "add the following numbers missing from this list together..." in which you don't know when the last blank occurs... but I don't know how often that's come up. Dave: << But I have also seen a number of high school students who buzz in early without really listening to the question. I can understand an early buzz on "what middle-English author. . .?", the answer is obviously Chaucer as few high school students have heard of Gower or Langland. Yet I've seen a number buzz in early on "this nineteenth-century New England author"... as well. >> The major fault then lies on the question writer (IMO). We both know that listening skills are perhaps the most important skill to learn in quiz bowl (even over buzzer speed). To that extent, as a good writer, you have to be able to know what clues can cause knee-jerk... er, buzzer-flinching responses. This goes back to the ability to write questions: part of the process of writing the question is learning how to present information that should result in the actual reward of points based on one's depth of knowledge on a topic, rather than necessarily a "reaction" to a generally-known clue. Sure, 9 times out of 10 whenever one writes "French rococo artist" it's Fragonard. So try not to write "French rococo artist" in the first sentence of the question. [And yes, our team has asked questions on the other French rococo artists... :) . ] At least for our college team here whenever we write questions for our HS competitions (specifically Celebrity Shoot Biography Tournament and the Great Lakes Regional Academic Championship tournament), we make sure that the questions emphasize depth of knowledge early on. As for why question writers don't like different formats... as one person who's been in charge of constructing one format that is totally different from qb and knowledge of other tossup/bonus formats that use totally different rules, and Ohio format... each format has a different dynamic and in some cases ways to play around it strategically. You as a writer have to know that reboundable bonuses preclude you from writing "yes or no" boni, for example. Example of Sage Enterprises questions (which they use for the Rutgers Academic Challenge (TV)): <a href=http://www.challenge.rutgers.edu/3way41.html target=new>http://www.challenge.rutgers.edu/3way41.html</a> . By the way... I don't like the way their tossups (in their 3-way matches) are structured as they seem in some cases... octohedral. [The situation with the Rutgers TV comp is an entirely different story altogether, which I'd defer to my colleague at Rutgers for more info. :) ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST