Marc Swisdak wrote: >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). Cyanomethane was accepted under the 1957 rules and the 1979 rules, but apparently has been superseded in the 1993 rules. The prefix cyano- now apparently applies to co-ordinate complex and ligands, instead of also applying to organic compounds. I was in error on this matter. >First, Mr. Beshear'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. I've seen too many teams get tripped up on a strangely-structured bonus. A legitimate counterargument is that if they got tripped up on ONE bonus, then they didn't deserve to win. But why write questions that seem bent on distracting the competitors? >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. Except for College Bowlumwellokay, shunned by the community. ;=} >The bonus in question 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. Granted that all of the above is true, and I agreed with most of it, but Nationals is NOT the time for experimentation. Experimentation in new bonus styles are best done in October or November, when very little is at stake. If the changes are welcomed, then consider implementation in Regionals and then Nationals. Point of information: the ACF question-writing guidelines have nothing concerning "reset to zero" bonuses such as the above. <a href=http://www.inform.umd.edu/StudentOrg/maqt/acf/writers.html target=new>http://www.inform.umd.edu/StudentOrg/maqt/acf/writers.html</a> Nothing says they can used, but nothing says they can't. >One possibility which I didn't use, but encourage others to try, was to have _all_ of the parts read. A team could then answer as many as they wished, but any wrong answer would result in a zero. Unless you're intent is to anger your paying customers, I would HIGHLY advise against using that particular variant. For those wishing to experiment with a "reset to zero" bonus next year, verify your information in several sources (three at least). "Authorities" are known to disagree in matters like these, and it doesn't look good if your single source is an author who is known to be out-of-touch with progress, much like my ignorance ofthe IUPAC revision even though I have a BS in Chemistry. Daniel W Beshear
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST