Here's an idea. Some people have made the claims that certain forms of this game we love and love to complain about are "adaptive and responsive." Take the next few submission tournaments through, let's say, the end of February. If you think current events science has a place in the science distribution, make an effort to write such a question for every packet you write between now and the end of February. Remember that sometimes the injection of current information is just a clue or a bonus part rather than a tossup answer that wasn't a possible answer a year ago because no one had yet discovered it. Don't write a half-assed current events question just because you can, but only if you find sufficient info to do so. Don't write a Quaoar question and, for god's sake, don't write a spelling Quaoar question unless you want to be lynched. Don't get lazy and write questions on the most recent science Nobel Laureates and their work because you just know everyone else will. In other words, generally write the type of questions suggested by Kelly McKenzie (mac4731). If sufficient people (who don't write bad questions) feel that the current events of the science has a place within the science distribution then tournament editors will be put in the position of either a) bowing to the quizbowl's (perhaps literally) unwashed masses and allowing at least some of those questions through or b) writing a ton of replacement science questions. On the other hand, if very few people write current events science, well, we can assume this issue is only important to an occasionally shrill, ignorable few. Then again, perhaps I'm just saying this because it would amuse me to stir up chaos in the off-chance that it will annoy editors of upcoming tournaments with questions they hate and I'd like to see if anyone is sufficiently quaking in their boots at the prospect of a deluge of currents events questions to actually make a proactive announcement banning them. Then again, if people write horrid current event science, they probably would also write horrid non-CE science, and you'd be replacing their questions anyways, so what do you editors have to fear. And while we're on the subject of current events: To Stephen Webb: If you find the right "new and advanced" clues, an aggressive player can make a good educated guess, just as in any other field. Of course, I've noted that a lot of science players are of the timid variety, negging a relatively lower rate than players whose strengths lie in other fields. And the top teams and players are not just the most knowledgeable but the ones who efficiently use their superior knowledge base to make good educated guesses without being absolutely certain. Rotten guessers will practically never be great players. To Peter Onyisi (ponyisi): One freelance bonus on the kings of Swaziland to the first editor of a tournament you are going to who will take it. To Sarah (cellist_1981): The New York Times was required reading in all of my political science classes that were not political philosophy. And other classes, perhaps on on Middle East history, will include current events if it is to be comprehensive. I suspect other people are or have been required to do similar reading. To Matt Weiner: While I can appreciate the sentiment that CE should lean towards important and lasting information, I would no more restrict it to American and world politics than I would similarly restrict history to the same. If the clues are there use 'em, and all the whiners be damned. To everyone: Get an idea of how many tournaments you plan on going to, and squirel away a few current events questions for later. Too much election junk during the election season is just as annoying as too much basketball during basketball season. And what is the statute of limitations on current events anyways? Since the tournament announcement? Three months? Six months? Twelve months? Two, three, five years? Anthony de Jesus, quizbowl agent of entropy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST