Continuing with Question 2... [Though this question was complex enough as it was, perhaps I should have asked for even more precise breakdowns regarding the two issues conjoined here. Although C was the clear winner in a three-way option race, combining A and B yields half of players being opposed to switch-subject giveaways. Combining A and C, a large majority favors a policy of answerability for tossups, either by eliminating those expected to be largely unanswered for a given event, or by adding information to increase answerability, even if it involves a sudden switch of subject. Many people's comments favor a middle path, which is essentially where NAQT comes out on this in practice now: there's nothing wrong with a few unanswered tossups, so long as that's not too many; there's nothing wrong with a switch-subject final clue to an otherwise overly difficult tossup, so long as that's kept within bounds and the giveaways aren't insulting. NAQT's general approach to this situation has been, when an editor is presented with a tossup that seems likely to be unanswered as-is by most teams, to consider whether another clue can be added to increase answerability, and to go ahead and supply that if possible, hopefully in a way that still rewards knowing _something_ about the original subject. (In the Gomer example, the giveaway is only helpful if you know not only something about Mayberry but also at least the bare fact that there is a Biblical character named Gomer. We generally prefer such a giveaway to one that would say "who shares her name with a USMC private named Pyle.") If no clue that would substantially increase answerability is possible, we will probably axe the question, or turn it about to make something related-but-easier the answer, or turn it into a bonus with related easier parts. But sometimes, especially if the question is filling a quota in a subject where we don't currently have an excess of alternate questions at the appropriate level, and time is running short, such a question will just be passed, and hooray for the small minority that can answer it -- that's how "Bihistun," to which there is no easier clue, switch-subject or not, got into the ICT set as a tossup. As NAQT's current chief editor, I feel justified in categorizing NAQT's own overall practice in relation to this question as about 60% C. (where possible), 30% A., and 10% B. I do not see a mandate for dramatic change in that from this survey, though I think extra effort to avoid the downright cheesy with a switch-subject giveaway may be in order. To the extent that our writers are supplying us with a healthy surplus of questions to choose from, the choosier we are then able to be, and the more likely it becomes that we won't need to settle for anything less than optimal.] QUESTION 3: Which would you prefer regarding the percentage of so-called "non-academic" subject category questions in NAQT sets? A. their percentage should increase a bit [7 or 8.8%] B. their percentage should stay about the same as it has been (21-22%) [32.5 or 40.6%] C. their percentage should be reduced somewhat, perhaps to the 17-20% range [24 or 30.0%] D. their percentage should be reduced a great deal, perhaps to as low as 16% or less [16.5 or 20.6%] [Many responses suggested that Current Events is quite different from Pop Culture and Sports, with about equal numbers making this distinction saying that CE should be reduced, but PC and SP should not, or saying that PC and SP should be reduced, but CE should not.] Thanks very much to all who took the time to respond. The many thoughtful comments provided in support of virtually all viewpoints are all helpful, and appreciated. It is clear that no matter what we do in any of these areas, there will be a segment of players wishing we were doing otherwise. But having a clearer picture of the shape of overall opinion helps. Eric Hillemann NAQT VP for Development
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST