People Qs aren't so bad

• From: stipenn
• Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 19:31:55 -0700
• Message-ID: <000TP8F8R.000VU74QD.12170551-quizbowl_at_...>

<<Now dont get me wrong, I encourage and
would like all of the answers to questions to be works,
historical events, or contributions to a given field, but if
they are not substantive it defeats the purpose. In
other words I dont believe biographical information is
necessarily anathema to determining who has the most
knowledge about a given subject.>>

So, in the
space of a few years, we've gone from People Bowl, to
calls for No-People Bowl.

This disturbs me, if
for no other reason than the fact that it
unnecessarily limits the universe of available material, and,
in some cases, can drive up the difficulty of the
game. [I, for one, do not agree with those who say that
science biography should be thrown out altogether: while
the actual content of the science should predominate,
it still requires a human element.]

While I
don't enjoy playing People Bowl, I would be just as
reluctant to play on a format where TUs on people were
either restricted to a small number (e.g., the Iron City
tournament) or eliminated altogether. [I will state, however,
that I don't think you can assemble a well-written,
diverse packet today with the majority of answers being
people.]

I think a better goal than eliminating biography Qs
altogether would be to find ways to make such Qs better: in
my mind, the best Qs find a way to relate a person's
accomplishments to that person's life story (e.g., *why* was it
relevant that person X visited place Y, and so
on).

--STI