I've already sent this to the qb mailing list. Unless there's an outcry of response I'll make any other follow-ups to that forum to avoid duplication. Being the primary science editor at ACF Nationals, I'll respond to two of Mr. Beshear's comments. >>>Which is the simplest nitrile compound? According to one question, it is acetonitrile. According to another, it is hydrogen cyanide. According to the IUPAC (Internation Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry,the governing body is such matters), it is cyanomethane, which was apparently not acceptable either time the question arose. <<< For those of you uninterested in organic chemistry, feel free to skip the next few paragraphs. I'm puzzled by the claim that IUPAC says the simplest nitrile is "cyanomethane." According to the IUPAC web page: <a href=http://www.acdlabs.com/iupac/nomenclature/93/r93_557.htm target=new>http://www.acdlabs.com/iupac/nomenclature/93/r93_557.htm</a> the compound in question can have two names: acetonitrile and methyl cyanide (see the examples for R-5.7.9.1). The first was the given answer in one bonus, the second was not listed as an alternate answer, but should have been. The bonus mentioning hydrogen cyanide was my work and my fault. I apologize for the repeat and particularly for the wrong information. Finally, I will point out that there is a reason teams are allowed to protest answers they feel are incorrect. I can understand the annoyance of misleading or wrong information in questions on one's specialty, but subject editors on occasion, like Homer, nod. >>>Round 13: Who Wants To Be A Geologist? Puh-leeze. While the question itself was a legitimate question, the scoring scheme on that question has absolutely no place in any true ACF tournament, Nationals or otherwise. (For those not there, it was five points per answer if correct, zero points awarded on the bonus if you miss any part, you can stop at any point along the way.) The National Championship might have rode on that question. Makes you shudder, doesn't it? <<< This question was again my work and, although it differs from the normal bonus structure, I'm prepared to defend it. For those who are curious, a copy of the question follows in a second message. It may have appeared in a slightly different form at the tournament; Dave Hamilton has the master copy and he's presumably still recovering. First, Mr. Bashear's assertion that the "National Championship might have rode on that question" is, at best, irrelevant as it applies just as well to the other approximately 320 tossups and 200 bonuses Chicago heard Saturday. Bonuses are the reward for a team which correctly answers a tossup, with the size of the reward roughly correlated to a team's knowledge of the bonus subject. All-or-nothing bonuses, rewarding only perfect knowledge, and binary bonuses, rewarding nothing more than the ability to speak, run counter to this assertion and have been rightly shunned by the community. The bonus in question (aside from the cutsie lead-in, which I probably shouldn't have included) rewards knowledge, just in a different manner than the 10-10-10 and 5-10-15 forms to which we have become accustomed. Instead of having a chance at all possible points, teams need to _earn_ that right by answering progressively more difficult questions. Is it right that a team which cannot correctly state that humans evolved during the Cenozoic should get a chance to guess randomly at when Pangaea dissolved? Frankly, no. In fact, when multiple-choice questions (such as the still popular X, Y, both, or neither) are used I would advocate more of them taking this form --- why reward a team for guessing randomly at all? If they have the knowledge, they'll get points on the bonus. Otherwise, they deserve a zero. One possibility which I didn't use, but encourage others to try, was to have _all
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST