Here are some more things I'd like teams to keep in mind when submitting packets for Regionals. The first set of comments have been HTMLized Jason Paik (Thank You Jason) in an easy to read format at www.dpo.uab.edu/~paik/acf/regionals.html These comments are by no means gospel, but are reflective of what I believe to be common mistakes made by both inexperienced and experienced question writers. Please read these and the earlier suggestions thoroughly as two of the packets I've received have blatantly disregarded these suggestions. The one vital thing these comments don't address is how to write a pyramidal tossup, knowledge of which I am in a sense presupposing. For teams looking for such guidelines please refer to John Sheahan's writing supplement at www.dpo.uab.edu/~paik/acf/writers.html, particularly the subheadings "Tossup Structure" and "General Principles" under the "Question Content" category. Without further ado, some more basic suggestions (Some of these will by nature intercut or repeat some of the information in my earlier post): 1. When trying to assess the appropriate difficulty level for a tossup answer, consult Regionals packets from 1999 onward. If your answer has not come up AT LEAST twice as a prior tossup or bonus answer, then you should almost certainly not be writing a tossup with said answer. It is for this reason that an individual, having read Balzac in an freshman or sophmore class but being new to the game, will be able to discern that a tossup on Pere Goriot or Cousine Bette is greatly preferrable to a tossup on Lost Illusions or The Wild Ass' Skin. Note that this is not a value judgment on the works themselves, only their gettability at the Regionals level. 2. Along the lines of difficulty, one should always follow this rule. Very sparingly or never write a tossup on a subject that is only gettable by a "cutesy" or "sounds like" or "shares its name with" type giveaway. Example: "After ordination as an Anglican priest in 1883, this historian moved to Europe to pursue another profession. As an Alpinist he made 1,750 ascents by 1900, including the first winter ascent of the Jungfrau. FTP, name this American mountaineer, who shares his surname with our 30th president" Why this is bad: This question is bad for many reasons, but illustrates the fundamental point I am trying to make. I don't mean to belittle the historical importance of William Coolidge, but I would suspect that 99% of the players would not be able to answer this question until the last two words. These questions simply make players angry, create the wrong kind of buzzer race, and, in my opinion, show a total lack of regard on the part of the question writer. What to do about it: Don't write questions like this. If the only clue you can find about an individual or thing is its similarity to another more well-known thing, then it's not question worthy. If you still feel the need to include it in a question, then use it as a lead-in. A good example - a tossup on the English architect John Nash would be a bad idea, but a tossup on the American mathematician John Nash in a "name's the same" vein with substantial lead-in information on said architect would certainly make for an interesting question, and serve to introduce John Nash the architect (who is a significant architect) to the majority of Regionals level competition (Perhaps paving the way for a John Nash architect TU a few years down the road). How's that for a run-on sentence. 3. Distribution diversity requirements apply over every aspect of your packet. A packet with tossups on King Lear, Waiting for Godot, Travesties, Heartbreak House, and The Alchemist is as equally bad as a packet with tossups on the Vichy government, treaty of Verdun, Francis I, and the Estates-General. For the same reason, a packet with a science tossup on Eratosthenes (science biography is bad), a philosophy tossup on Thales, a history tossup on Philip of Macedon, and a literature tossup on The Thebiad is unacceptable. Just because you don't repeat genre, convention, race, nationality, or format within a category, you do not have license to repeat them across categories. 4. Don't write your questions with the purpose of having them read for the benefit or any indvidual player. For example, I know that Team X is obsessed with the work of David Hockney, so I'm going to write this wonderful tossup on "A Bigger Splash," or I know that Bill Williamson is a big fan of Schumann, so I'll write this tossup on Kreisleriana. Why this is bad: (I'm sure I don't have to say, but . . .) Most importantly, these questions even if they are written with the strictest pyramidality, show a fundamental favoritism that should absolutely be avoided. As a consequence, they also end up being way too difficult, as both of the above two examples would be for Regoinals (and Nationals as well). I don't know how frequently this happens, but I know that I have been guilty of it in the past. If you catch yourself doing this, please correct it right away, as it's completely unfair to the other teams. 5. If you're unsure about difficulty or characterization of a subject within categories (or anything about packets), consult me. Generally, these decisions are pretty subjective and will vary depending on the editor, but for each year the head editor's say is final. So for example if you're wondering whether your tossup on The Chocolate War, or Flatland, or The Time Machine is considered literature (for the purposes of your packet), then please ask me. I would tell you the latter two are, but the The Chocolate War is not. If you asked me why, then I would respond: in general sci-fi and children's lit do not satisfy your literature quota, but certain novels can transcend their genre. I would argue that Flatland and The Time Machine do and The Chocolate War does not. Feel free to debate this point to your heart's content, but if you are unsure please ask and save me the trouble of possibly having to replace a question and give you the luxury of possibly having another one of your questions heard. If you've read this far, thanks, and please don't hesitate to e-mail me if you have any questions at all about the packets. You can e- mail me at subash at uchicago dot edu or suby10 at yahoo dot com Thanks, Subash
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST