In defense of rock-paper-scissors...

Chris White <*cwhite2_at_benjaminthedonkey.yahoo.invalid*> · Sun, 13 Apr 2003 03:31:29 -0000

For those that don't feel like reading the whole message, here's the
executive summary: brief comments rehashing what a lot of people have
already said, but with a Div II perspective; then a long winded
discussion on how, despite the claims of the nation's best players,
R-P-S is in fact an excellent subject for a quizbowl question.

First off, I find it interesting that virtually all of the questions
criticized by Subash et al. were in the Div II packets as well, the
exceptions being point groups and possibly Popol Vuh (I can't
remember).  Since I'm an eminently mediocre player, I didn't manage to
catch the purported suckitude of many of the examples, though I got a
few; one of the few non-music examples I did catch that leaps to mind
right now is Hyskos, which I almost powered despite not knowing *any*
history.  (I probably lost about four or five powers by holding out
because *it can't be that easy, can it?*)

The music, however, had a whole bunch of easy early clues that I did
notice (mainly because music is my strongest subject).  I didn't find
the Cage one  quite as bad, if only because I happen to know of other
composers who have used prepared piano (I ended up sitting until
Imaginary Landscape in the next sentence), Appalachian Spring was
pretty poor, but the worst offenders were a pair that I can only hope
were'nt read in Div II.  There was a "Minimalism" tossup that started
with "LaMonte Young and Terry Riley...", the two *founders* of
Minimalism.  Granted, they aren't as famous as Reich, Glass, or Adams,
but Riley at least (if not Young) is well known.   There are plenty of
British minimalists who nobody knows that would have been better
leadins.  The single most egregious question of the tournament IMHO,
however, was the "blues scale" tossup that BEGAN BY LISTING THE NOTES
OF THE BLUES SCALE.  I lost a buzzer race on that one.  No bitterness
sir, not a bit.

So, I come home thinking that it was an excellent bunch of NAQT
questions, and I see all the flaws that the experts have pointed out.
 A bit disheartening, but it is good to know that a) NAQT does listen
to its customers and b) many of them are willing to make it a better
product in the future, which is good news for those with plenty of
playing year left in them, like me.  The tournament was well-run,
almost all of the officials were excellent, and we had a good time
(despite being without our best player, but that's another story).

As for science biography, I'm well aware that it doesn't deserve to be
a major part of the science distribution, and I'm also aware that most
science bio writers are non-science people, but if it's well-written
and follows certain guidelines, I see no reason to ban it entirely. 
My rule is, as long as all the clues are pertinent to the subject it's
under, and (assuming it's filed under science) it doesn't disadvantage
those with substantitive sci. knowledge, then it's okay.  Examples:  A
tossup listing a smattering of Euler's accomplishments is okay for
science, a Lavosier (sp?) tossup discussing how he got screwed by the
French Revolution is okay for history, and a Linus Pauling tossup that
talks about Vitamin C megadoses should be GK.  Faraday's bookbindering
should be banned.  I've never been a fan of strict distribution 
requirements, and many good questions can skirt multiple categories.

As for Scott's suggestion to, when possible, only write what you
know... well, it's an excellent suggestion, one that I've had to stick
to with Swarthmore, considering the general inexperience of the team,
and one that should be heeded by any team who doesn't have all-stars
like Wiener and Subash.

This is far longer than I intended it to be, so the
rock-paper-scissors defense in the next post.

-Chris