Re: A Science Current Events Proposal (And Some CE Random Blasts)

• From: ZAMM_Phaedrus <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 05:53:03 -0000
• Message-ID: <arppfv+83un_at_...>

--- In quizbowl_at_y..., "nephelococcygia" <dthorsle_at_u...> wrote:
> 
> The zeroth law of all packet submission guidelines is "Follow these 
> guidelines, even if you don't agree with them."  No one would go to 
> the effort of precisely delineating what sorts of questions are OK 
> and what sorts are not OK and then not expect people to follow them.
> 
> Therefore, if you have a strong opinion about current events science 
> questions or about how many pop culture questions should be in a 
> packet or about there not being enough Canadian history, you have 
two 
> options:
> 
> 1) Stretch the distribution as far as possible towards your 
preferred 
> stance, within the limits provided. (For example, I always write as 
> many math questions as the distribution allows)

This is more or less what I am suggesting. Few distributions are so 
detailed as to absolutely preclude the most recent advances in science 
any more than they preclude the most recent novels which attain a 
minimal level of "academic-ness."

> 2) Choose to attend another tournament whose guidelines are more in 
> tune with your ideas as to what qb packets should be like.

Diversity is a good thing.
 
> What's not acceptable is to use your packet to grind an ideological 
> axe and ignore the distribution in order to try and make some sort 
of 
> point.  That's the way to make yourself one of the most hated 
writers 
> in quizbowl.

One can easily grind an ideological axe without ignoring a 
distribution. To absolutely prevent that, you'd pretty much have to 
specify which answers to write on.
 
Anthony