Re: Titles/Too Much Information(?)

• From: ehillema
• Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:21:11 -0800
• Message-ID: <000U6OAI7.001GAEPAD.12170551-quizbowl_at_...>

I'm just giving my own opinion on interpreting
the NAQT rules on this, not a company one. The rule
clearly could be clearer. But I don't see it as saying
that you can add an article to a literary title where
it doesn't exist, in a manner that can only be taken
to mean that you think it part of the title (like
"The Twelfth Night" or "A Twelfth Night" -- these
should be wrong). Saying "The San Francisco Chronicle"
is different; there is no way for a moderator to
know whether the sense of the reponse is "The San
Francisco Chronicle" or "the 'San Francisco Chronicle,'" if
you see the distinction, so it makes sense to say
that this latter is OK.

I think the accent of
interpretation should be on the previous rule, that if an
incorrect leading article is used, the response is
incorrect. I think *that* should mean that the insertion of
a leading article where there is not one, where
that is unambigously being done, is
incorrect.

I'm not saying that's necessarily what the NAQT rules
do wind up saying, as they are presently written,
and having seen this discussion I'd certainly favor a
rewrite. I do not think it was NAQT's intent, back in 1996
when these were written up, to be any different in
this respect from the normal quizbowl circuit
practice, or to allow responses like "A Twelfth Night" to
be accepted. If I'm wrong, and the intent of those
who wrote NAQT's rules way back when (not me) was
that such a response should be accepted, then I'm all
for a rule change!