I have no comment on the rest of this, but this is one of my peeves. In the context of criticizing a packet, Erik Nielsen said: "...and that the baseball player question was bonus #19, effectively removing it from the pack." So, should bonus 19 always be something that isn't "important" to the distribution? That seems to be what this comment implies, and what I think a lot of people believe. But that implies that some questions in a round are more important than others to get read -- IOW, that we should get to hear all the Sports/Music/"Important Stuff", but the comic books/weird anecdotes/"Unimportant Stuff" is expendable. We don't hear this argument much in academic competition, presumably because no one confuses the "importance" of a subject with its frequency in the distribution. However, the above contention is, presumably, a mutation of the rule of thumb that if you have some bonuses that aren't as well-written as others then put them at the back of the packet. Even this rule smells a little -- in a perfect world, you rewrite the question, and besides, who wants to play the last part of a close game on crappy questions? It is not in any way acceptable, IMO, to apply this to subjects. Obviously, it short-changes the niche subjects (in AC or trash). Besides, as with AC, you often get to those questions in the late part of a close game between good teams. Do you want the distribution to suddenly right-angle into all the minor categories, or would you appreciate a sports bonus to nail the coffin lid down after getting tossup 19? Subject-wise, the later questions should be a homogeneous mix of questions in the same proportions as the rest of the packet.* This means that, statistically, a sports question (or substitute your favorite Big Four subject here) will sometimes be bonus 19, or even -- gasp! -- bonus 20 or the spare bonus 21. To suggest that its placement toward the end of the packet is inherently a bad idea suggests that the only reason for the minor categories is to fill up that part of the packet we hope we never get to, and that's not the intention. At least, not in the tournaments I have any say in. phil Who now wishes that there was a team at D2K1 whose pseudonyms were Nipsy Russell, Charles Nelson Reilly and Ruth Buzzi. *Not that we reach those lofty heights -- arranging a packet is a series of compromises, and subject is just one factor influencing it. I'm as bad at this as anyone -- to some attendees of TRASH tournaments, probably worse. :) But it's an accident or a compromise for me, not a design principle.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST