The particular tossup is not a problem; I think the opinion that the first clue is somehow entirely about Anthony Burgess and thus innappropriate is a minority one. However, there are many non-arbitrary, non-"tyrannical" reasons for having a strict distribution of general categories. The fact is that people usually take classes, have personal interests, and otherwise acquire knowledge in one general group at a time, which are very well represented by large divisions such as "literature," "geography," etc. Literature players who don't know science, RMP players who don't know current events, etc are very common. The distribution exists to prevent players from being able to dominate a game based on knowledge of a few subjects. The specific numbers are open for change, but without keeping most questions on a single topic, how are we to avoid putting 1 tossup that rewards knowledge of French literature in the Round 1 packet and then 5 such tossups in the round 2 packet? If we start rewarding the same category of knowledge differently, then standings lose their meaning. An occasional (1-2 per round) mixed-subject tossup, in the "general knowledge" category, and closely watched with an eye towards overall balance by the editor, is not a problem. Allowing or encouraging such tossups to be anything but rare will lead to severely unfair tournaments. --M.W. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST