I must strongly disagree with my good friend Tom's analysis of the "Mad King" situation. In my book, if the answer you gave is a correct alternate answer, you get points, unless that alternate answer has _already_ been given in the question. The reason for the 'unless' is that, in my mind, once you've heard "Mad King", answering "Mad King" is tantamount to answering "the man about whom you wrote the question." No prompt is necessary, because that's a de facto stalling tactic that indicates you don't know the answer. I fail to understand why Tom would penalize someone for giving an admittedly correct answer but failing to read the mind of the question writer. That to me seems to run directly counter to one of our fundamental principles, which is to reward the person who knows the answer first. I guess my beef with Tom is that his idea of "knowing the answer" equates to "knowing what the question writer wants you to say" whereas my view of knowing the answer means "correctly identifying the person about whom the question is written." In this case, up until you hear the words "Mad King", saying "Mad King Ludwig" is correct. Furthermore, I will go even further by adding that this particular example has an added layer of complexity to it, because you have the issue about whether or not to prompt on Ludwig.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST