5-10-15 (or Re: expanding the canon: art history)

• From: nate_1729 <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 05:39:29 -0000
• Message-ID: <b34e2h+par3_at_...>

My apologies, as I've posted this before, but I firmly believe it 
and it seems to be widely neglected.

5-10-15's are fine.  Really really hard 15's aren't.  It's based on 
the faulty logic that harder questions should be worth more points --
 to see how false this is, consider the case of a bonus consisting 
of one impossible 30 or 30 easy easy 1's -- average conversion 
should be constant among bonus formats.

There's nothing wrong with a canon-expanding 10, or even a 5, in a 5-
10-15.  Indeed, I think that if you don't think it'll be much 
answered, it should be a 5.

--Nate

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, gamaliel8 <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, walter_shandy <no_reply_at_y...> 
wrote:
> > I don't think that's any cause for apology.  The 5-10-15 bonus is
> ill-
> > designed, and I was under the impression that it was rapidly 
going 
> > the way of the list bonus, one-part bonus, etc.  (I'm fairly 
sure +


> > Penn Bowl didn't use them this year.)  If there are any people 
> > actively in favor of the 5-10-15, I haven't heard of them.
> 
> 5-10-15s aren't so bad, there should be a place for some relatively
> more obscure info, but 
> there shouldn't be an overabundance of them in a packet or 
tournament.
> 
> What I passionately hate are 15-15 bonuses.  Not only is it far far
> to obscure for one 
> question, it tells me that the question writer was too *(^!^#_at_(*ing
> lazy to come up with a 
> third answer on that topic.