Early at the Texas Open mirror of Penn Bowl, there was a tossup on the Wagner Act which mentioned that it was modified by the Taft- Hartley Act. Later on in the tournament, there was a tossup whose answer was the Taft-Hartley Act, which mentioned that it modified the Wagner Act. In my book, that qualifies as a repeat. (The latter question was in the packet that drew four protests in Chicago's game against Yale B, according to Susan on the hsquizbowl board.) Also, when sixty-eight teams write questions for a tournament, it will be a given that some of the teams will not hear their questions read (unless the tournament is about thirty-four rounds long). This happens in ACF Fall and ACF Regionals a lot too, where many teams write packets and only a few get used. The few that get used are usually the best questions, which is the way it should be. --Josh, P. t. altaica --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, mbphilp <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I attended Penn Bowl this weekend as a moderator and must say that I > enjoyed myself immensely, even though this was the first Penn Bowl > where I had moderated as opposed to playing. As a moderator, I did > notice a number of questions that were repeated (though the 2nd St. > Kitts questions was cut before we even started, so most of those > playing on the East coast didn't know about this one) and heard > people griping about repeats on a fairly regular basis. > > My question therefore is, what's the matter with repeats? This is > particularly aimed at repeats that don't share any new information > between the two. The way I see it, there are several places where > repeats should not be a problem. The examples below may be very > primitive, but it applies to just about any subject. > > 1. A creator is used with his/her creation and then the creation > comes up separately. > > Let's take Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn as an example here. Let's > say there's a tossup on Mark Twain that ends with, "FTP, name this > author of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn." Then, a few packets > later there's a tossup or bonus part where the answer is Huckleberry > Finn. I see no problem with that as hearing the first question and > knowing that Mark Twain wrote it does not constitute knowledge of > the book and vice versa. Even if a supposed tossup on Huckleberry > Finn ended "FTP, name this novel by Mark Twain" that doesn't mean > that it should be considered a repeat. As most people know, Mark > Twain wrote a number of novels and this is not a specific giveaway. > I suppose that this would not be true for some select authors (say, > Harper Lee), but I don't think that teams should be griping about > this as a repeat. > > 2. The same answer is used for more than one tossup or bonus part. > > For this example, let's use George W. Bush. There are a lot of > tossups, bonuses, bonus parts, etc. that could be written about > George W. Bush. One could use characterizations made about him by > others in the press, his history as an oil man in Texas, his time as > the owner of the Texas Rangers, what happened in Texas when he was > governer, etc. I see no problem with multiple packets containing > multiple tossups on George W. Bush as long as NO SPECIFIC CLUE IS > REPEATED. Thus, if a tournament director wants to include two > different tossups on President Bush than I don't see a problem with > that as long as the information is different in each tossup. Even > more than tossups, this applies to bonus parts where Bush might be > an answer, and then a separate tossup. For most subjects there is > enough information to write at least a tossup and a bonus part (and > if not, perhaps we shouldn't be asking about them) with different > information and which can both be used in the same tournament. > > > To be sure, I am not advocating a tournament where Mark Twain and > George W. Bush questions come up every round (aside from being > tedious, it would also tend to minimize the benefit of learning new > things on many subjects). I am also not saying that all of Penn > Bowl's repeats fit in these categories (as there were a few > legitimately repeated clues), but a number of the ones I heard > complained about did fit my above categories. When I noticed a > repeat using alike clues came up, I removed the question from > competition, as I think should be done and should try to be avoided > in the editing process. And I am aware, having edited tournaments > previously, that removing repeats can be difficult, no matter how > hard you try. But I am saying that if a subject comes up more than > once in a tournament and no competitive advantage is gained from > having heard the previous question in the same tournament, then I > don't see where the problem is. > > Michael Philpy > Internal Director, Michigan Academic Competitions (though not > speaking for Michigan, MAC, or anyone else but myself)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST