Biography questions

arsaces_i <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Thu, 10 Apr 2003 20:21:27 -0000

    Mr. pahk;
      Your post raised some interesting points, but I respectfully 
disagree with some of them and am interested in your thoughts (and 
those of the forum) on where we are at variance

For example:

> a tossup on hertzsprung, incidentally, would also suck for other 
> reasons. to a scientist, he's really, really only known for one 
> thing; so an entire tossup on him would necessarily be biographical 
> and useless to an actual astrophysicist until the giveaway. 

I understand your frustration, but it must be remembered that all 
science questions aren't pitched at scientists necessarily, but at 
all players regardless of their fields of interest. In an ideal world 
the scientist (who ostensibly has the most knowledge) should get the 
tossup earliest, but I don't think science questions (or any 
questions, regardless of the genre, really) should be approached with 
the attitude that _only_ those persons in the field should get them.

Furthermore, lots of people are only known for one thing. Examples 
which spring to mind include William Calley, Mussolini, and William 
the Conqueror. I do not believe my assumption is mistaken that these 
are either asked about often or are recognised as fairly canonical 
answers.

> science biography bad.

I continue not to understand this position, and so far have never had 
it explained such that I am completely enlightened. Why is "science 
biography" bad? I have been told that this is because scientists 
almost never are taught biography in their classes; even conceding 
the point that all science questions are and ought to be written 
solely for scientists (which I do not), I wonder how many musicians 
are taught musical biography. Are music biographies then bad as well? 

> while we're on the subject, i'm unhappy with the ICT tossup on the 
> larson (larsson? larsen?) ice shelf. not because it was about a non-
> ross ice shelf, but because it mentioned "this ice shelf" before 
> saying "ross," thereby awarding the winner of a buzzer race in 
> practically every room with a -5. you can't write questions 
> explicitly to hose people. that's bad writing. even if you're one 
of 
> those players that puts up great TU/I ratios and thinks people 
should 
> be less aggressive early in the question, that doesn't give you a 
> right to put traps like that into tossups to penalize those nasty 
> players who buzz in lot and occasionally get some wrong. i

I do not understand your point here. Apparently your difficulty is 
not with a question on a non-Ross ice shelf, which suggests that you 
acknowledge the fact that more than one ice shelf is knowable (I 
really have no idea; I only knew the one, and barely that). If, then, 
you concede that more than one ice shelf is knowable (and I'll take 
your word for it), this implies that the word "ice shelf" is not 
uniquely identifying; if not uniquely identifying, why buzz in on 
what is not a uniquely identifying clue, if that is where most buzzes 
took place? If it is or should be uniquely identifying, because only 
one ice shelf is knowable, why not say as much?

I hope I haven't misconstrued your argument, and readily allow that 
it is possible that I am stupid enough to have done so; for that I 
apologise in advance. If, however, I have it right, can you add more 
to your thoughts to make them more accessible to me?

S