1) Sometimes words have two meanings. Science in quizbowl, science in academia, science in the news, science at your local Barnes & Noble. While these are overlapping areas, there is no particular reason that they be strictly coterminous. By longstanding quizbowl convention, "science" includes science biography, regardless of "importance" in academia. Similarly, some try to make the "academic" in "academic competition" mean other than its regular usage. (And even if going by strict dictionary definition, the term "academic" may refer to participants coming from schools without reference to the actual content of the questions used.) 2) Some people are fond of speaking of all scientists as if they are a hivemind. Some of these same people are rather vocal in their hatred of questions about animal questions in biology. At the same time, I know biology people, both in and out of quizbowl, who study animals and (for those in quizbowl) like questions where the answer is an animal. I believe that science questions need not appeal to all scientists, but should appeal to at least some science-minded people. I'll admit, based on my own academic background, I am likely to write at least occasion questions on fluid dynamics or material science, things that are looked down upon by some science-types who find those uninteresting subfields. There is no one, myself included, who I think deserves every question in their particular field be wholly in line with their interests. 3) Some questions require players to distinguish between two similar concepts or objects. This is not necessarily a hose. If someone writes a tossup on the Stark effect, it is almost guaranteed that someone will neg with Zeeman effect. That does not mean one should not write questions on the Stark effect, although that answer is not appropriate at all levels. 4) There's no particular entitlement to winning any games or getting any questions in any particular subject just because you took a class in something, majored in it, or got an advanced degree in it. While superior knowledge predisposed one to getting more tossups than a less knowlegeable player, it does not guarantee total domination. Such a player might have a reasonable expectation of getting the vast majority of questions in a given subject, but 100%, while a possibility, is an unreasonable assumption. 5) Importance, accessibility, and gettability are three separate qualities of any given answer. 6) If you agree with something someone said here, write questions that support those premises. If you disagree with something someone said here, write questions that oppose those premises. If you think someone's being an opionated, overbearing prick who is completely wrong, write questions (completely factual and accurate, of course) that are fully intended to piss that person off. Spite is a nice motivator for writing questions. It works for me, after all. -Anthony
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST