Re: A history question for everyone

Tom writes:
<<Additional clues in the
toss-up may indicate the form the answer will take. A
player who buzzes in early in any circumstances assumes
an element of risk: that they have heard enough to
correctly pinpoint the answer. In this case, the toss-up
eliminates "Mad King" as a form of the answer by using it as
a clue,>>

The way I see it, it's not
given as an answer, because it is used as a clue.
[Essentially, Tom is arguing, If P, then Q. I'm saying, if Q,
then P.]

<<and furthermore it contains
clues in the final words that, if heard, pretty clearly
indicate that this is going to be Ludwig
II.>>

You mean, "that [the form of the answer the question
writer is thinking of] is Ludwig II."

<<By
buzzing early, you assumed the risk that you had enough
information; when prompted, it was clear that you did not. You
took a risk, and it did not pay off. I would have
ruled against you in this case, an adherent of the
other school would not have.>>

If a player
has exactly identified a concept 'X', and the answer
they give cannot also belong to some other *related*
concept 'Y', then they should not be punished because of
the whim or ignorance of a writer or editor.

I
remember having this same argument with Peter Keshavan
five years ago; *his* arguments prompted my current
stance. And this post hasn't given me any reason to
change that point of view. 

And I'm not even
going to comment on the implications of this statement:


<<A toss-up properly constructed in "pyramidal style"
is a series of clues, each of which in succession
narrows the Universe of Possible Answers until one is
precisely pinpointed.>>

If that's the case,
then why are there two answers listed for the
question?

--STI

[On a side note, certain answers--such as IUPAC names
for pharmaceuticals could only be given in an attempt
to grandstand or delay the game. As such, I don't
list those answers. But, as a rule, I try to list any
answer that could reasonably come up as an alternate.]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST